The human brain is famous for making both a fox and a rabbit out of the same random Rorschach inkblot. I think there are great insights into the Paki problem over the last few pages, and one of the prime illuminating statements can be formed by just adding five words :
Give some credit to the Politicians and Babus for doing this. They have a policy. We can call it "Shit Happens (to other Indians)
! Lets ignore it and not lose sight of whats important (to ourselves)
Gujral was PM from 1996-98
Vajpayee was PM from 1998 to 2004
MMS from 2004 till today
That covers a good decade and a half - around 25% of the time Pakistan has existed.
All these PM's have gone "that extra mile" to accommodate Pakistan. It is another matter that Pakistan, as a nation has not responded favorably to this. All these PMs have done much to "placate" Pakistan, and both Vajpayee and MMS have refused to impose war on Pakistan in response to major (visible) terrorist attacks. The "consistency" of policy has been not to punish Pakistan and not to be aggressive? Why? Is it because of weakness? Fear? "Dhoti/Panche/Mundu/veshti shivering?
Are Indian leaders scared of Pakistan? Could that be the reason? The best answer that I can come up with is that they are scared of making war. Not personally scared - they will be the first to go into nuke shelters, but they do not want to lead the armed forces and country into a war unless war is forces on us by Pakistan. The argument I have heard that "If we can't fight Pakistan, how can we fight China?" is an absurd one because fighting Pakistan does not prove that we are ready to fight China. We just don't want to fight anyone.
So we now know that no one among the top leaders were/are personally "scared". But the we have
In fact what might have changed is the Islamization after 1971. Islamization took off after 1973 and by 1979 it was transformed into a new beast as the Soviets entered Afghanistan with US aid to the ISI in covert ops.
But Indira Gandhi was good at taking the bull by the horns. She took the bull by the horns in Bangladesh and won the lottery. She took the bull by the horns in Operation Blue Star and lost the game. That in fact not only led to open mutiny in the Indian army but it also allowed Pakistan to host and support the Khalistan insurgency for 10 years. By the time that was stamped out the Islamist galata in Kashmir started. She died, Pakistan survived and became stronger.
So here we have that after taking the wrong bull by the wrong horns Indian leaders lost the game, and after losing the game the leader died, and Pakistan benefited. Although a consequential connection between losing the game and dying and strengthening Pakiland was perhaps not intended - the possibility of drawing such an inference remains open from the statement.
If however there were any doubts, here we have :
I have no problem with the desire to have someone like her, but I remain skeptical that we will ever get one. It's like hoping for Ram rajya. A hope. We have to live with what we have. But what did covert ops do in Pakistan to stop the insurgency? Ultimately they were all wiped clean right here in India. And guess what? The few that remain are in places like Canada and Britain as well as Pakistan. India moved from crisis to crisis in that era.
1984 Operation Blue star. 1984 Indira assassinated .
1985 Air India Jumbo blown up in mid air.
1987 India entered Sri Lanka. 1989 India came out of Sri Lanka.
1991 Rajiv Gandhi assassinated.
Babri Masjid brought down under PVNR's watch in 1992.
1993 MMS's star rose under PVNR.
1993 Mumbai serial blasts followed by 15 years of intense Pakistan sponsored terrorism, which was "freedom fighting" until 2001
Thus what this whole litany of woes quoted represent is "bold", militant/military punishment of terrorism in the neighbourhood across the current international borders appears to be followed by costs for the top leader in person - either a physical liquidation or losing the top job.
In fact what has been omitted from the list - are the two prior cases of PM's who were quickly out of power, one who had sat over a not-defeated war against Pak followed by a still suspect and mysterious death in a foreign land which was not USA, the one and onlee enemee of India, and the other lost out even after winning the Neeshan but declining US inspection.
However the second one's successor was even more shortlived as PM - after openly challenging Paki nuke ambitions, and doing biratheri with yahudis.
So while some minds are seeing the fox in the inkblot - the superb, melting heart Indian leader who is personally courageous but who is onlee thinking of the pain and loss to his countrymen in not retaliating or playing the friendship card - we have enough data above to think the other way of the rabbit.
That previous penalties meted out personally to leaders who hit back at externally sponsored terror and lost personally
- has set a precedence for Gujral I, Gujral II, and Gujral III and Gujral X's to come.