Karachi Project - directly responsible for the deaths of over 500 indians..
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] Next >
Posted on: 03-03-10 17:44:13
War may not be an option. But the point is how come a country which claims to be on the way to be a Super Power does not have any option other than talking to Pakistan.
As per the article posted by the OP by using home grown jihaadists in India, Pakistan has the advantage of a 'plausible deniability' in the future attacks. Why the so called Indian Intelligence RAW can’t come up with a similar plan to take out these terrorist masterminds and enjoy the 'plausible deniability' too by using local differences within Pakistan. There is no need for an all out war.
And even if this too hard for the Indian Govt and the RAW, then atleast just cut-off all ties and stop meaningless dialogue with them.
Quote:
Originally posted by BAsh
War may not be an option. But the point is how come a country which claims to be on the way to be a Super Power does not have any option other than talking to Pakistan.
As per the article posted by the OP by using home grown jihaadists in India, Pakistan has the advantage of a 'plausible deniability' in the future attacks. Why the so called Indian Intelligence RAW can’t come up with a similar plan to take out these terrorist masterminds and enjoy the 'plausible deniability' too by using local differences within Pakistan. There is no need for an all out war.
And even if this too hard for the Indian Govt and the RAW, then atleast just cut-off all ties and stop meaningless dialogue with them.
Just to add to what you wrote.
There is ABSOLUTE lack of political will and absence of iota of PATRIOTISM on part of MMS. He is not a leader but a fox in sheep's clothing. He is worse than Deve Gowda. For example, to neutralize Indian Jehadi, Govt has many avenues. They can raid their premises under Income tax/ Sales tax/ Excise act or detain them time and again for traffic infractions or possession of drugs or any other pretext. However, MMS knows that with 15% Islam vote, 10% of votes bought by money and 5% other minority votes, they can always retain power. He would let innocent Indians die rather than take any action because his family is secure.
Further, MMS knows that Indian are most INSENSITIVE people on the earth. Every year , on avaerage, more than 3,000 Army/Policeman die in terrorist activity but there is no protest. 9/11 killed 3,000 americans and it waged war to avenge. India EVERY year 3,000 die but we still keep electing Kangress!. Shame, real shame that there is no human soul left in iNDIAN people.
When it comes to the safety and security of it's citizens, war is never an easy option.
War means death and destruction of property, the economy and to the psyche. War means rebuilding an economy from scratch, if that is the need of the day. War polarizes forces within and outside the county and can mean the realignment of blocs, friends and foes. In short, war has painful connotations.
That being said, war sometimes inevitable. The destruction of some lives may guarantee the future and security of society, for years to come. Coming to the Indo-pak conflict which has raged over 60 years, it comes out of an ideological divide, intense hatred and partly because of the politics in India. Pakistan was formed on the basis of religion - and Jinnah averred that there was a need for a "homeland" for Muslims, because they were not safe in India. History has proved that, quite to the contrary, Muslims enjoy a high quality of life in India.
I believe in the equality of all religions, but when one religion believes that there is no place for unbelievers (a.k.a followers of other religions), I wonder whether our founding fathers were right in declaring India, a secular republic.
Even for argument sake, if we were to believe that this decision was right, what was this based on? Was there a referendum to know what the nation believed in? Were the people consulted on an important decision like this?. No, instead the bunch of rulers at that time, decided the fate of the country.
Coming back to the question of our relationship with Pakistan, I believe that no matter who is in power, their survival depends on their being stridently anti Indian. The state operated spy agency ISI continues to train terrorist groups, while the government in Pakistan continues to talk of peace, and cooperation with India.
Some ask if the terrorists in Pakistan will stop attacking targets in India, if there was a "fully azad Kashmir". I don't think so, because the focus now is not just on Kashmir - that is just an excuse. At this time, the intention is to hurt every Indian, preferably non Muslims.
With that equation, we have only two choices - to have a war over the security and safety of Indians, or continue to allow Indians die to IED's and bullets from the guns of Pakistan trained terrorists.
I believe the government in India, prefers the latter choice, for obvious reasons.
When it comes to the safety and security of it's citizens, war is never an easy option.
War means death and destruction of property, the economy and to the psyche. War means rebuilding an economy from scratch, if that is the need of the day. War polarizes forces within and outside the county and can mean the realignment of blocs, friends and foes. In short, war has painful connotations.
That being said, war sometimes inevitable. The destruction of some lives may guarantee the future and security of society, for years to come. Coming to the Indo-pak conflict which has raged over 60 years, it comes out of an ideological divide, intense hatred and partly because of the politics in India. Pakistan was formed on the basis of religion - and Jinnah averred that there was a need for a "homeland" for Muslims, because they were not safe in India. History has proved that, quite to the contrary, Muslims enjoy a high quality of life in India.
I believe in the equality of all religions, but when one religion believes that there is no place for unbelievers (a.k.a followers of other religions), I wonder whether our founding fathers were right in declaring India, a secular republic.
Even for argument sake, if we were to believe that this decision was right, what was this based on? Was there a referendum to know what the nation believed in? Were the people consulted on an important decision like this?. No, instead the bunch of rulers at that time, decided the fate of the country.
Coming back to the question of our relationship with Pakistan, I believe that no matter who is in power, their survival depends on their being stridently anti Indian. The state operated spy agency ISI continues to train terrorist groups, while the government in Pakistan continues to talk of peace, and cooperation with India.
Some ask if the terrorists in Pakistan will stop attacking targets in India, if there was a "fully azad Kashmir". I don't think so, because the focus now is not just on Kashmir - that is just an excuse. At this time, the intention is to hurt every Indian, preferably non Muslims.
With that equation, we have only two choices - to have a war over the security and safety of Indians, or continue to allow Indians die to IED's and bullets from the guns of Pakistan trained terrorists.
I believe the government in India, prefers the latter choice, for obvious reasons.
Quote:
Originally posted by ILOVENA
When it comes to the safety and security of it's citizens, war is never an easy option.
War means death and destruction of property, the economy and to the psyche. War means rebuilding an economy from scratch, if that is the need of the day. War polarizes forces within and outside the county and can mean the realignment of blocs, friends and foes. In short, war has painful connotations.
That being said, war sometimes inevitable. The destruction of some lives may guarantee the future and security of society, for years to come. Coming to the Indo-pak conflict which has raged over 60 years, it comes out of an ideological divide, intense hatred and partly because of the politics in India. Pakistan was formed on the basis of religion - and Jinnah averred that there was a need for a "homeland" for Muslims, because they were not safe in India. History has proved that, quite to the contrary, Muslims enjoy a high quality of life in India.
I believe in the equality of all religions, but when one religion believes that there is no place for unbelievers (a.k.a followers of other religions), I wonder whether our founding fathers were right in declaring India, a secular republic.
Even for argument sake, if we were to believe that this decision was right, what was this based on? Was there a referendum to know what the nation believed in? Were the people consulted on an important decision like this?. No, instead the bunch of rulers at that time, decided the fate of the country.
Coming back to the question of our relationship with Pakistan, I believe that no matter who is in power, their survival depends on their being stridently anti Indian. The state operated spy agency ISI continues to train terrorist groups, while the government in Pakistan continues to talk of peace, and cooperation with India.
Some ask if the terrorists in Pakistan will stop attacking targets in India, if there was a "fully azad Kashmir". I don't think so, because the focus now is not just on Kashmir - that is just an excuse. At this time, the intention is to hurt every Indian, preferably non Muslims.
With that equation, we have only two choices - to have a war over the security and safety of Indians, or continue to allow Indians die to IED's and bullets from the guns of Pakistan trained terrorists.
I believe the government in India, prefers the latter choice, for obvious reasons.
Excellent analysis. However, it leaves one question unanswered. Why do people of India ( in contrast to Govt. of India) do not raise their voice? Are they coward? Are they dumb? or Are they without any human values?
My take: all three of the above or else Kangress , which has virtually ruled the country would retaliate.
Nightmare: Thank you for the compliment.
You ask why the public at large, in India, does not react. At the risk of sounding rude, I will give plausible reasons for the "can't care less attitude".
1. The very base of Indian psyche is soaked in selfishness. People do not care about anything until they, or the next of kin are hurt by this insanity called terrorism, or religious fanaticism.
2. Unlike some societies, India is a very divided society. Fissures are aplenty, in the form of religion & caste. When people are busy fighting to protect their turfs like their religion, caste and language, why would they care about national security? We are a very hypocritical society - we talk of national pride and oneness on radio and television, but when it comes to defending our fellow countrymen, we can't care less!
3. Politicians are smart, incisive, and practical. In their singular pursuit of power, they are ruthless, and exploit the divides within society to the hilt. Fact is, no government has the political courage and conviction to unify the country. To them, it is all about the politics of survival, even if it means dividing the country through the use of vote banks.
Until such time that people unify, revolt against corrupt governments nothing is going to change in India.
The million dollar question is - which political party in India is selfless, and considers the interests of the country, before self?
Almost all over people are saying next in 2020 or up the main Economic country or Super Power will be China or India. If this is real prediction than our major draw back will be this terrorist activity which is going more worst on day to day in India.
do you think chinese's politics or politician are better than India?
I know one good thing about China, They always beside the local manufacturers and local marketers compare to us...... i heard in a news even china banned on some outsiders to sell their products b'cos it was effecting local marketers and manufacturers.
