narayanan wrote:So - India has not closed off any options. Of course, India hasn't done diddly either.
INACTION IS ACTION. ALL IS MAYA. V R LIKE THIS ONLEE!
ShauryaT wrote:Have you not heard, of the reaction by the GoI, to a WMD attack at Jingorampura? If not, I will request the infamous Doctor to please repost it, if saved somewhere. Thanks.Chandragupta wrote:, I'm beginning to wonder if India will even respond to a crude Jehadi WMD attack. What are the chances that a UPA led GoI will not run to the US & UN if Pigs from Porkistan explode a small nuclear device in India.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.Pardon me. but I am thinking of (God forbid) a day when a nuke explodes in an Indian city. Maybe you shoud pray that you are killed by that nuke rather than be exposed to reactions of those left alive:
The news the next day will be
"Massive blast in Jingorampur"
"A mysterious blast has devastated large areas of Jingorampur. The blast which occred at 10 AM caused the ground to shake and people in surrounding villages reported seeing a bright flash. People ran out their houses suspecting that an Earthquake had occurred.
The district officials in the nearby city of Whacknagar said that although all communication had been cut off with Jingorampur - there was nothing to "be concerned about. This is a common occurrence due to power failures in Summer. The official said everything was under control. He confirmed that an earthquake could have occurred as the town was near a seismic zone - but there were no reports of any deaths so far."
A few hours later..
"Jingorampur flattened"
Thousands of people have been killed in what appears to have been a massive earthquake in Jingorampur..relief efforts are on..The central government is siezed of the matter and an ex gratia payment of Rs 10,000 for the families of the bereaved has been announced."
The next day
"Death and misery in Jingorampur Quake"
"Eyewitnesss reported a blast and many people have been severely burned. Even people on fields have been killed. "I was reminded of pictures of the tsunami" said one witness. Jingorampur is located 400 Km from the coast. and a tsunami has been ruled out."
Some people have blamed the Army which had an ammunition dump in the area. An army recue team member denied this. Asked why the Army team were seen wearing protective suits and masks the response was because the disaster was caused by a nuclear bomb explosion"
A day later..
"Has Jingorampur been nuked?"
"Reports from the Army and defence ministry sate that the disaster was caused by a nuclear explosion. NGOs were quick to blame the Atomic Energy Commission in India which is known to have a poor safety record.
A demonstration in Delhi to protest agaisnt slow relief efforts was lathi charged by the police. One protester blamed Pakistan for the disaster. This was rejected by the misnister of state for lame excuses. Anti national elements of the right wing are trying to harm the peace process."
One week later...
"It has been confirmed that Jingorampur has been devastated by a nuclear bomb. A high power governmental enquiry has been constituted, headed by retired chief justice Blahblah to try and establish the source of the bomb. In the meantime the government has asked the people to maintain communal harmony. It thanked the government of Pakistan for its offer of aid, and rejected reports in the US media that a rogue Pakistani nuclear bomb had been exploded. "The US has so many bombs - it could have been a US bomb" said a minister - not wishing to be named""
Four days later
"Sehwag dropped from Cricket tour of Australia due to injury"
"Price of kerosene not to be raised even as Oil prices rise to $120 a barrel"
"TV returns to Jingopura - the first signs of normality"..
Did someone say "cycle of life" somewhere?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonu_Nigamnarayanan wrote:hu is Sonu Nigam and y does it matter what s(he) says, pls? I am not up on the rock star worship in desh
Music Returns to Afghanistannarayanan wrote:hu is Sonu Nigam and y does it matter what s(he) says, pls? I am not up on the rock star worship in desh
At the end of Sonu Nigam's concert, the first major concert by a foreign musician in the Afghan capital, the overloaded stage collapsed.
Around 10,000 fans from all over Afghanistan had arrived at the stadium by 1700 local time on Wednesday, four hours before the musicians arrived.
Correspondents say that the crowed cheered when the musicians appeared on the stage despite the delay. The excitement with which the Indian musicians were received was unprecedented.
Sonu Nigam
Sonu Nigam - 'We Indians like Afghans'
The long-awaited concert was called off after the stage collapse, to the disappointment of the fans.
Some people argued that Afghans "are not yet ready" for such concerts, others were critical of the security forces for failing to maintain order.
"Afghanistan is still far from hosting a great singer like Sonu Nigam", one of the fans, 30-year-old Bashir Ahmad, told the BBC.
"The country and its people have spent many years grappling with war and isolation. It is difficult for them to give a proper welcome to foreign musicians."
"Things went wrong", another fan said. "But I hope Sonu Nigam doesn't leave the country with bad memories."
The singer had hoped to give a memorable evening to his Afghan fans.
"We Indians like Afghans", he said at the beginning of the concert. "It is the news of insecurity in Afghanistan that prevents Indians from visiting. But on my return, I will tell Indians that Afghanistan is secure and we can feel safe amongst Afghans."
.Now that the EAM has provided closure to the whole episode, maybe it is time to close this thread?India has "hardly" any choice except to patiently wait for Pakistan to respond to the dossier given on Mumbai attacks, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said on Monday.
"We won't get anything by simply losing our patience, so hardly we have a choice," Mukherjee said at CNN-IBN's 'Indian of the Year' Award function in New Delhi.
He was responding when asked how long India will wait for Pakistan's response to India's demands after the Mumbai terror strikes for which Pakistan-based elements have been blamed.
India gave the dossier of evidence on January 5 and has since been waiting for Pakistan to respond officially.
Pakistan has said it is investigating the matter and would get back to India as soon as it is over.
Queried on his status now since he is discharging duties of the Prime Minister, he said, "Simply I am discharging duties, neither I am officiating nor acting, neither de-jure nor de-facto".
He said under the Constitution of the country, there can be only one Prime Minister. But "the Prime Minister can delegate some responsibility to his colleagues and I am doing exactly that".
Meanwhile Jinnah insisted that he had no control over the tribesmen, but that he could threaten them with war by both Dominions if they did not leave. This was not good enough for Nehru, who did not believe Jinnah's protestations of innocence.
For 2 months? okay, assuming he agrees with you, suggest a name from the ruling party and why would they be any more competent.Philip wrote:If Pranab has run out of ideas and words,then he should exit the stage and make way for a more potent FM.
How hard is it to dodge such a question without making it look so pathetic?He was responding when asked how long India will wait for Pakistan's response to India's demands after the Mumbai terror strikes for which Pakistan-based elements have been blamed.
suggest a name from the ruling party and why would they be any more competent.
So after spending hundreds of billions of dollars on our military machine, we 'hardly' have any choice except to kneel down & massage Paki balls in order for them to reward us with a few washed up jihadis so that the sekoolar government can show that as a trophy & win the elections again?!India has "hardly" any choice except to patiently wait for Pakistan to respond to the dossier given on Mumbai attacks, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said on Monday.
The above was surmised and is starting to be the foundation of the building to be built on it as below.jrjrao wrote:My guess is that when the Pakis say (as they did officially today) that Mumbai was planned outside Terroristan, they actually, specifically mean that it was planned in India itself (and not Europe or Bangladesh etc).
Let's stop this type of canards, speculations and do someone else's job that much more easier. The right way to do is simply reject the notion and not extricate others (UK, US) who very well might have played a role in association with Pakistan. Kyon apne hi pyre kulhadi marne ki tayyari ho rahi hai?CRamS wrote:And once TSP/USA manage to get away with the fiction that Mumbai was "planned" in India, it means that it was no longer 'global terrorism'; Ayodhya, Gujarat, etc kick in to explain it away.
JEM looks like its in Karan Thapar's link.JE Menon wrote:>>I did read the entire MKN interview.
Where Anabhaya, is it online?
India: In a broadcast interview, Indian National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan said Pakistan was easier to deal with under Musharraf. Asked by Karan Thapar – host of CNN-IBN program ‘the Devil’s Advocate’ – if Pakistan had become a more difficult or more complicated country after Musharraf, Narayanan said: “From an Indian standpoint, I would say yes. I think as far as India is concerned, with regard to the questions we had on Kashmir, etc, it was possible to do business with him. And I think our prime minister’s ... statement that ‘I can do business with Musharraf’ is now widely recognized as being part of the truth,” said Narayanan.
“I think a great deal was done” to improve mutual ties during the Musharraf regime, he said, adding it could have led to a ‘breakthrough’
Indian and Pakistani relations were more cordial during the later years of the Musharraf administration -- after the near war crises of 2002 -- than during any other period. Every longstanding dispute except Kashmir was settled or on the road to settlement. As for Kashmir, it was governed by the longest period of quiet since militant violence erupted in 1988. That ceasefire enabled India to control the security situation inside Jammu and Kashmir State and reduce it to a problem manageable primarily by police.
After narrowly avoiding a general war with India in 2002, Musharraf decided to take extraordinary measures to restore normal diplomatic, political and economic relations with India, including visiting New Delhi. He almost succeeded.
Looks like a riposite to Pranab's optionless speech.EDITS | Wednesday, February 4, 2009 | Email | Print |
Not optionless on Pakistan
Ashok K Mehta
More than two months after the Mumbai terror attack, a stalemate has been reached over Pakistan satisfying India on its demands. The new Obama Administration has shifted the spotlight to the central front, Afghanistan, with ground zero Pakistan, together the epicentre of terrorism. While Pakistan and Afghanistan blame each other for their jihadi woes, the US is making a renewed effort to fix the problem that resulted in Mumbai. As Pakistan and the US buy time on Mumbai and ensure there is no second terrorist attack on India, are we learning lessons from the incident?
Briefing the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Mr Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment and Mr Brian Jenkins of Rand have warned that India would continue to face jihadi attacks from terrorist groups based in Pakistan. Worse, they said India lacked effective military options to stop and deter these attacks without triggering dangerous escalation. India’s counter-terrorism responses were inadequate, lacking a clear strategy and suffering from imperfect techniques and resources. The Rand report noted “in several respects the NSG hostage rescue plan for the Taj and Trident Oberoi hotel suffered from serious defects like storm teams went in blind with no understanding of the basic layout of either of the two buildings”.
It is not unpatriotic to be critical of our operational performance. In the first public test of its mettle, the NSG did not come up to scratch. This is the view of many professional soldiers. Our commandos are guided by outdated ideas on use of force and equipment that led the Rand study to confirm that India is a terribly soft state.
What is more regrettable is the camouflage of lapses through generous distribution of gallantry awards. These are meant for conspicuous bravery and valour in the face of the enemy not for getting killed for any adventurous or foolish professional omission or commission. This devalues the highest peacetime gallantry award. The politicisation of valour was highlighted earlier by the Batla House encounter —— recognised by the Government even as a senior Minister demanded an inquiry.
The phenomenon of fake encounters among security forces in Siachen or Silchar has been encouraged by improper scrutiny of fire fights and the lure of cash and gallantry awards. Mass awards will make genuine acts of bravery inflationary. All the policemen killed during the terrorist attack on Parliament House in 2001 being decorated and glorified was also uncalled for. By this yardstick all the 512 soldiers killed in Kargil should have got a chakra for bravery.
Government has to institutionalise preventive and punitive measures for internal security. Some steps have been taken but these will not do till there is a separate Ministry of Internal Security just as the Ministry of Defence is for external security. Equally important, the ministry has to be manned by an effective individual, not some shilly-shallying unprofessional politician.
A big lacuna in national security is the preference for IAS, IPS and intelligence officers over military officers. Assertion of civilian control over military is expressed in bizarre ways to the detriment of national interest. Why is India denied a specialised national security cadre?
Excluding the military from decision-making undermines the application of power. Nearly 80 per cent of intelligence and national security posts, including internal security, in the US are held by service officers with military background. Despite the so-called integration of services with Government just two officers are posted in the Ministry of External Affairs and a handful in the Ministry of Defence. One hopes that the quick-fix on internal security will be replaced by a comprehensive and overarching system once a new Government takes office.
Meanwhile, Pakistan will take minimum steps to bring to book the culprits and organisations responsible for the Mumbai attack and it is certain that jihadi camps and bases targeting Jammu & Kashmir and India will remain in business. The unspoken deal between the US and India is that the former will do its best to prevent the next attack till May by when the general election will have to be concluded. Do not expect any substantive action on the dismantling of terrorist infrastructure. In Davos last week, Prime Yousuf Raza Gilani said he would never allow the use of his country’s soil for terror attacks and that he was sorry about 26/11. There is nothing new in this promise except the apology which is meant for the countries whose nationals were also killed in Mumbai.
What are India’s punitive options to respond to a second attack during the life of this Government? Experts in the security and risk analysis business rate the chances of a second attack as 70:30 but 60:40 before May. They say that despite the 100 per cent deployment of security forces during Parakram in December 2001, the second terrorist attack came in May 2002, six months after the first assault.
Home Minister P Chidambaram has warned of extracting a “heavy price” from Pakistan for a repeat attack. Punitive economic and covert actions are likely to hurt more than just military means. Israel’s war against Hamas has not stopped cross border rocket attacks into Israel. Yet the most visible and least escalatory option is stand alone surgical strikes.
Writing on India’s military options in The New York Times (December 14, 2008) George Friedman chose surgical strikes against terrorist camps with area weapons (cluster bombs) as the choice least escalatory and acceptable to the US but he emphasised these would be more symbolic than effective. One notch up the scale were strikes on the ISI’s headquarters in Rawalpindi but this he rated too risky. The challenge lay in devising an option that was more than symbolic and hurt Pakistan without crossing the nuclear threshold, he said. The Indian Army’s ‘Limited War’ strategy within these parameters never materialised because Pakistan kept lowering its nuclear threshold.
During Parakram surgical strikes were approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security on December 15, 2001. Military deployment resulted from this decision on surgical strikes and not any Government orders for mobilisation. Conflicting versions on who needed more time —— the IAF or the Army —— delayed and finally cancelled the strikes. One reason cited at the time was “Pervez Musharraf to paagal hai. Yudh ho sakta hai.” Surgical strikes were considered again after the second terrorist attack on Kaluchak and called off for the same reason.
Clearly surgical strikes is one way to overcome the option of being optionless in terror and to get it off the chest. But it won’t end terrorism and our problems with Pakistan.
conduct massive terror attack. Get $$$B from Unkil, WB etc. Pakistan Victim of Terrorism. Pakistan poor country onlee!
They certainly seemed to have proved a point till now atleast.I really don't think there are many dots to connect here. The Paks, with full knowledge, sponsored this attack. They wanted to prove a point - economic targets, general vulnerability - and also perhaps to provoke an attack by us for which they were prepared to respond + get an excuse to pull troops to their eastern border.
What exactly do you mean by that, JEM saar? Surely, our polity has not shown even the remotest sign of giving it back for the next 50 years also.The "delay" - judged by the 24/7 news cycle - should not be considered too big a deal. I'm fairly confident our brethren across the western frontier are in for a surprise. But only fairly.
If you want another parallel, then its the surprise and psychological shock on all sides about the scale of the attack, the number of casualties, etc.JE Menon wrote:Everybody knew about it in advance, even we did... but that was also the case with 9/11 - there's an eerie coincidence about how they were aware, expected something big in July and then it happened in September. Same with us, we expected it in September, occurred in November...