Bharat Rakshak

NRao, that is a surprisingly naive thing to say. After all this time on the forum you surely understand that succesful counter-insurgencies, like any total war effort depend heavily on the integration of non-military elements - building infrastructure in the countryside, economic development, putting out a message, extending govt. services, etc.

Any state that aids the Afghan government in these things is going to be treated as an enemy of the Taliban. In particular the GoI may not have combat forces engaged in Afghanistan, but it long ago established itself as an enemy of the Taliban by aiding the Northern Alliance even before it came to power on the backs of American bombs.

Why not look at Gates comments on the 28th of June? Or Gates and CENTCOM commanders public testimonies to Congress. There is never any acknowledgement of the role that the PA and ISI play in actively supporting the Taliban insurgency that are responsible for NATO and other deaths in Afghanistan. Any public suggestion of collusion betwen the two is always dismissed.

U.S. Blames Pakistan as Afghanistan Incursions Rise
By Yochi J. Dreazen
Word Count: 621
KABUL, Afghanistan -- U.S. officials have begun blaming Pakistan for Afghanistan's increasing violence, an escalation in rhetoric that suggests American patience with Pakistan's new government is rapidly running out.

Senior American military officials say that the number of militants crossing into Afghanistan from Pakistan has increased sharply in recent weeks because of Pakistan's failure to crack down on the Islamic militants operating freely in its lawless tribal areas.

"I link the increased incidents of violence in Afghanistan in part to those sanctuaries across the border and the ability to send militant groups and fighters into Afghanistan," said Gen. David McKiernan, ...

India is a secondary factor.

You cant be serious in suggesting that Pakistan's support of jihadi forces in Afghanistan is all about India. India is a secondary factor.

Afghanistan has threatened Pakistan's "raisin dieter" at least as much as India has in ideological and popular terms. I'm sure you remember that Afghanistan was the only country to vote against Pakistan's entry in to the UN in 1947.

Afghanistan's territorial claim on Pakistan's territorial holdings dwarfs India's. Pakistan has fought a nearly continuous series of shadow wars with all of Afghan governments, royalist, republican, communist and now democratic.

ZA Bhutto's time in office saw very little Pakistani support for insurgent activities in India, but the story was different between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nor was it always a question of the Pakistanis pushing and the Afghans reacting. Daud in particular, first as Premier in the 1950s, and particularly as president after the 1973 coup was very aggressive while the Pakistanis were the ones forced to look for a negotiated return to normality.

Jihadi Islamism has been Pakistan's main tool in attempting to defuse the highly threatening combination of Afghan territorial claims and Pashtun sub-nationalism.

Anybody who thinks the Taliban is just about strategic depth has not plumbed how fundamental the Afghan-Pathan question is to Pakistan's basic shape. The Pakistani security establishment knows it.

there was/is a Indo-Pakistan dynamics in the region, that predates both the arrival of US/NATO in Afghanistan AND also predates the creation of Taliban, I do not think we can have a meaningful discussion. You have to first realise that this Indo-Pakistan dynamics really has no connection/s to the dynamics of the reason/s why the US/NATO decided to come to Afghanistan. (The attacks on Indian embassy will continue as long as India has an Embassy there, even if ALL Indian aid workers leave the country. That is not necessarily true of US/NATO Embassies.)

In short, attacks on Indian assets has nothing to do with the Taliban. In fact it has only to do with Pakistan.

Oh yeah? Since when? Considering the fact that India was there since the 90s, AND the US/NATO arrived there in the early 2000, who is late and secondary?

J, this statement is laughable.

WARNING: This is NOT a testimony in front of the US Congress!!!!

You cant be serious in suggesting that Pakistan's support of jihadi forces in Afghanistan is all about India. India is a secondary factor.

Afghanistan has threatened Pakistan's "raisin dieter" at least as much as India has in ideological and popular terms. I'm sure you remember that Afghanistan was the only country to vote against Pakistan's entry in to the UN in 1947.

Afghanistan's territorial claim on Pakistan's territorial holdings dwarfs India's. Pakistan has fought a nearly continuous series of shadow wars with all of Afghan governments, royalist, republican, communist and now democratic.

Jihadi Islamism has been Pakistan's main tool in attempting to defuse the highly threatening combination of Afghan territorial claims and Pashtun sub-nationalism.

Anybody who thinks the Taliban is just about strategic depth has not plumbed how fundamental the Afghan-Pathan question is to Pakistan's basic shape. The Pakistani security establishment knows it.

If Indo-Pakistani relations are bound to produce attacks on any Indian presence, why is Afghanistan the most dangerous external posting for GoI personnel and contractors?

The ISI has a formidable presence in Bangladesh with a great deal of local jihadi. support. It has a strong presence in Nepal. Even Sri Lanka would offer significant opportunities. Yet Indians are not routinely targeted in terrorist attacks.

Afghanistan is vital to Pakistan in a way that those other countries are not - It is Pakistan's key battleground outside Pakistan itself. Until 2001 India's assistance to the Northern Alliance largely ocurred through third countries, particularly Tajikistan. Until the US intervention in 2001, India had next to no direct presence in Afghanistan.

*Any state* that supports Afghanistan and threatens the Taliban threatens Pakistan's definition of vital security and long-term national survival.

At *no* point has the US Government ever publicy indicated or accepted direct involvement in the Taliban's resurgence, or any of the attacks on American troops and diplomats, ie that the Pakistani government supports and sanctions the Taliban's war on US forces, despite substantial evidence to the contrary.

The NSA said there was a need to retaliate to such acts of terror. "I think we need to pay back in the same coin. We are quite clear in our mind," he said.

When asked who should be paid back, he replied, "Those who are responsible."

"Talk-talk is better than fight-fight. But it hasn't worked so far. In some way, we haven't arrived at the decision that we should go for fight-fight so let talk-talk continue for the moment," Narayanan said.

ISI involved in Kabul bombing on Indian embassy: NSA

New Delhi, July 12 India has a "fair amount" of intelligence inputs about Pakistan's involvement in the Monday's suicide attack on its embassy in Kabul, National Security Advisor M K Narayanan said today.
"We not only suspect but we have a fair amount of intelligence (on the involvement of Pakistan)," Narayanan told television channels when asked whether India suspects Pakistan's involvement in the attack.

"The ISI needs to be destroyed. We made this point, whenever we have had a chance, to interlocutors across the world... There might have been some tactical restraint for some time, obviously that restraint is no longer present," he said. (Agencies)

New Delhi: India has “no doubt” that Pakistan's spy agency the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was involved in the bomb attack on its embassy in Kabul, National Security Advisor M K Narayanan said on Saturday.

"We not only suspect but we have a fair amount of intelligence (on Pakistan’s involvement). We have no doubt that the ISI is behind this," Narayanan told TV channels.


"The ISI needs to be destroyed. We made this point, whenever we have had a chance, to interlocutors across the world. There might have been some tactical restraint for some time (but) obviously that restraint is no longer present," said Narayanan.


"The people of this country deserve to know the facts rather than being carried away by people who make statements that these are insinuations. There are no insinuations.

"I think we need to pay back in the same coin. We are quite clear in our mind," he said. Asked who should be paid back, he replied: "Those who are responsible."

"I don't think the ISI has ever been a part of the peace process. I think we need to make a distinction between the two.”

Narayanan admitted that the dialogue between the two countries had slowed down but believed talking is better than fighting. “…in some way we haven't arrived at the decision that we should go for fight-fight so let talk-talk continue for the moment," he said.

Afghanistan has blamed a “foreign intelligence agency” for the bombing of the embassy—a veiled accusation against the ISI.

Pakistan has firmly rejected the allegations with its Foreign Minister saying he was ''baffled'' to hear people alleging that it was responsible for violence in Afghanistan.

As many as 58 people, including four Indians, were killed in the suicide bomber attack on the embassy on Monday.

Guys

Based on the Praveen Swami article and some other information I have received from a journalist friend, I believe that this attack was done by Lashkar-e-Taiba, which essentially means ISI. This is a new phenomenon and needs to be analyzed for its implications. Several US and NATO commanders have also publicly talked about LeT activity along the Durand line.

Saturday, July 12, 2008 (Washington)

Describing the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul as another sign of a ''severe deterioration'' of security in Afghanistan, Democratic Presidential nominee has vowed to go on the offensive against Al-Qaida.

In some blunt talking, the 47-year-old US Senator who is planning to travel to Afghanistan told a news channel in an interview that the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai had not ''gotten out of the bunker'' and accused the Bush administration of allowing the Taliban to ''regenerate'' by diverting forces to Iraq.

''A big chunk of the issue is that we allowed the Taliban and Al-Qaida to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes,'' said Obama, who is attempting to script history by becoming the first black president of the United States.


''That was a big mistake and it's one I'm going to correct when I'm the president.''

Obama said Monday's bombing of the Indian embassy, in in which the India defence attache and a senior IFS officer were killed, was another sign of a ''severe deterioration'' of security in Afghanistan.

''I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped to organise Afghanistan and government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence,'' Obama said.

''So there are a lot of problems there,'' he added.

Obama's remarks drew immediate fire from republicans who said he accused him of being ''naively out-of-touch with reality and offensive to America's allies.''

Obama was expected to make a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan later in July, reports said.

The ISI needs to be destroyed. We made this point, whenever we have had a chance, to interlocutors across the world.

Earlier on Saturday, the NSA told TV channels, “We have no doubt that the ISI is behind this….people of the country deserve to know the facts.” Echoing the NSA’s views, a senior government official said India would take up the matter soon with Pakistan. “There has been evidence regarding the involvement of ISI in acts of terror in India. Now it chose to attack our mission abroad. We would be taking up the matter with Pakistan soon,” the official said.

NSA said:



He did NOT say India should destroy ISI.

As a devout nephew he is just being respectful, asking permission. Seeking consensus. God willing it will happen.

With fresh intelligence inputs suggesting heightened threat to Indian assets in Afghanistan, Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon reached Kabul on Sunday to discuss the issue and work out security measures with senior Afghan officials.

Menon, visiting Kabul six days after the terror attack at the Indian Embassy there, will discuss with Afghan authorities ways in which threats from Taliban and its mentor ISI could be thwarted and neutralised, official sources said.

After Monday's attack, in which India lost a Brigadier-rank defence attache and a senior IFS officer, New Delhi is worried about the security of the its assets in Afghanistan, including other installations and workers.

The concern is heightened by fresh intelligence inputs that the Taliban were planning more attacks to target Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad. {It will be surprising if they aren't attacked}

Menon will discuss with Afghan authorities as to what can be done to ensure proper security to Indian missions and about 3,000 Indians engaged in reconstruction and development works in the war-torn country.

He is accompanied by some senior officials of the ministries of external affairs and home affairs.

The visit takes place amid the government's keenness to have a major revamp of security of Indian Embassy, consulates, officials and workers there.

"It is not an ordinary review of the security. It is much more than discussing revamp of the security," an official told PTI here while talking about Menon's two-day mission but did not give details.

I think the entire idea of destroying the ISI is going to be a big big challange. . . . .

Comment's are welcome.

Considering the high-level of threat, India has not ruled out deploying Army's Special Forces for security of the embassy in Kabul and consulates elsewhere in Afghanistan.

Pushkar always provide a link, anyways I think you are quoting from this article:

India says loud and clear: time to destroy ISI

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Monday Pakistani agents were behind the Indian embassy bombing in Kabul last week, the first time he has directly accused Pakistan of involvement in the suicide attack that killed 58 people.

"Now this has become clear. And we have told the government of Pakistan that the killings of people in Afghanistan, the destruction of bridges in Afghanistan ... are carried out by Pakistan's intelligence and Pakistan's military departments," Karzai told reporters.

"We know who martyred our two sisters and know who martyred our people in Deh Rawood (in Uruzgan) and know who martyred the people a few days back in Kabul," he said.

"We will take revenge for these two sisters of ours very soon ... and we are telling the enemies of Afghanistan that we will protect the honour of this country."

WASHINGTON: President George Bush on Tuesday said that the United States will "investigate" the allegations made by the President of Afghanistan that Pakistan's intelligence service was behind a "recent" terrorist attack in his country.

Bush said that there is no question that some of the extremists are coming out of parts of Pakistan into Afghanistan.

On being asked at a press conference here whether the statement by Afghanistan Afghan President Hamid Karzai blaming Pakistan's intelligence services for a recent terrorist attack in his country, Bush said the charges would be investigated.

"First of all, we'll investigate his charge and we'll work with his service...to get to the bottom of his allegation," Bush said.

"No question, however, that some extremists are coming out of parts of Pakistan into Afghanistan. And that's troubling to us, it's troubling Afghanistan, and it should be troubling to Pakistan."

"We share a common enemy; that would be extremists who use violence to either disrupt democracy or prevent democracy from taking hold. Al-Qaida is - they're there. We have hurt al-Qaida hard - hit them hard and hurt them around the world, including in Pakistan," he added.


Bush said that the United States would jointly with Pakistan continue to apply pressure on al-Qaida.

"And we will continue to keep the pressure on al-Qaida with our Pakistan friends.I certainly hope that the government understands the dangers of extremists moving in their country. I think they do," Bush said.

US to investigate Karzai's charges on Pakistan: Bush

Official sources here said the meeting between Indian foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and his Pakistan counterpart Salman Bashir was “the most likely forum” at which India might raise the issue.

India has meanwhile cancelled a meeting between the heads of the Central Bureau of Investigation and Pakistan’s Federal Investigations Authority.

By Jonathan Weisman and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 16, 2008; A01

Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain shifted their foreign policy focus yesterday from the future of U.S. military involvement in Iraq to the deteriorating war in Afghanistan, with both White House hopefuls pledging thousands of additional troops and a large-scale infusion of aid for the Afghan conflict.

In doing so, the two men offered sharply different assessments of the Iraq war and its impact on Afghanistan, with Obama saying Iraq is a distraction from the fight against terrorism and McCain calling it a proving ground for tactics needed to beat back a resurgent Taliban.

After weeks of verbal combat over Iraq, the candidates offered prescriptions for Afghanistan with striking similarities -- though the sniping went on unabated. Both men spoke passionately, not only about military assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan but also of nonmilitary aid to foster democracy and goodwill in the region. Both spoke broadly of building alliances to combat terrorism, transforming South Asia "from a theater for regional rivalries into a commons for regional cooperation," as McCain put it.

That dovetailed with legislation introduced yesterday by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), an Obama supporter, and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who backs McCain, to triple humanitarian spending in Pakistan, contingent on a stronger effort to fight terrorism.

Yesterday was the first time McCain suggested moving troops from Iraq to what has been called the forgotten war, and his shift brought him in line with the direction long advocated by Obama, who has called for paying more military and diplomatic attention to Afghanistan for years.

For both men, the new focus is likely to resonate with voters. A narrow majority of Americans say that the war in Afghanistan has been worth the costs and that the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the region must be won to triumph in the broader battle against terrorism, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week. Most Americans do not say the same about Iraq.

And the forgotten war is not quite so forgotten anymore. Last month, more U.S. service members died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. On Sunday, nine soldiers were killed and more than a dozen were wounded when hundreds of Taliban fighters stormed the perimeter of a U.S. forward operating base. Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly called for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan this month, even as he conceded that they are not available because they are committed to Iraq.

Although both presidential candidates acknowledged those dire circumstances, they used the war in Iraq as a very different springboard for their policy recommendations.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," Obama said during a sober 30-minute speech at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington. "Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia."

Obama also said that the Iraq war has made America no safer and that "the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq and it never was," drawing a response from President Bush.

At a White House news conference, Bush said the United States is waging a "two-front war" in Iraq and Afghanistan and is busy on other fronts less visible to Americans. He acknowledged worsening security conditions in Afghanistan and said he is analyzing whether more troops need to be sent there. "One front right now is going better than the other, and that's Iraq, where we're succeeding, and our troops are coming home based upon success," Bush said. "Afghanistan is a tough fight. . . . And it's really important we succeed there as well as in Iraq."

McCain said U.S. forces must apply the lessons they learned in their fight against insurgents in Iraq to the fighting in Afghanistan.

"We must strengthen local tribes in the border areas who are willing to fight the foreign terrorists there -- the strategy used successfully in Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq," he said, speaking at a town hall meeting in Albuquerque. "We must convince Pakistanis that this is their war as much as it is ours. And we must empower the new civilian government of Pakistan to defeat radicalism with greater support for development, health and education."

Significant differences exist between the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the current ratio of troops to the population is vastly smaller. Afghanistan is a far more impoverished country with an opium-dominated economy, high illiteracy, extremely rugged terrain and a long, porous border with major insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan. Such factors make it more difficult to protect the population against insurgent influence, develop effective Afghan forces and spread the government's authority.

McCain also pressed his attack on Obama's foreign policy experience and judgment yesterday, mocking him for laying out plans ahead of an upcoming fact-finding trip to Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan.

"I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time," McCain said, adding that "fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."

Still, Obama aides said they believe the foreign policy debate has moved to Obama's turf. Anthony Lake, a White House national security adviser under President Bill Clinton, noted that in denouncing in 2002 the upcoming invasion of Iraq, Obama said that war would take the nation's attention away from the terrorists who plotted the Sept. 11 attacks. A year ago, in a speech on terrorism, Obama called for shifting at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan.

"John McCain discovered Afghanistan seemingly for the first time today," said Susan Rice, a senior Obama foreign policy adviser.

The candidates now have a similar vision for both conflicts -- drawing down troop levels in Iraq and building up strength in Afghanistan by 12,000 to 15,000 troops. But Obama sees that shift as the first step in a larger goal of withdrawing most combat forces from Iraq in 16 months. McCain said the shift of military personnel would be a sign of success in Iraq.

"Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them," McCain said.

McCain softened that line as the day went on. Aboard his campaign bus, McCain suggested that some of those additional troops might have to come from NATO allies, and his aides said the U.S. troops could come from brigades that had either left Iraq or would do so by early next year.

On July 2, Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, said he would like three additional combat brigades in Afghanistan, suggesting that those forces could be available in early 2009 if conditions in Iraq continue to improve. But a spate of suicide bombings in Iraq yesterday pointed up how fragile that idea may be.

McCain "needs to explain how he's going to stay at high levels in Iraq, surge in Afghanistan, and as he said last week bring down the deficit with savings from troop withdrawals," said Rice, the Obama aide. "His position is entirely riddled with internal contradictions that are embarrassing."

Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this report.

New Delhi, July 15: India has braved the 7/7 Kabul embassy blast and held on to complete the strategic Afghanistan road linking Zaranj on the Iran border to Delaram in its north-east.

The 218-km road, which will loosen Pakistan’s stranglehold on its land-locked neighbour by allowing Afghanistan access to the sea from the Iran side, is likely to be declared completed on Thursday, sources said.

Security agencies see the success of this project, funded and executed by Delhi, as a reason for the car-bomb attack on the Kabul embassy that killed four Indians. They allege Pakistan set off the blast as it is uneasy about the edge India will now have in the central Asian power game.

The blast victims were today nominated for the Kirti Chakra, India’s second-highest peacetime military award, according to a PTI report. The names of the four — IFS officer V.V. Rao, defence attache R.D. Mehta and ITBP jawans Roop Singh and Ajai Pathania — have been forwarded by the defence ministry to the department concerned. If approved, it will be the first time an IFS officer will be given the military award for bravery.

The completion of the road by the Border Roads Organisation will also be an enduring tribute to the four, described as “martyrs” by Indian officials.


Sources said the road, which required the services of four companies of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police to guard the construction workers, will be dedicated to the Afghan people. The 400-odd ITBP officers are likely to return home.

The road is a godsend for Afghanistan as it will now be able to access the Iranian port of Chabahar. The time taken to reach the sea will be much less than that taken via the Pakistan route as Delaram is on the Kandahar-Herat road.

This will not only increase the volume of Afghan trade, it will facilitate the transit of Indian goods to that country. Pakistan can no longer play difficult and refuse permission to ferry goods through their territory.

In 2003, India, Iran and Afghanistan had signed an MoU to improve Kabul’s access to the coast. While Iran was to build a transit route to link Milak in its south-east to Zaranj in Afghanistan, India was to construct the Zaranj-Delaram road.

Proposals are being worked out on additional manpower requirements at consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar where security will be beefed up. India also has consulates in Mazar-e-sharif and Herat.

Breaking News

200 Hardcore Taliban terrorists who escaped from the Sarposa jail of Kandahar a couple of weeks back are now in India. This is an alert from Interpol.

Disconnect with reality

Hiranmay Karlekar

The blast in front of the Indian Embassy in Kabul on July 7, an attempt to compel this country to contract its growing presence in Afghanistan, certainly underlines the need to further strengthen security around New Delhi's diplomatic and other premises in that country. It also underlines the need to reinforce protection of Indians working in Afghanistan and further sharpen and refine the means of achieving our strategic goals in Afghanistan. But it must also prompt us to do more.

For one thing, it calls for a serious re-examination of our attitude toward the present regime in Islamabad. Contrary to what most of our Track Two eminences would have us believe, a democratic Government in Pakistan is not automatically the best bet for India. The two pillars of the present Government in Islamabad, the Pakistan People's Party and the Pakistan Muslim League, do not have shining records in combating fundamentalist Islamist terrorism. After all, it was during the prime ministership of Benazir Bhutto that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate set up the Taliban in 1995 with the active connivance of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Nor are Mr Asif Ali Zardari and Mr Nawaz Sharif, leaders of the PPP and PML, epitomes of rectitude, political sagacity and principled politics. Nor has either displayed a marked averseness to sup with the devil. Neither of them has shown the dignity, the moral steadfastness and fortitude that Ms Aung San Suu Kyi has shown in the face of relentless persecution by the uniformed thugs who rule Myanmar.

Not surprisingly, Pakistan, particularly the ISI, a sovereign state within the Pakistani state, has been widely accused of having been responsible for the Kabul outrage. This, again, underlines the fact that India cannot have a policy that distinguishes between a democratic and dictatorial Pakistan. It must, until a democratic Government signals an iron resolve to end cross-border terrorism and combat Islamist fundamentalism, regard all Governments of Pakistan as threats to India's security.

Needless to say, one must not rest there. New Delhi must frame a more comprehensive security doctrine that takes into cognisance the external and internal threats the country faces. The threat of cross-border terrorism by fundamentalist Islamist terrorist groups that Pakistan poses is well-known. And things may get a hundred times worse if that country implodes, as many fear it will, under the weight of its growing political and social contradictions and the jihadis take over. The same applies to Bangladesh -- though the threat of an implosion is much less and some of the recent steps taken by its caretaker Government seem to indicate, however faintly at the moment, the possibility of a change towards Islamist terrorist groups and their political patrons in the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh.

Nepal stands perilously poised on the brink of a civil war. India's equation with the increasingly powerful Maoists there is at best uncertain, with many grey areas spawning disquieting questions. One of these is the relationship between them and Indian Maoists and its internal security implications for us. Our cozying up with the red-in-tooth-and claw Myanmarese junta, has not bought us peace in the North-East, the quest for which is cited as the rationale for our utterly unprincipled policy of supporting it.

While India's ties with China have improved enormously, neither the areas of tension between the two nor the potential for future conflict and rivalry be wished away. The only two immediate neighbours with whom we have friendly relations are Sri Lanka and Bhutan. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eeelam remains a force in the former and its links with some of the insurgent and terrorist groups in this country have frequently caused concern. While Bhutan's transition to democracy has been an admirable exercise, forces trying to undermine the country's security and stability need to be watched.

Do we have a national security doctrine which weaves these diverse challenges into a comprehensive approach that also takes into account the threat of conventional and nuclear attacks by our neighbours? What we have requires a drastic second look and a more nuanced reformulation in the light of the changing threats. Can we do this?

Not many have questioned our ability, intellectual and linguistic, to weave complex streams of analyses into a policy document that unfolds consistently and sequentially. We, however, have often been burdened with an ideological perspective which often yields an understanding of reality which is different from what actually exists and which must provide us with the premises for our policies. Nor have we always called a spade a spade despite recognising it as such.

Two examples will suffice. The first is the threat posed by the continued mass influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. We have neither recognised it as a serious threat, particularly in the context of the rise of Islamist fundamentalism in that country, nor taken effective steps to counter it. The second has been our chronic failure to recognise the serious threat posed by internal insurgency -- a fact highlighted by the thoroughly unimaginative, routine, law-and-order approach that we have hitherto adopted towards it.

Besides, there is the question of political will which has been frequently undermined by ideological differences, genuine differences in perception and opportunistic considerations of winning segmental votes. An old example of this is the United Progressive Alliance Government's repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. A recent one is Ms Mayawati's dubbing of the India-US nuclear deal as 'anti-Muslim'. Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the deal, it can certainly not be shelved if a minority in the country does not like it. The prime consideration has to be the country's interests and nothing else.

Given the increasingly fragmented nature of India's polity and the rank opportunism of some of its prime actors, politics is unlikely to yield a firm will in the matter of the country's internal and external security. It has to be created outside politics. This, in turn, will require a national consensus on security matters. Unfortunately, a large section of India's civil society does not seem concerned; nor does the country's growing middle class, which seems to be hypnotised by rising levels of compulsive consumption and perennial entertainment epitomised by the Twenty20 fever. This is similar to what happened with the US, Britain and France which, in the 1930s, failed to foresee what the emergence of Hitler and Mussolini meant.