Bharat Rakshak

People I am not sure if you can still access my Google docs terrorist attacks database. If not, please let me know and I will remedy that

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key= ... AKPQ&gid=0

If you look at that database you find that after the Kaluchack attack of 2002 and operation Parakram, there were almost no terrorist attacks in 2003.

2004 shows 13-14 attacks in Kashmir alone

2005 brought attacks in Ayodhya, Delhi, Bangalore

2006 - Serial blasts in varanasi and Mumbai

2007 - Hyderabad, Lucknow, Varanasi, Faizabad

2008 - Jaipur, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Gujarat, Maharatshtra, Assam, Kashmir, Mumbai

After Mumbai - we have a 7 month lull - just like the lull in 2003

During such lulls, Pakistan gradually appears less and less threatening. An initial restriction of activities of terrorist organizations is relaxed, after which they build up assets in India and the cycle can start again.

Note that if there is a bomb blast that kill 2 in Delhi tomorrow- India will not go to war, but will only "start investigations". We will have 6-7 such minor attacks over some months or years and then suddenly a major strike.

What needs to be done to prevent this?

The reason for the poll is directly related to this thread. The idea that something may need to eb done can come only if we genuinely believe that there is a threat. I am just polling forum members to assess their personal threat perception wrt Pakistani terrorism.

Crossposting my own thoughts from Paki thread - thoughts that led to this thread






These articles remind me of a business lesson taught to me by an ex IIMB friend.

He said that the value of any item can be arrived at by two questions:

• What's it worth to you? (What is the cost to you?)
• What's it worth to me? (What s the cost to me?)

The example he used was that of me with a bottle of water for sale in the desert, versus me with same bottle in an area with lots of water.

If you look at the "value" of LeT and its various avatars from the angle of "What's is the cost to India?" and what the cost is to Pakistan, it is possible to see how much the scale is tilted by the LeT and for whom.

1) For India the LeT has imposed a cost that India has (for whatever reason) considered "not high enough" to start war. On the other hand Pakistani attacks in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999 were considered high enough to fight a conventional war. Perhaps the threat of loss of territory is considered a higher cost than loss of a few (hundred) lives.

2) For Pakistan, the cost of using military forces for war has gradually been found to be high. War was initiated with relative ease when India was thought to be weak, but each time the cost was high in relation to benefit. The Pakistani military has twice 1965 and 1999) tried to hide its involvement at the outset - pretending that an armed civilian militia is undertaking a spontaneous action, but each time the gains fro Pakistan have been modest and costs high.

It is clear to Pakistan that having an armed Islamic militia to attack India offers a low cost method of attacking India. This much is well known to everyone. But what we never talk about is whether, at times of "relative peace" vis a vis India, it the LeT an asset or a burden to Pakistan? Does the LeT have value to Pakistan other than as a low cost fighting arm against India?

I am not sure that the Pakistan Army sees the LeT as a civilian fighting arm that can be retained in case of Indian attack as suggested in one of the Reuters analysis above.



The LeT can hardly be expected to be any more of an obstacle to the Indian armed forces than the Pakistani army. Furthermore Pakistan's nuclear weapons are always held up as the ultimate deterrent - and if that is the case, where is the utility of the LeT as an "internal resistance force" against Indian invasion? Besides - if it is a civilian defence force, why should Pakistan use a "civilian defence force" for offence against India? So clearly that is a strawman.

IMO the LeT has value to Pakistan is two ways:
1) As cannon fodder imposing some cost on India
2) I believe that the LeT is a "Patriotic Pakistani" organization that is utilized to unify Pakistan on the lines of a fighting force for Islam. Islam itself calls for a fighting force. The Pakistani army used to see itself that way - but the punishment it has received in wars and the threat to the Pakistani state itself after each war has made them shy away from that role. But you cannot retain Islamic fervor and unity without having an army to channel the fears that keep Islam (and Pakistan) under constant threat. So the LeT comes in useful to the Paki army as a substitute organization that does all the Islamic protection work while taking the heat off the Pakistani state.

Operation "unzip our fly and wave" Parakram proved only one thing. It showed that under pressure, the Pakistani state will admit that it has a connection with the LeT and other terrorist organizations and will make promises to change its way. As the post 26/11 events have shown you don't even need an operation "unzip fly" like Parakram to force an admission from the Paki state about their relationship with jihadis. It should be clear as crystal that the jihadi groups are an extension of the Pakistani army/state.

How long will it take for the Indian establishment to admit that? Is it stupidity or fear that keeps the Indian establishment from completing the simple sum 2+2=??

The way to impose a cost on Pakistan is to attack Pakistan after the next terrorist atrocity.

Should Pakistan be militarily attacked even before another repeat atrocity such as Kaluchak, Mumbai or the Parliament attack? IMO NO! The only way to make Pakistan see that we blame terrorism on the Pakistani state is to attack soon after a terrorist attack. Not 9, 20, or 50 months later.

The next terrorist attack cannot be "prevented". It will happen - because - what needed to be done to prevent it during/after Mumbai wasn't done.

The attack that can be prevented and should be prevented is the one following this next attack. For that to happen, MoD and RAW executives should have already signed off on a target list to be taken out during the next attack. If not, keep dying and keep whining yindoos...

The failure of "open your fly and wave" is attributed to the lead time for mobilization. I had myself accepted that until now.

It has taken me 7 years to figure out that a military operation is being called a "failure" (or a "success") without completing any military operation at all. Nothing was done.

It would have been another matter if a war had been fought and India had imposed a cost on itself as well as Pakistan. India balked from imposing a cost on Pakistan because India figured that the cost was too high for itself.

That "saving" for India was reflected in the terrorist attacks we have seen since 2002. It is possible that India is applying the "loan is better than using up capital" excuse. You take a car loan so you don't have to put up Rs 10 lakhs up front. You end up paying 13 lakhs in the long term, but you don't mind that because you are giving yourself time to earn all that extra money.

India is openly indicating its willingness to continue paying lower costs on an indefinitely long term basis rather than paying high cost in the short term. That may seem reasonable, but what cost is being imposed on Pakistan.

The fact is that almost no cost is imposed on Pakistan in the long term, and in fact Pakistan gets time fro doing up its own economy and defences.

The only way to impose high cost on Pakistan is to provoke war against Pakistan.

military is just the continuation of rashtra. War is fought with strategic aims in mind. This is where success or failure is defined. the victory or loss is for me not defined on the battle field. That whether battle was actually waged or not is secondary.

The op parakram + whatever vajpayee, jaswant did failed in stopping pakistan from the next attack + extract some revenge, which was its primary aim => it failed.

But Pakistan is being encouraged to maintain a huge Islamic terrorist network within its borders. This in itself is a 'cost' to pakistan.
The question is, can we create a situation within pakistan that this huge network finds it more imperative to intervene within pakistan than to do ISI's bidding across the LOC/ IB?

Ideally I would like to see the Officer cadre within the ISI 'get it' when any major atrocity takes place in India. ISI HQ should be taken out.

It is time for India to get reckless and take provocative measures - measures that the Pakistani establishment understands is a warning by India to the establishment.

If expediency demands that covert measures are taken, then so be it - the cost imposed on Pakistan should be:
1. Immediate
2. Test Pakistan's escalatory ladder
3. Stop short of spilling into conventional war.

IOW a thousand 'Cold Starts' if you will. We go in, hit them bad, wait for a ceasefire - all covertly.

I endorse this view 100% but it took me 7 years to figure that out.

In fact even the absence of a Parakram like mobilization has had a salutary 7 month effect on Pakistan after 26/11. This time we did not even face the cost of mobilization, and absorbed the cost of death, damage and increased security for the elite. And like Parakram that "salutary" effect cannot last long.

Why is it that we agree to fight war with Pakistan when uniformed Pakistani soldiers attack our borders (1947, 1965, 1971, 1999), but shy away from fighting if the soldiers are not in uniform or when the attacks are not at the borders?

Are we really that stupid?

apt comparison + another problem. Do you think whether the attack on Mumbai is on you or on some xyz, i.e. whether the various players of India (like IT czars in 2002) think whether it is a loss for them.
The response varies.

cost to who exactly in India? Apart from Patil losing on some corruption, who exactly lost anything apart from those 200 families. Remember the kandahar episode and the agitations of the relatives for the release of terrorists, we will find eerie similarities.

Right, but also means a high cost on us. Are we ready for that cost when the attack is on some xyz's whose names also I dont know?

The answer lies in
i) many threads which were thrown out in the last round of cuts and politics, all banned
ii) how we define ourselves.


You would be surprised

In fact psaggu - I am wondering whether maintaining such an army is a "cost" at all to Pakistan. It seems to me that Pakistan has a benefit from such armies over and above their role as cannon fodder - I will just repeat my thoughts from an earlier post:



The LeT plays a social role in Pakistan and a military role (defender of the faith) against India. So when India asks for teh LeT to be wound up they say "How can we wind up a social organization?". But when they attack India, we are unable to develop the cojones to blame it on the Pakistani state and hit back at the state.

As the people and state (rashtra) have to be considered the same. Both must receive punishment. We must not reserve punishment for one and stop short of fighting because only the other is involved. But that is what India is doing. It fights only when the "state of Pakistan" is seen as an attacker. If the state of Pakistan wears a disguise - India sits back and accepts punishment.

How we define ourselves as a nation and the priorities we attach to the nation is crucial in our responses.

You ask:



That lack of concern for the dead xyzs is as true for the elite as the poor suicidal farmer and grievance laden minoritist. As was discussed over many years, a sense of nation and a sense of what is sacred in the nation is important. It is borders alone that are inviolable? Or human life alone that is sacred" Or both? Do you consider an attack on human life within the border a violation of life but not violation of the border? These are fundamental questions that most Indians do not even consider it important to ask and talk about although they are fundamental to security and the nation. So innocent aand naive are we in our worldview

What is the cost of war to the nation?
What is the cost of unchecked terrorism to the nation?
Are differential costs being imposed on different groups?

And there is little else that India can do at that moment in time, if our national leadership chooses the less expensive option. The timing of Mumbai meant that the Politicos veered around to brushing it under the carpet and letting the elections go ahead.
Now with the elections over with, MMS has brought it out from under the carpet and shown it around a bit. Wether he is willing to bite the bullet of his statements or is this going to go the way of the 20 terrorists list, time will tell. More likely, there will be another attack, and Mumbai will be another statistic to be added to the overall tally.

Why can't the LET, of Southern Pakistani Punbaji Sunni descent made to be more engaged in fighting for the deen within pakistan? Maybe for control of pakistan itself?

One thing people forget to include in it is the oppurtunity cost of war. This is where normally the biggest benefit of a war lies. Fortunately or unfortunately, the oppurtunities and costs are not spread evenly.


You mean apart from the thousands of families destroyed by the attacks? How about the cost of increased security apparatus, the checkings at theatres, parks etc.

Some extent true and there is another facet to it. The same cost on a different groups affect disproportionately. How many even consider an article of 5 dead in bomb explosion in Assam with the same serious ness as in Mumbai. How many seriously consider the 33 policemen killed by maoists in a boat as equivalent to 15 killed in parliament attack?

For any activity(X) three costs should be counted.
i)cost of the activity itself
ii) oppurtunity cost of the activity (i.e. if you do Y, what benefit do you get)
iii) perceived benefit from X.

For anyone to do rationally do X, iii > i+ii. Now why are we not going to war, simple only. We are not able to understand what we get, i.e. iii. We have had many threads, but we have not able to properly understand the end game which we want . What do we do with Sindh? What do we do with balochistan etc. With nukes in Pakistan, what exactly do we get from Pakistan by going to war? We cant destroy them, for fear of crossing nuke threshold. We cannot defeat them as they will be ready to up the ante. Yes, i want India to wipe off Paki army off the face of earth, but then what? This understanding has to be provided only by the elite, which we know is lacking everywhere.

GOI is now serious about maoists.5 killed in Assam is as serious as 5 killed in Mumbai.But in Assam,there are numerous outfights fighting on the plank of language,ethnicity,plains people,hills people and religion.The issues are murky and so the response is different.

One cannot go to war over every challange posed by a hostile state and/or its non-state miscreants. If such a course is adopted a nation state may forever be at war. I would like to recall the words of Shri Shri 1008 Amitabh Bachchan in Agneepath, "Sawaal jis zaban mein kiya jaye, jawab usi zaban mein dena chahiye". In other words, one must answer a question in the language it was asked. Covert attack on Indian civilians must invite a disproportionate covert (undeniable and undenied) Indian attack on Pakistani assets. Covert warfare coupled with economic warfare is the key to Pakistan's capitulation. Bottom line is that the ONLY reason Pakistan thinks it can get away with big attacks (Parliament/Serial bombs) is because Indian punishment was not delivered for smaller attacks on Bombay, Bangalore, Delhi, Guwahati, Jammu etc.

But certain attacks really do cross the line (Mumbai). In such cases, a military response may be needed but it needs to be measured and well-timed i.e. delivered within hours of a terrorist attack. The H&D of Paki armed forces must be crushed in full-view of Paki citizens while avoiding a full-scale war. Based on (ahem) "reliable" intel of Mumbai-II, India should use its Navy to deliver this jhapad starting with Pakistani Coast Guard vessels during/within hours of the next terrorist attack. On the covert front, a few select miscreants (starting with Hafiz) need to be killed to demonstrate intent and capability to RAPES/Crore commanders. Instead of worrying about Uncle's feelings if Pakistan withdraws troops from Fak-Ap region in response to an Indian military action, India should be prepared to tell Uncle to put its dog (ISI) on a leash if it wants India to not create conditions that adversely affect GOAT.

Until India is prepared to walk this talk, terrorism against India and related polls on BR will not end.


Oh hell yes, we surely are! Remember I.K. Gujral's instructions to RAW to disassemble India's covert ops capability wrt/within Pakistan?

Shiv Sir

Predicting an attack:
Sir, the recent spate of attacks in the past half decade or so were largely because ISI had successfully created modules that went active. These have been busted recently; also, Mumbai did lead to an increase in vigilance (on the side of agencies), at least that is what I believe. Given that, the ISI would right now be trying to get more people into India and reset its modules. This should take around a year or so. Right now, the ISI is trying to doodle with the Maoists given that its attempts in the North East and Kashmir have not yielded that much profit. AL winning in Bangladesh (a major factor) and Omar scoring points in Kashmir (a minor factor) didn't help the ISI either. The ISI would also be trying to create caste-based and ethnic tensions in India, given how violent and disrupting these have turned out to be recently as political parties prefer scoring brownie points.

Forestalling an attack:
1) We really need to ramp-up the state police forces. I really do not care if they are corrupt, the least they should know is how to fire their own service weapons.
2) Threaten to walk out of IWT; but do issue a statement "We will follow IWT in spirit even though we walk out of it"... or something to that sort so that we can construct whatever we want without interference. Though in actuality we would be doing nothing, the sheer paranoia in Pakistan would be awe-bloody-some. I really do not know what the higher repercussions of this move would be. Maybe, this would backfire and the attacks would increase. In which case, we should really suck them dry. But the point then is, where does all of this end?

Just my two bit; sorry if naive.

I seem to the lone voice of reason here. I say that we can never expect a terrorist attack from Pakistan because Pakistan has never committed terrorism inside India. Nonstate actors along with the oppressed muslims of India have perpetrated acts of violence inside India. These reactions by miscreants were expressions of their anger against the voilence and terror of the fundamentalist Hindus and the inaction of the Hindutva govt in power.

officially declare TSP as TSP
walk out of IWT (but release the water)
start pulling off Mossad on senior ISI and TSPA officials

I think , you are being sarcastic here.
I think, GoI should spend a billion dollars a year to make sure there is Diwali everyday in pakistan.If one Diwali candle costs 100k dollars a day, GoI can light many candles everyday in pakistan.

India must pro-actively identify and eliminate those state and non-state actors who are abetting in any form a terrorist attack against India - planning, funding, coordinating, training etc. Unless and unless those state and non-state actors are unable to "sleep soundly" and "lead a normal life" will attacks on India stop.

Part of this mopping up is also to keep a choking leash on their intellectual covers - Joker Kuldip Nayyar, Suzanne Arundathi Roy, Liar Teesta Setalvad.

R. Krithivas

It will be from the TSP onlee. If you look at the voting patterns there is massive support to INC from minorities. So there will be less propensity for local home grown terrorist activity.More likely TSP terrorists might be turned in. Mumbai type attack might not be fruitful as shown earlier. In a rational sense TSP options have reduced considerably. But that is the time the TSP acts irrationally. So the action should be better community policing to develop sources, chatter etc, and preparation.

Apologies for the Side comment - I was surprised to learn that GoI-INC is actively pushing Private Sector for Minority Quota. GoI made some politically "correct" noises about doing it cooperatively with the industry and not to mandate it etc. etc. Arjun Singh lives after all .....

Predicting an attack? Thats almost certainly going to help either the attack being postponed or carried out vigorously even if not initially planned - depending on the reasons being speculated on in the "prediction". If the reasons are exactly what the terror-masters want us to believe they will make it happen where we say it will happen. If the reasons are wrong they will postpone it or change the venue etc. So be careful about predictions.

Lots of serious and interrelated questions being raised. Not sure whether BR will have the nerve to follow up where the "investigations" will lead to!

(1) The questions of "Costs": costs are almost entirely a matter of perception. How badly do you want a thing or do not want to lose that thing? The simple answer to the "costs" problem being raised here is that small scale terror attacks are attacks against this or that local population, and is not immediately a threat to overall political existence in power of the GOI and therefore not "costly" enough. I will come to the reasons as to why it is so in my next point. However the point to note is that the fundamental error being made by the Pakistanis to gauge GOI reaction is the false assumption that for the GOI and its supporting political structure, "attack against an Indian is an attack against India". Could the Pakistanis really be so stupid? I do not think so. It simply points to the possibility that the real masterminds by whom the attacks are ordered, have grown up in political systems where such assumptions are natural - or if their respective governments do not act so, ("attack against an X-ian is an attack against X") then such governments will be removed from power. So in my view, the real masterminds are brains situated in political setups outside TSP.

(2) Why does not the GOI think in terms of "an attack against an Indian is an attack against India"? : The answer again is simple. The post independence rashtryia motto has been "diversity". The completely fallacious expression "unity in diversity" has never been dissected to see whether it is at all possible or somehow rationalizable. Unity is never based on diversity, cannot be based on diversity - it is based on commonality. Within diversity, if commonalities can be found, only on them can unity develop. However the slogan of "diversity" has been used to increasingly fracture our society. Recognizing differences between people only serves to reinforce and perpetuate such differences. Since each diversification, implies further and further splits - and if each such split is "recognized" then each of them can serve as basis for a new identity and therefore political power. Ideally at the end of this process, it should reduce to the individual level - the best possible scenario for any government. Thus for the GOI, there are no costs involved as the theory of "diversity" has ensured that each such terror attack will be seen as against some particular locality, some particular subgroup and not against the whole - thereby incurring no costs for the GOI.

(3) Why does the GOI promptly respond to overt territorial aggression? Losing territory as a rashtra, is politically costly in international bargaining. Any nation that loses territory is seen as unable to defend its assets, and therefore has adverse reactions on those who would invest in that nation and thereby raise the value of those "investments".

It is this mismatch between the "masterminds" and the "GOI" perception that continues to generate the "terror attacks". So if masterminds really want military reaction then they must go for overt attacks. I am not sure, that right at this moment, someone, somewhere is not desperately trying to bully the Pakistanis into mounting exactly such an attack.

As for real possibilities : since the Red Corridor has been activated, it means activities in the west are more likely. Kerala, Karnataka, and Gujarat should be attractive choices.

IMO, there should not be a retaliatory strike on TSP. We should wait and strike pre-emptively and decisively on our terms. 26/11 styled attacks are booby-traps. They, most probably, will be sitting well-prepared expecting retaliation.

India is too chankian to fall in this trap. I feel that there will be a decisive pre-emptive strike on TSP from India, when she feels she is ready and time is right.

How to know when the time is right? when war on TSP will profit us. and those expected profits will outweigh the costs by margin.

when to know the next probable major TSP-originated terror strike in India? when we see increased activity in ISI and some degree of heightened communication with TSPA (the missile control and air-force) to increase its alertness level is passed on.

The bad thing is, it is highly possible that from now on, most of the bomb-blasts might be from home-grown SIMI operated terrorists. It will require high degree of intelligence to decipher and get the correct signals and differentiate them from noise.

Perhaps we need two independent, yet cooperatively working intelligence agencies for internal and external espionage. Is CBI as competent as RAW? and is RAW competent enough, especially after I.K Gujaral foolishness. Only when these two agencies are interlinked and integrated, will we be able to generate some quality intelligence in order to prevent both homegrown and foreign strikes.

Good discussion shivji

In my debate with rayc-ji I presented the acceptable cost of war for india

In my calculation india paid more than two hiroshimas with this paki nonsense. I hope our beloveds MMSji will calculate the NPV and realize the Indian rental payments are morethan a nuclear war

Interesting points - especially No 1 above.

I think there have been other miscalculations about Indian reactions to terrorism based on perceptions of India that seem to be common in Pakistan. Even today (judging from the remarks I find from Pakistanis on my deliberately provocative Youtube videos) it appears that a fair percentage of Pakistanis have been taught to see India and Indians in a particular light.

1) Total poverty and starvation ruled by Hindu caste based elite
2) Absolute hatred for all Muslims and the intention to make Muslims suffer and stop them from leading their lives as Muslims
3) The need to occupy and destroy Pakistan as shown by wars started by India in 1947 and 1965
4) Brutal putting down of all Muslim aspirations by a huge number of rapine troops in Kashmir, acts in Ayodhya and "Gujrat", and just plain luck in avoiding losing Kashmir in 1999
5) A fundamentally cowardly people who have been ruled in the past and are easily prone to getting scared when attacked.

These impressions of India have been complemented by counter impressions of Pakistani/Muslim characteristics. I say Pakistani/Muslim characteristics because we would only be discussing GIGO if we fail to acknowledge the fact that Pakistanis need to hold up Islam as the single differentiating factor between themselves and "Hindu Indians". Any attack on Pakistan by India is not just an "Indian attack on Pakistan", but it is portrayed as an attack on Islam by a bunch of fanatics like Amrish Puri and the Monkey brain eating hordes that Indiana Jones had to deal with in his Temple of Doom. The Pakistani/Muslim is sincere, reasonable and modern in outlook. He is brave, accepts all religions and people as equal, and when it comes to protecting his faith he cares not for his own life.

Attacks on India have been expected to spark off communal riots where the Hindu shows his normal tendency and massacres Muslims, and in turn the Muslim, outnumbered but fighting valiantly will take Pakistan's extended hand and create the true future of the subcontinent. Other minority groups suppressed by the Hindus too are to be given a hand by egalitarian, forward looking Pakistan. Sikhs, "Tamils" and the untouchables - who are part of the Naxalites, ULFA and other groups that are evidence of India's breaking up at the seams.

The reason I write this long list is that Pakistanis do not see India as a "normal state". Pakistani education has ensured that India is viewed only through the filters that I have listed above. When we are dealing with an entire population that has been taught to hate India - it is impossible to do business with them. They suspect you no matter what you do, no matter how good your intentions might be. And in turn they accuse Indians of harboring all the hatred for Pakistanis/Muslims that they display display towards India/Hindus. For them it is "self defence" . Indians are the oppressors and all talk of secularism is fake and designed only to put sincere and innocent Muslims off their guard only to subjugate them later and make them untouchable.

The dilemma faced by India in this situation is twofold.

1)Any "normalization of relations" is impossible because of the inbuilt suspicion among Pakistanis
2) Any aggression from India only exacerbates and "proves" Pakistani suspicions.

Under these circumstances, India cannot normalize relations with the Pakistani state as it exists. However it is always feasible for India to extend a "helping hand" to any sub-entities within Pakistan who seek assistance. Of course this increases the suspicion and hatred of India among representatives of "the state of Pakistan" - but there is no way that India can go about changing Pakistani perceptions of India. Certainly not by peaceful Gandhigiri and biblical "turning the other cheek" which are variously seen as cowardice or a sly trick.

The point I am driving at is that while Pakistan is mistaken in the effects of terrorism against India, I believe India is mistaken in constantly attempting to build relations with Pakistan like India might have with some other country. It is just not possible for the reasons stated.

The only option for India is open hostility and total non cooperation with Pakistan, amounting to conflict where necessary. For those of us who have followed evens through the microscope of BRF apart from having been Pakistan watchers for decades before that it is clear that ALL attempts at befriending Pakistan, Wagah border friendship, cultural and sporting links, bus services, train services, visas, exchange programs, talks - the whole lot are completely useless exercises.

None of these has
1) Stopped Pakistan from provoking war
2) Stopped terrorism
3) Done anything to improve the image of India as seen in Pakistan
4) Stopped the Pakistani state from doing everything in its power to bring down Indians reputation, economy and ability to exist peacefully.

India foreign policy regarding Pakistan is hostage to a western view where we listen to the US and other countries and take lessons on how to behave. India seems stupid enough to believe that India must behave with Pakistan like the US behaves towards Britain while in fact India should behave towards Pakistan the way the US behaves towards Iran.

My "prophylactic" anger in starting this thread is that these are all thoughts that Indians need to have in the absence of a terrorist attack. Any hostile thought that we have about Pakistan after the next terrorist attack will automatically be watered down by calls saying that we must not over-react in the shadow of an atrocity.

The thinking about Pakistan needs to be done when Pakistan is not attracting Indian attention. And the single lesson that I seem to draw from the issue is that we cannot have normal relations with a dysfunctional state and we gain nothing from that. A hostile relation ship that actually threatens Pakistan is the best posture - in keeping with both our requirements as well as Pakistani delusions. It matters little to us whether Pakistani nightmares about India seem to be coming true.

Brihaspati makes an interesting point about diversity. If diversity is so good and well recognised in India - why do we find it so difficult to see and openly accept the gaping gulf between India and Pakistan and stop pretending that anything good can come from normalizing relations with a bunch of thugs?

Brihaspati: So what is the nature of this animal GoI? I know the abbreviation; but you seem to be using it to encompass all political parties, & bureaucracy after independence.

There is an "escalatory ladder" that leads to conflict between two nations

Unacceptable event/s-->anger/protests-->snapping of ties-->rhetoric before war-->war

Conflict itself can have two outcomes
1) Resolution of problem
2) No resolution

More often we find:

war--> problem not solved--> negotiations --> more war-- more negotiation --> resumption of ties --> resolution not to use war any more.

In the case of the state of Pakistan "resolution not to use war" has never been honored. War is actively sought out. The Pakistan rationale is that if the cost of war is imposed whether or not India wants war, an ultimate resolution will come in a direction that is favorable to the state of Pakistan as India wi
ll seek to avoid war and will take actions to mollify Pakistan and avoid war.

There are certain conditions that are imposed on a nation that is in a state of war:
1) Resources are poured into the military and towards any entity that aids the military in warfighting
2) The population are asked to make contributions and sacrifices in material and men.
3) The actual fighters are glorified and feted
4) The population is fed with rhetoric about the evil that the enemy represents, and the threat he poses
5) Setbacks are glossed over and victories are highlighted to keep up the morale of the people and forces.

Every one of these is true for Pakistan as far as I can tell. I would be glad to be corrected on this, if wrong.

Pakistan is in a state of continuous war with India. Pakistani citizens are continuously being inflitrated into India for covert war, if not overt border action.

But India does not see itself in a state of war with Pakistan. India is not following the escalatory ladder


Pakistan is continuously creating unacceptable events" for India .

India seems to be pursuing the following route:

Unacceptable event--> anger/protests--> mollification of Indians--> negotiation--> not imposing a deterrent cost on Pakistan.

How long can one nation be at war with another while the latter bears the cost and does not retaliate?

War is undoubtedly costly for India, but equally importantly it imposes cot on Pakistan. Leave alone war with Pakistan, the act of maintaining ties and negotiating actually gives Pakistan the opportunity to continue war hysteria in Pakistan while India continuously encourages that by refusing to impose a direct cost on Pakistan.

Sorry, wrong thread ,i was looking for Benis, Ek Khoj .

Next Terrorist attack 400%

Predicting the attack 800%

Predicting where the attack will occur 800% India

Predicting where in India 0%

Forestalling therefore 0%

Reaction to it 400%

Type of reaction 800% We will not surrender to terror, we will talk.

War is expensive 300%, Talk is cheap, even tier 2 diplomats meeting in Swiss alps Germany, Italy France you name it.

MMS NPV calculation is -ve so focus on economy.

Glossary
NPV: et Personal Values (about Indian soveriegnity)

SwamyGji,
with very short interludes of non-Congress governments (the truly non-Congress ones were that by the BJP - the Janata Dal was basically and primarily an offshoot of disgruntled and jealous Congress-men), most of GOI was basically Congress since Independence. I would add the bureaucracy and rashtryia apparatus built up by the British and bequethed intact to the GOI post Independence. It is the bureacracy (and the unseen part of the bureaucracy - the security and intel apparatus) that gives continuity in character to the rashtra and helps maintain the shape and reshaping of any new GOI. While the major continuity in politics of Congress as a political party in power also helps shape the bureaucracy in interaction. Thus the two shape and maintain each other - both exist, and have the only reason for existence - is to be part of the rashtryia establishment that weilds rashtryia power. I mean this combined and intertwined entity.

Shiv ji: Can India have made a conscious decision not to wage war with Pakistan - unless attacked territorially; and just wait and wear out Pakistan?

Shivji,
We always forget how Pakistani elite thinks it successfully managed to wrest Pakistan out of British India and from the "Hindu" Congress. This was by "war", by general targeting of undefended civilian populations. This in turn reinforced in their minds the supposed truth behind the Moududi doctrine - that Muslims have "lost power and dominance" on the subcontinent by deviating from the "purity" of Islamic doctrine as supposedly propounded in 7th century deserts of Arabia - which was primarily based on violent militant and continuous unrelenting Jihad and Ghazwa.

Because we have to completely suppress any discussion of the possibility of ideological motivations behind the driving policies and strategic thinking of the TSP elite because that takes us into discussing "religion", we fail to see the viewpoint that drives the TSP theory of constant "Jihad". It is very similar to the Maoist tactical doctrine of continuous warfare, regular as well as irregular that ultimately saps the will of the target "rashtryia" machinery to be completely sapped of any will to resist. If the intensively manic and paranoid hatred of any discussion on the root ideological components of Islam was not a disease affecting our "controllers" everywhere, this psychological makeup of TSP policymakers would have been obvious.

What has been successful against the tactic of Jihad? History brings to mind only a few cases : (a) the first defeat of the Islamics by Charles Martel in France, (b) the ultimate erasure of the "Moors" in Al-Andalus by the Spanish Christians (c) stopping the Ottomans at Vienna and the previous conflict of them with the Romanians under Vlad (d) Shivaji and Ranjit Singhji. Search for the common elements in all these scenarios that led to suucess against Jihad - deception, ruthlessness, mobile-warfare (exception -Vienna), counter-terror with equal or even more intensive "terror", and ideological purges (exception Ranjit Singhji).

Think of applying this to TSP. The greatest objections will come from within ourselves - our self-restricting and self-limiting doctrines of oh-so-superior-humanism - that was shrewdly observed apparently by the Prophet of Islam himself - "your enemies will always be divided in their attitudes towards you - befriend those that are favourable, and use this to eliminate the other" - repeat the process so that ultimately your enemy becomes minuscule in size.

Absolutely. and this is a point that has seldom been deliberately stressed even on BRF despite many iterations of discussions on Islamic extremism.

Pakistan is continuously in a state of war with India. And because it is in a state of war its citizens are required to make sacrifices and forgo certain aspects of "development", while the military are allowed to develop fully. The doctrine of continuous war is more cunning that we might like to give it credit for. We are mostly derisive of the sand-filled brains of tent clad sand men and their clan leader because we have inherited the derisiveness of Western civlization and Western science and technology with regard to all other "learning".

But if you wander outside the science of war and look at other humanities studies - you find that there is a definite inverse link between birth rate and female education. And when you take the longterm civilizational view - you see the wisdom here. But enough beating about the bush.

Pakistan is in a state of continuous war with India.

Do Indians recognize that?

Do India policymakers admit that?

Every single day Indian soldiers are in a firefight with some Pakistani entity or other. Pakistan's population is made to live on stories of how Indians, especially Hindus, are monsters. Why are our policymakers blind to this?

They are blind because they do not understand Pakistan. They are so enamored of Gandhis "all are brothers" theorem that they do not WANT to understand Pakistan. They do not have a plan for Pakistan. They do not acknowledge that Pakistan is in a state of continuous war with India. They believe that if Pakistani tanks and aircraft are not crossing the border, there is no war. This is phenomenal stupidity among Indian leaders based on the background from which we elect our leaders. Pakistan of course is led by military men. Most nations have leaders with some understanding of war and peace. Indian leaders are extraordinarily blind.

Pakistan is fighting a one sided war with us every day and all we want to do is make up, suck up, and the next time we get hit - (which most people on this forum feel will happen before 2009 is out) we will once again rationalize that they are "non state actors" and let Pakistan off the hook. India is a nation committing slow suicide. It is like an alcoholic - or a heroin addict, happy with his circumstances, not knowing that his insides are being eaten away.

Unless we can look into what is happening in Pakistani society - which is clear for anyone who wants to see - we will not acknowledge that we may not be at war with Pakistan, we may not WANT war with Pakistan. But Pakistan is at war with India.

This is a fundamental fact that we have to acknowledge before we even dream of talking about what to do.

.
Policymakers "tend" to "apply" Chankian inaction.
Though we are yet to see where this inaction acts as a deterrent after 20+ years of facing open and overt terror.

Can it be taken as an evidence/admission of the same fact the Pak is at war with us, but we will continue to "apply" Chankian inaction?

Meanwhile, since land/water routes are taken (?)

Mumbai attack alert

These are trauma symptoms

Shiv:

pakistan ka matlab kya -- la ilahi illallah
pakistan = islam and islam = pakistan

India contains 150 mn adherents of islam. how can GoI teach its awaam to hate pakistan? it will be painted as equivalent to hating a part of India.

It is well known that strength respects strenght. Consider the following, if you get into a fight in a bus-stand with say another passenger, when alone, for the right reasons, how many of us would have the guts to throw a punch or two, I bet not many and why is this the case? because most of us are weak when it comes to physical strenght. Right from childhood all that is taught to most middle class kids is channelising their energies towards academics and avoiding confrontations. This unwillingness to throw back what you get shown intentionally initially becomes more of a trait and slowly we avoid having a fight. Over a period of time we are physically and mentally emaciated and try to find a compromise even in situations where we would have otherwise won, had we out up a fight. Since, it is the same middle class that makes up the babudom the same pattern follows and we find this endless cycle of talks even in the face of humiliations. Some babus/netas who are a tad smart than others try to indulge in unconventional tactics like hitting below the belt and since these babus are equally fearful of the army becoming over powerful they tend to keep it less equipped. We saw the enormous respect and honour that the IA received after Kargil and continued display of this bravado by the IA guys would make them the darling of masses thereby, threatening the babu/netocracy(banetocracy). To protect their position in such a scenario the banetocracy puts in all kind of hurdles in equipping the forces consciously/unconsciously.

While this is the case with banetocracy another aspect is that of the confidence of the security forces. Since they are less than well equipped they tend to shirk fights. I am saying this in the light of some statements like "we will fight with what we have" IMO we lost it then and there. Security forces also tends to show they are more civil while i agree that this is very important we should also understand that security forces are security forces and they should display a reasonable amount of savagery(i am sure this is not the right word). IIRC, in rocky 3 mickey coach of rocky says "the worst thing that could happen to a fighter is when he becomes more civil" or soemthing to that effect. After 26/11 courtesy our media the general public started seriously having doubts about the ability of security forces since the line of thought that was parroted was 10 men could hold up atleast 500 commandos for 50 hours. If the security forces had displayed some blazin firepower like razing down a building or two and had that been captured by the cameras the public in general and terrorists in particular would have understood that next time they venture to do something like this they cant get away and would be having their almonds/raisins in heaven rather than on earth. Agreed, we wanted to take some alive but at some point of time or the other when we knew we had killed them we could have blasted the building to have an effect.

All i am trying to say is that banetocracy's moves since independence to keep the security forces leashed by not equipping them adequately has resulted in this situation where we are a soft state, a venerable sponge for others.

It is apolitical issue - attack and also what to do after an attack. Not a military one I would think:

'IAF had option of deep strike inside Pak soon after 26/11'