Indian Response to Terrorism

[vsudhir]

Hit in terror attacks, a Mumbai café bounces back

[amitk]

{Dear durgesh: There is a fine line between Rant-e-Pakistan and Rant-e-Religion, that one has to learn to walk, usually by hard experience of jhapads when one crosses it. The difference is that a great many Indians a heck of a lot more patriotic than you or I, and a heck of a lot more accomplished at standing up for India in the face of the enemy, happen to believe in religions that you may not believe in.

BRF's respect for these compatriots far outweighs the urgency of your having the right to post your views, if these two considerations clash. Please understand.

By all means, continue to rant against Pakis. but please be careful to do that without generalizing to religion. Look at it this way: If Hafeez Saeed or Ten Percent Zardari took up Zen Buddhism, they would still be terrorist gandoos.

Cheers. n}

Narayanan,

I dont know what durgesh had written, but your reply is a self-goal. Do you really believe that Hafeez Saeed would consider terrorizing others not from his religion if he was a zen buddhist? Would he still consider non-buddhist territory as dar-ul-harb or house of war? Would he still consider that he is doing god's work by killing non-buddhists for no other reason than they are non-buddhists? Would he still believe that his work is holy (meaning he MUST do it) and he will get a bountiful of virgins in heaven if he was buddhist? He might have been a small-time criminal if not for islam. But to become a full-fledged terrorist like him, you need to be brainwashed and be high. In his case islam is the opium.
You cannot effectively fight against terrorism if you dont acknowledge the reason they are terrorists. Ofcourse a majority of muslims in india are patriotic. Because they are good human beings, not because they are good followers of islam.
See my posts in the topic "Indic reactions to islamic extremism".

{Dear amitk: To avoid cluttering the thread, I will respond here. First, I am glad to note that yur advice came without knowing what I deleted from the post in question - that was the point of deleting it, but some indication may have been gained by a thoughtful postor from the reaction of another postor. I said "glad" because otherwise the correct response to your post would be to simply delete it as another bigot rant.

Now as for your questions about whether Hafeez Saeed would be a gandoo if he were in another religion, well, it should be pretty obvious that he is a gandoo. He may not use terms like "dar-ul-Benazir" but maybe "dong-ul-hashimoto" for all I care.

I may indeed take your advice and browse through all ten of your previous posts. I usually don't waste my time trying to edit the religious preaching threads or the trash can archives, but it seems wise to do the former in view of your recommendation.

But in case the message has not got through - DON'T post bigot garbage here. I don't give a pakistan whether you consider that a "self-goal" or not, thanks!}

[NRao]

zardari can do nothing
all he wants is to retain his gaddi from army
he will make proper noises to both india and army and will be able to do nothing

That memo obviously did not reach the UK PM?

[samuel.chandra]

There could be multiple reasons why Brown is so blunt.
1) The US/UK cabal does not want India to go back under Russian influence.
2) The UK intelligence must be very worried. Its only a matter of time before the some distiguished pakis from the huge local paki population decides to redo mumbai in london. Its very easy if you think about it. They don't have to scout locations..they know their city/no need for boats/GPS nothing...all they need is AK47s. London cannot be protected. Its only a matter of time before the tubelight turns on in the jihadi brains. Why go all the way to afghanistan to force their military back...when they have easy targets right there.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Time ... 836108.cms

Time for action, not words: Brown tells Pak
14 Dec 2008, 1603 hrs IST, PTI

ISLAMABAD: In a blunt message to Islamabad in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, British Premier Gordon Brown on Sunday told Pakistan that "time has Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari (right) in conversation with British PM Gordon Brown in Islamabad. (AFP Photo)
More Pictures
come for action" against terrorists operating from the soil of this country as he revealed that the 3/4th of the terror plots investigated by the UK had links to al-Qaida and Pakistan. ( Watch )

Making a visit here shortly after an unscheduled trip to India, Brown, who met President Asif Ali Zardari, also offered a comprehensive pact to Pakistan for controlling terrorism and extremism.

Britain has asked both India and Pakistan to question suspects arrested in connection with the Mumbai attacks, Brown said at a joint press conference with Zardari.

The British Premier, who met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Delhi, said Zardari has assured him of taking further action to clamp down on terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks.

"Time has come for action, not words," Brown said, adding that the action needed to be taken because what happened in the "mountains" of Afghanistan and Pakistan affected the cities of Britain.

He said that the 3/4th of the terror plots investigated by the UK had links to al-Qaida and Pakistan.

Earlier, Brown said in New Delhi that the outrageous attacks in Mumbai were carried out by Lashkar-e-Taiba and made it clear that Islamabad will have a "great deal to answer for".

zardari can do nothing
all he wants is to retain his gaddi from army
he will make proper noises to both india and army and will be able to do nothing

That memo obviously did not reach the UK PM?

[Gerard]

Juvenile antics that impede the monitoring of that site by law enforcement

[SaiK]

any new info on whats up on air-space snoopings. we are saying it as inadvertent. !~?

[enqyoob]

If the IAF says nothing happened, nothing happened. If Ten Percent says nothing happened except a "technical insertion", he probably suffered an "uncontained emission".

[SaiK]

but the emissions (noise) here is more from bbc boosters of pakis interpretation of it.. dam.. the inadvertent insertions were paki ones. sorry did'nt read it was pakis' assertions. cr@ppers at it once again similar to war provocations by pranab harsh speaking.

i see a pattern here.. need to get to those folks who wants a mil bang as a big response to begin with.. all these ISI stunts - planning another coup-de-tat.. plain speak.

[jrjrao]

CRM says that the Pakis, as usual, will do nothing helpful, and will stall for time.

And that the Mumbai attacks will soon start fading from the list of international priorities. And therefore, soon enough,

...India will have to start walking up the first steps of an escalatory ladder.

Running while waiting
C. Raja Mohan
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/runni ... g/398523/1

[NRao]

any new info on whats up on air-space snoopings. we are saying it as inadvertent. !~?

Z stated it is a nonstate actor that did it.

[SaiK]

It seems to me, Z is the only non-NSA active in Pigland.

[enqyoob]

Pls kindly note onlee. Haraam phorum's current url ends with ".info" not the one that is reported as suffering "technical insertions". No more advertising for that pls.

[A_Gupta]

In the statement to the UN Security Council by India asking that the UNSC ban the Jamaat-ud-Dawa under UNSC Resolution 1267, what is conspicuous by its absence is any mention of Nariman House, the Chabad House where Rabbi Holtzberg and others were brutally murdered.

This article (Kanchan Gupta, Daily Pioneer) (h/t R.P.) interprets this fact as the influence of closet Islamists in PM Manmohan Singh's cabinet. The other possibility that occurs to me is that since the 1267 committee "takes all its decisions by consensus" and consists of all 15 members of the Security Council (see the link above), the mention of the explicit targeting of the Chabad House was elided to obtain unanimity - after all, the Jamaat-ud-Dawa was proscribed. Among the current members, which are the permanent five - the US, Russia, UK, France and China - and the temporary ten - Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam - the primary suspects must then be China, Libya and Indonesia.

[Chinmayanand]

India's Official Response to Terrorism " Our silence should not be taken as weakness ".
I do not know, what it should be taken as.MMS needs some BRA-very.Atleast he can borrow one from Sonia .

[dada]

read this rediff.com article
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/15m ... -going.htm

The main point of the article is that
LeT paid equal or more emphasis on mental training of their cadres(enrolled for terrorist attacks) than physical training

thru constant brainwashing to make them brutal killers/complete commandos
brainwashing is done using videos of wrongs being committed on their religion(?)
& also of quotes and writings in which jihad is misinterpreted.

they are motivated stand up and fight the socalled injustice.

youth wronged by the system or have financial trouble are picked up specifically

strength and determination to carry out the attack non-stop for close to three days.
was derived from the urdu poem taught to them !
===================================================

The crux of the matter is that concepts are absorbed-retained by minds only in a medium of one's own mother tongue! If muslims have imbibed a violent philosophy of islam , it was thru "urdu" not arabic ! The mullahs (knowledge interpretors & transmitters) are the key link between the original arabic version of islam & the multiple versions of islam thru "urdu"

Simply asking muslims to re-interpret islam is not sufficient

we need to dismantle urdu in india slowly & surely

no urdu universities
no urdu promotion councils !
no urdu books (especially in religion matters)
lesser recruitment of urdu teachers over a period of 20 yrs or more
no special incentives for urdu publications / newspapers
systematic destruction of all islamic literature (original sources like khudabaksh library etc)
especially those in darool ullum,UP,bihar etc

[Philip]

A splendid piece from CJ Krishna Iyer,please excuse me if posted earlier elsewhere.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/12/stories ... 960900.htm

Sovereignty and some questions
V.R. Krishna Iyer

Are these the signs of a functioning anarchy or a travesty of democracy?
— Photo: Vivek Bendre

IMBALANCE: Announcer Vishnu Dattaram Zende saw the attack at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Railway Station in Mumbai from his cabin. There was less vehemence in the media reaction to the CST massacre.

‘The War on Bombay Won,’ headlined one newspaper in a front page exaggeration, forgetting its duty of sober moderation and investigative obligation. The mighty Indian Army and the puissant police battled for three days against a minuscule but aggressive pack of Pakistani barbarians savagely armed and strategically trained by Inter-Services Intelligence to scare the Indian nation into traumatic tension and bleed it. Entering Indian territory using sly tactics, they sprayed bullets on innocent people in large numbers at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Railway Station. They gained access to the finest hotel in the industrial capital of Mumbai. They held many hostages, behaved brashly with their victims and inflicted reckless casualties. All this is a matter of shame to our security forces and intelligence agencies.

India must blush at the fact that a gang of goons could freely flow into the city with advanced firearms and ammunition. This rascally group must have secured corrupt local collaboration in gaining such access and waging the gory attack. Were they aware of Indian indolence, bribery temptation and West-doped weaknesses? Is India game for terrorist treachery operated by a bunch of exotic bullies? Are our expensive defence systems so goofy and gullible that hostiles in guile, with brute objectives, can reach a busy city, march inside a seven-star hotel and indulge in diabolical destruction with vindictive terrorism? The Taj Mahal Hotel alone suffered scores of casualties.

This tragic shock has made India an international laughing stock. It has demoralised the people with respect to the lack of national security and the nation’s feeble fight-back capacity. Our safety and security have been breached. The bankruptcy of our defence action is sapping our sovereignty.

A stroke of perversity persuaded many of our media high priests to present an odious episode as a valiant victory over another country. The propagandist news organs have hidden our weaknesses and projected the military encounter at the Taj Mahal Hotel with a gang of goons as the War of Bombay Won — as if it was the Battle of Waterloo. Have some sections of the press no patriotic rage and sage sense of proportion?

These sections did not ask what happened to our Coast Guard, which was perhaps asleep or too weak to undertake an effective investigation? It looks as if little South Korea has more costal security arrangements than balloon-blown India, with its long but porous coastline. Our navy needs strengthening, awakening and accountability.

We have countless fishing boats in the coastal waters. But with a hostile neighbour which receives civil and military assistance from certain other powers, every Indian fisherman at sea should now become an alert patriot, not a mere catcher of fish. They have to be inspired by the national leaders who shall not be looney, lazy and U.S.-dependent. Nitwit politicking in high office is a hazard and an illusion. Our defence forces are poorly paid. But their life is our survival. They have heroic traditions and great credentials. Remember the victory in the Bangladesh war. Indira Gandhi inspired them then. And now who will do that?

Did our defence instrumentality employ surprise checks, maritime investigations, sudden raids, or any other manoeuvres of discovery in an operational manner? During the Pakistan-Bangladesh conflict, the Indian Navy was valiant, vigorous, victorious and vigilant. Even now it is not a bluff or baloney. The Navy’s shortcomings, its poverty of intelligence, its strategic non-preparedness and shortage of equipment, need to be studied. It needs to be held accountable. Also, its salary policy for those from the lowest grades to the loftiest echelons needs to be re-examined.

Do we have any democratic defence policy to make the common people, women, students and professionals ever-alert about national security? Nothing has been done to involve the masses in the processes and projects of national safety and security, to identify spies and suspects and detect secret storage of ammunition.

The infantile defensive-offensive shortcomings cry out for accountability by the Cabinet in technical and political terms. We need to overhaul our national military organisation — not U.S dependence syndrome. Our political leaders in power and in the opposition have no global vision or sense of history regarding international intelligence and intrigue. Illiteracy is a disqualification for a Minister. Our noisy politicians now specialise in Kilkenny cat functionalism, exaggerate little disputes and indulge in politicking over small matters on party lines, without any idea of the dubious American games in the Asian region.

Indeed, several questions arise about our naval efficiency and sufficiency, our Army’s strategies and the Air Force’s inadequacies. Indira Gandhi was made of sterner stuff. The current crop of politicians are victims of corruption, communalism, vote-bank manipulations and unprincipled opportunist alliances. The scarcity of statesmen is a sour calamity.

Even after the Mumbai catastrophe, which is described as a magical victory by the high-brow media to muffle our shame, apparently no measures have been taken save unscientific, ad hoc transfers and resignations by Ministers. Even where Ministers and bureaucrats wine and dine, nocent neglect is writ large. What have the Home Minister, the Defence Minister, the Prime Minister or the lady above all the Ministers, done to ensure constant watchfulness?

On the contrary, expertise and excellence have become a casualty, and people-level nationalism has become a lost cause.

In defence as in security, a people remaining united with a mission and passion and active participation represents true democratic patriotism. The perspective of the executive at the State and Central levels is bureaucratic and pachydermic; pomp and power of office is the focus. The Finance Ministries as well as those concerned with industry and commerce are more concerned with money deals with America, and other big business corporations attracting investments and imports, in the process displacing native production. Why? It implies huge bribery. Look at the immoral multiplicity of luxuries, the insatiable appetite for cars, foreign travel and wasteful investment. Concrete jungles are growing sky-high, ignoring the living conditions and inflated prices of commodities that leave the common people starving. The poor cannot enter a hospital, buy food, find a shelter. And they are unable to put policy pressure on the government of the country. Even after the Taj Mahal Hotel terrorism, the ruling classes are doing nothing visibly to democratise the defensive role of the humble Indian. Patriotism and nationalism are not topics of popular campaigns: what comes cheap is the rogue demagogy of illiterate parties criticising one another. The legislatures are lost in howling and walk-outs. There is hardly any discussion of national issues at a supreme level. The governmental process is paper-logged and the Ministers are more keen about “sound and fury signifying nothing.” The great issues of moment which affect the dignity and destiny of the nation go by default in our democracy. This is a travesty.

Winston Churchill, during the Second World War, addressed Britain with militant conviction, rousing the nation against a motion of ‘no- confidence’. He said: “We shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” How inspirational and powerfully patriotic it was. Our Prime Minister’s performance in his national address when the ‘three-day war’ ended does not deserve comment.


The Lok Sabha Speaker once said he was ashamed at the ugly acrobatics in the House. Did not Dr. Johnson anticipate the Indian politician of the present generation when he observed that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” and that “politics are now nothing more than a means of rising in the world.”

Our media did not seem to have reacted to the CST massacre with the same degree of vehemence as it did with respect to the hotel attacks, although there may have been justifiable practical reasons for the seeming imbalance. But this gave the impression that the lives of a large number of Indians who were at a railway station were less important than those who were at a luxury hotel. When the Taj crisis occurred, without a moment’s break the electronic media excitedly described the disaster because VIPs were involved.

To whom does India belong? Whose defence is at stake when swadeshi and swaraj are sold to foreign automobile manufacturers and investors, luxury hotels, imports at inflationary cost? The Taj Mahal Hotel terrorist tragedy is a grievous malady. But the syndrome, in its national dimension and swaraj proportion, remains to be investigated and invigilated.

Who lives if India dies, and who dies if India lives? India belongs to the billion and odd people, not the billionaires and America Inc.

[NRao]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

CNN :: U.S.: India prepared for strike on Pakistan

Have to wonder if the U.S is USING the India card - once too often.

From Barbara Starr
CNN Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States believes that India's air force began preliminary preparations for a possible attack against Pakistan in the immediate aftermath of the recent massacre in Mumbai, CNN has learned.

Three Pentagon officials have individually confirmed to CNN that the United States has information indicating that India began to prepare air force personnel for a possible mission.

The officials offered very few details, but one said India's air force "went on alert." This is the first publicly known indication that perhaps the two nuclear powers were closer to conflict in the days after the Mumbai attacks than previously acknowledged.

A second official said the United States concluded these preliminary preparations would have put India quickly in the position to launch airstrikes against suspected terrorist camps and targets inside Pakistan. During these preparations, a number of senior U.S. officials were urging India to exercise restraint -- which apparently it did.

Air Commodore Homayoon Ziqar, a spokesman for the Pakistan Air Force, had no comment when asked if India had prepared for air strikes against Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks.

Ziqar said Pakistan is not on heightened alert at the moment. "Everything is normal," he said.

Another source in the Pakistan Air Force also said the air force is not on heightened alert but added, "We are always ready, on weekends, on holidays, no matter what the circumstances."

Since the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani security forces raided a camp near Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, according to military sources. It was the first sign of government action against Lashkar-e-Tayyiba -- the Pakistan-based Islamic militant group India says was behind the killings of more than 160 people in Mumbai -- since the attacks. Watch Miss Pakistan talk about the Mumbai attacks »

Also, Pakistani authorities have banned a charity linked to last month's Mumbai attacks and placed its leader under house arrest. The move came after the U.N. Security Council designated the charity, Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), a terror organization because of its links to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba.

Indian police say the only surviving suspect, identified by Indian authorities as 21-year-old Mohammad Ajmal Kasab, is from Pakistan's Punjab province and the nine other alleged attackers were also from Pakistan. Pakistani officials have denied that assertion, blaming instead "stateless actors."

Until now, the Bush Administration has publicly said it saw no signs of military movement by India and no indication that the Indian government was preparing any type of retaliation.

The Pentagon officials broadly described the activity as checking on the status of crews, fighter jets and weapons that were available. The extent of the reported preparation was not immediately known.

Also, one of the Pentagon officials confirmed that the United States has intelligence indicating a single Indian aircraft violated Pakistani airspace twice on Saturday. The United States believes the incursion was inadvertent, the official said, adding that there is no information to indicate it was planned.

[NRao]

It would be revealing to have a thread of only non-Indian traffic on this matter. Bet there is a picture evolving that shows a game plan to pack this incidence.

[SaiK]

excellente VR Krishna Iyer. /salutes

[SaiK]

nrao:
we all know who would like to strike pakistan first! there is a hidden race., and our aspen friends have clearly identified the real intention of the mumbai attack.

expect all nuke facilities to finished first [by a ready team, that was actually prevented to do it by mr. mumbler].

its indeed a shame on the mumblers.. they still are the most imbecile admins we have had so far.

kerry et al are here to keep it smokeless from mumbler's guns.

[Rye]

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/15m ... wn-way.htm

Start of series with Indian heavies like ex-NSA Brajesh Mishra and others on india's response

My point is what is going on in New Delhi when the foreign dignitaries are arriving is mere 'sympathy'. These are just words and nothing more is attached to it. In spite of so many visits Pakistan has come out with the statement that they are not banning the Jamat-ul-Dawa. What are the US and Britain going to do about it? Are they going to cut off finances to the instrument (the Pakistan army) that is supporting the outfits carrying out terrorism in India? What are you getting so far? Words of sympathy only.

The "international community" is just passing around a plate of cow dung for Indian consumption, and the Indian establishment is very well aware of it, clearly.

[ramana]

Need to evaluate the L-e-T/ISI game plan for the Mumbai terrorist attack and compare it to the IC814 hijack. And add the LokSabha attack on Dec 13, 2001.

I think there are similarities of technique and goals for all the three.

Can someone do a comparision table please?

thanks, ramana

[NRao]

Those that are keeping track of events meant to distract from the Mumbai attacks:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/174314

PAKISTAN
Urgent Plea: Send More Gear

By Ron Moreau and John Barry | NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 13, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Dec 22, 2008

November's terrorist rampage in Mumbai is bringing more pressure than ever on Pakistan to eliminate the thousands of armed extremists who are operating from its soil. But the Pakistani Army insists it's already doing all it can with the limited equipment it has. To do more, the country's top military men say, they urgently need the improved gear that the United States has been promising them for years. "We are on a war footing," says Pakistan's national-security chief, retired Army Gen. Mahmud Ali Durrani. "But [the U.S.] supply chain is working on a peacetime basis. You have to support us at much greater speed."

Senior Pakistani officials say Washington promised in 2004 to deliver 20 Cobra helicopters within two years. Four years have passed, they complain, and only 12 have arrived. They need the remaining eight in a hurry. "We're burning them up at quite a rate," says a senior Pakistani official who declined to be identified because of the subject's sensitivity. "We use them aggressively in combat almost daily." Complaining to the Americans seems to do at least some good. Lately, he says, they've expedited the release of spare parts for the existing fleet of Cobras. Still, the Pakistanis have a long backlist of items they need in the war against the militants. A few examples:

• Precision-laser target designators for their F-16 fighters, helicopters and infantry to minimize collateral damage from strikes against militant hideouts.

• Laser-guided bombs and ammunition for use with the targeting devices.

• Night-vision aviation goggles. "We have received some but we need more," says the senior official. "You can't fly at night without them." {Nor can they give more to terrorists}

• Jamming equipment to protect military vehicles from IEDs.

• Electronic eavesdropping equipment to find and monitor militants' communications.

The Pakistani military has "a reasonable basis for complaint," says a congressional staff expert on U.S. arms sales who is allowed to speak only on background, "but that's universal, not unique to Pakistan." Nevertheless, he says, the delays probably arose at least in part from Washington's impatience at the previous regime's reluctance to take decisive action against the militants. Former president Pervez Musharraf often promised to get tough, but his efforts always seemed halfhearted. In situations like that, the congressional source says, "there's a drill that's as old as the hills, which is you do the slowdown of deliveries … I think a lot of this came to a head prior to the changeover of government in Pakistan, so things may be getting better now." Pakistani troops can only hope so.

[SaiK]

Need to evaluate the L-e-T/ISI game plan for the Mumbai terrorist attack and compare it to the IC814 hijack. And add the LokSabha attack on Dec 13, 2001.

I think there are similarities of technique and goals for all the three.

Can someone do a comparision table please?

thanks, ramana

• In all these events, the Pakistani forces were put on high alert the same day/wanting to go on war... for ic814, pakis were ready to do anything to help the safe passage of the ISI hijackers.
• India only protested to put ISI operatives Jud/let to be shutdown, arrested, and sent to us..nothing happened from pakis.
• In all these events, it exposed more on the India babooze weakness.. indirectly telling our system of democracy is at peril!~.. wake up or face more attacks.~ but we chalta-haied since then, and even now.
• It also exposed our security setup weakness.. all the loopholes - one with linked with air borne security (civil is what they could), second with land/route security, the mumbai one with sea borne security
• Every event pakis claim or say its Indian intelligent drama to wage a war against them..
• In all these events, ISI backed military power was not fully functional in pakistan... again hinting, they want to control pakistan and not a democracy for pakistan.
• In all these events, they some how gotten established a local terror fit responsible or taking responsibility.
• In all these events, weapons from pakistan were used.. military or ISI weapons, and ISI trained terrorists.
• In all these events, the intention is to weaken Indian democracy, create religious disharmony, bring down our economic might, bring down our ethos, bring down all that yindooism is famous for.
• first low training, similar training that 911 might get for killing.. the second, more planning and land based operation, and finally a sea cum land based operation ...(next would involve everything they have, perhaps go nuke and attack nuclear installations as well).
• All had AK47s, granades, RdX, and used local vehicles for operations... again showing weakness in our vehicle identification systems, and how they can exploit our corruption oriented setup...[we will never learn here.. any damn fool can pay money and buy a vehicle and get a super duper driving license ].
• All these cases could have been avoided or prevented, if we had our loopholes plugged.. NSG setup, aviation security, sea based security.. I have to agree with Krishna Iyer here.
• point blank attack on civil liberty!~ of course exploiting the irresponsible corrupted raaj system.

just a little i could think off..

[SaiK]

Also, GoI should present the evidence and make it available for international audience by presenting the video of the evidence, well narrated in major channels all around the world.. prime time. DDM doesn't reach different parts of the world.. and its important that the message reaches 8B people, since many might watch and change their attitude towards pakistan.. perhaps boycott all that is made in pakistan for a start.

[asprinzl]

For more than a year now Pakistani pilots have been flying SriLankan airforce planes in combat against Tamil Tiger forces. I am sure Indian surveillance radars must be monitoring the ongoing conflict across the strait but did anybody stopped for a while to see if the Pakis are not monitoring Indian radar frequencies etc in the south?
Avram

[p_saggu]

WRT Manmohan Singh's penchant for saying at the drop of a hat "Our silence should not be taken as a sign of weakness"

I think he is addressing the Indian people here and is referring to his own situation that he finds himself in, rather than this statement being directed to anyone outside India.

[Nihat]

Just heard Arundhati once again mouth off about a "Draconian" anti-terror law which would include confessions as evidence.

I'm all for it , despite being a middle class Muslim myself it does not bother me one bit.

As for those saying that how will Law scare those who are willing to die (fidayeens) it's quite simple , the fear of being caught and the subsequent life will deter anyone within our boundaries and to some extent even those from TSP. This sort of a terror law could well have deterred the many direction less youth of Azamgarh and possibly the person who worked for Microsoft and was involved in the ruckus of terrorism.

NIA is an excellent move too - it can have it's own SWAT team , the best weapons and the best officers that India can muster working together and answerable to only the Prime minister and no one else , like is the case today.

No human rights issues and also no one can use this like the CBI Is abused by the politicians , as a common man I've had enough.

[enqyoob]

According to the current newspaper reports, India is considering "anti-terror laws" where the onus of proof is on the defendant.

This is utterly against the Constitution, and is a throwback to idiotic times.

If that passes, I am sending contributions to Comrade Arundhati's Revolution fund.

[Singha]

it will be used to witchunt political enemies and friends of political enemies than against terrorists. wasnt karunanidhi arrested very roughly in middle of night under POTA ?

maybe there has to be strong riders that only in matters related to terrorism can this be used.

[Stan_Savljevic]

it will be used to witchunt political enemies and friends of political enemies than against terrorists. wasnt karunanidhi arrested very roughly in middle of night under POTA ?

maybe there has to be strong riders that only in matters related to terrorism can this be used.

That was VaiKo for seditious speech and speech for the cause of LTTE. Karunanidhi was arrested, but not on POTA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karunanidh ... ght_arrest

[Nihat]

If a feared and to some extent abused law can improve the situation and deter those with notorious thoughts , then bring it on.

With the presence of free Media and a intact judicial system , the abuse of the Law has a limited scope. Along with fast track terror courts , there should also be riders related to a time frame within which all appeals of such terror accused have to be wrapped up and death sentence executed.

With the current system , the odds of Afzal guru dying from old age are more than his death sentence being implemented.

[pradeepe]

This is the shape things take when the state fails to execute its duties. It makes way for all kinds of arguments leading to a police state aka pakistan. A very dangerous precedent. I hope it gets defeated soundly.

Maybe I am being hyper sensitive, but there was an incident in AP recently which comes to mind. About a week ago, a bunch of rowdies attached two girls by pouring acid on them. One of the girls is battling for life and other is out of danger, but both of them scarred for life. The face of one poor girl wass so horribly burnt, that plastic surgery seems to be the only hope. The whole state was moved by what happened. Apparently the girl and her father had complained earlier to the police but evoked the typical response from them - they couldnt be bothered from the busy schedule of picking boogers. So unfazed the guys took it to the next level from the initial pestering.
So once the acid attack had moved the whole state, with everybody and his aunt gheraoing the ministers and rightly so, the police pick up the 3 guys and the pressure was so intense to bury this case that they took them to the outskirts on some pretext (to find where they had stashed their acid bottles) and shot all 3 of them dead. Their version of events was so ridiculous that it wasn't even funny. And as sad as the acid attack was, the sadder thing was that the whole state applaued the police for the encounter. I admit I was extremely happy to see the 3 guys dead. You had people line up outside the police station to get the SP's autographs. The judiciary died that day and there was little to distinguish us from pakis. The reason I say this is because once I feel good about the encounter, I have no basis for ridiculing the arundhati's of the world anymore.

[Chinmayanand]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081208 ... ani_crisis
Next Steps in the Indo-Pakistani Crisis
December 8, 2008 | 1923 GMT
By George Friedman

* Militant Attacks In Mumbai and Their Consequences

In an interview published this Sunday in The New York Times, we laid out a potential scenario for the current Indo-Pakistani crisis. We began with an Indian strike on Pakistan, precipitating a withdrawal of Pakistani troops from the Afghan border, resulting in intensified Taliban activity along the border and a deterioration in the U.S. position in Afghanistan, all culminating in an emboldened Iran. The scenario is not unlikely, assuming India chooses to strike.

Our argument that India is likely to strike focused, among other points, on the weakness of the current Indian government and how it is likely to fall under pressure from the opposition and the public if it does not act decisively. An unnamed Turkish diplomat involved in trying to mediate the dispute has argued that saving a government is not a good reason to go to war. That is a good argument, except that in this case, not saving the government is unlikely to prevent a war, either.

If India’s Congress party government were to fall, its replacement would be even more likely to strike at Pakistan. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Congress’ Hindu nationalist rival, has long charged that Congress is insufficiently aggressive in combating terrorism. The BJP will argue that the Mumbai attack in part resulted from this failing. Therefore, if the Congress government does not strike, and is subsequently forced out or loses India’s upcoming elections, the new government is even more likely to strike.

It is therefore difficult to see a path that avoids Indian retaliation, and thus the emergence of at least a variation on the scenario we laid out. But the problem is not simply political: India must also do something to prevent more Mumbais. This is an issue of Indian national security, and the pressure on India’s government to do something comes from several directions.
Three Indian Views of Pakistan

The question is what an Indian strike against Pakistan, beyond placating domestic public opinion, would achieve. There are three views on this in India.

The first view holds that Pakistani officials aid and abet terrorism — in particular the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), which serves as Pakistan’s main intelligence service. In this view, the terrorist attacks are the work of Pakistani government officials — perhaps not all of the government, but enough officials of sufficient power that the rest of the government cannot block them, and therefore the entire Pakistani government can be held accountable.

The second view holds that terrorist attacks are being carried out by Kashmiri groups that have long been fostered by the ISI but have grown increasingly autonomous since 2002 — and that the Pakistani government has deliberately failed to suppress anti-Indian operations by these groups. In this view, the ISI and related groups are either aware of these activities or willfully ignorant of them, even if ISI is not in direct control. Under this thinking, the ISI and the Pakistanis are responsible by omission, if not by commission.

The third view holds that the Pakistani government is so fragmented and weak that it has essentially lost control of Pakistan to the extent that it cannot suppress these anti-Indian groups. This view says that the army has lost control of the situation to the point where many from within the military-intelligence establishment are running rogue operations, and groups in various parts of the country simply do what they want. If this argument is pushed to its logical conclusion, Pakistan should be regarded as a state on the verge of failure, and an attack by India might precipitate further weakening, freeing radical Islamist groups from what little control there is.

The first two analyses are essentially the same. They posit that Pakistan could stop attacks on India, but chooses not to. The third is the tricky one. It rests on the premise that the Pakistani government (and in this we include the Pakistani army) is placing some restraint on the attackers. Thus, the government’s collapse would make enough difference that India should restrain itself, especially as any Indian attack would so destabilize Pakistan that it would unleash our scenario and worse. In this view, Pakistan’s civilian government has only as much power in these matters as the army is willing to allow.

The argument against attacking Pakistan therefore rests on a very thin layer of analysis. It requires the belief that Pakistan is not responsible for the attacks, that it is nonetheless restraining radical Islamists to some degree, and that an Indian attack would cause even these modest restraints to disappear. Further, it assumes that these restraints, while modest, are substantial enough to make a difference.

There is a debate in India, and in Washington, as to whether this is the case. This is why New Delhi has demanded that Pakistan turn over 20 individuals wanted by India in connection with attacks. The list doesn’t merely include Islamists, but also Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, the former head of the ISI who has long been suspected of close ties with Islamists. (The United States apparently added Gul to the list.) Turning those individuals over would be enormously difficult politically for Pakistan. It would create a direct confrontation between Pakistan’s government and the Pakistani Islamist movement, likely sparking violence in Pakistan. Indeed, turning any Pakistani over to India, regardless of ideology, would create a massive crisis in Pakistan.

The Indian government chose to make this demand precisely because complying with it is enormously difficult for Pakistan. New Delhi is not so much demanding the 20 individuals, but rather that Pakistan take steps that will create conflict in Pakistan. If the Pakistani government is in control of the country, it should be able to weather the storm. If it can’t weather the storm, then the government is not in control of Pakistan. And if it could weather the storm but chooses not to incur the costs, then India can reasonably claim that Pakistan is prepared to export terrorism rather than endure it at home. In either event, the demand reveals things about the Pakistani reality.
The View from Islamabad

Pakistan’s evaluation, of course, is different. Islamabad does not regard itself as failed because it cannot control all radical Islamists or the Taliban. The official explanation is that the Pakistanis are doing the best they can. From the Pakistani point of view, while the Islamists ultimately might represent a threat, the threat to Pakistan and its government that would arise from a direct assault on the Islamists is a great danger not only to Pakistan, but also to the region. It is thus better for all to let the matter rest. The Islamist issue aside, Pakistan sees itself as continuing to govern the country effectively, albeit with substantial social and economic problems (as one might expect). The costs of confronting the Islamists, relative to the benefits, are therefore high.

The Pakistanis see themselves as having several effective counters against an Indian attack. The most important of these is the United States. The very first thing Islamabad said after the Mumbai attack was that a buildup of Indian forces along the Pakistani border would force Pakistan to withdraw 100,000 troops from its Afghan border. Events over the weekend, such as the attack on a NATO convoy, showed the vulnerability of NATO’s supply line across Pakistan to Afghanistan.

The Americans are fighting a difficult holding action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The United States needs the militant base camps in Pakistan and the militants’ lines of supply cut off, but the Americans lack the force to do this themselves. A withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the Afghan border would pose a direct threat to American forces. Therefore, the Pakistanis expect Washington to intervene on their behalf to prevent an Indian attack. They do not believe a major Indian troop buildup will take place, and if it does, the Pakistanis do not think it will lead to substantial conflict.

There has been some talk of an Indian naval blockade against Pakistan, blocking the approaches to Pakistan’s main port of Karachi. This is an attractive strategy for India, as it plays to New Delhi’s relative naval strength. Again, the Pakistanis do not believe the Indians will do this, given that it would cut off the flow of supplies to American troops in Afghanistan. (Karachi is the main port serving U.S. forces in Afghanistan.) The line of supply in Afghanistan runs through Pakistan, and the Americans, the Pakistanis calculate, do not want anything to threaten that.

From the Pakistani point of view, the only potential military action India could take that would not meet U.S. opposition would be airstrikes. There has been talk that the Indians might launch airstrikes against Islamist training camps and bases in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. In Pakistan’s view, this is not a serious problem. Mounting airstrikes against training camps is harder than it might seem. The only way to achieve anything in such a facility is with area destruction weapons — for instance, using B-52s to drop ordnance over very large areas. The targets are not amenable to strike aircraft, because the payload of such aircraft is too small. It would be tough for the Indians, who don’t have strategic bombers, to hit very much. Numerous camps exist, and the Islamists can afford to lose some. As an attack, it would be more symbolic than effective.

Moreover, if the Indians did kill large numbers of radical Islamists, this would hardly pose a problem to the Pakistani government. It might even solve some of Islamabad’s problems, depending on which analysis you accept. Airstrikes would generate massive support among Pakistanis for their government so long as Islamabad remained defiant of India. Pakistan thus might even welcome Indian airstrikes against Islamist training camps.

Islamabad also views the crisis with India with an eye to the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. Any attack by India that might destabilize the Pakistani government opens at least the possibility of a Pakistani nuclear strike or, in the event of state disintegration, of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of factional elements. If India presses too hard, New Delhi faces the unknown of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal — unless, of course, the Indians are preparing a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Pakistan, something the Pakistanis find unlikely.

All of this, of course, depends upon two unknowns. First, what is the current status of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal? Is it sufficiently reliable for Pakistan to count on? Second, to what extent do the Americans monitor Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities? Ever since the crisis of 2002, when American fears that Pakistani nuclear weapons could fall into al Qaeda’s hands were high, we have assumed that American calm about Pakistan’s nuclear facilities was based on Washington’s having achieved a level of transparency on their status. This might limit Pakistan’s freedom of action with regard to — and hence ability to rely on — its nuclear arsenal.

Notably, much of Pakistan’s analysis of the situation rests on a core assumption — namely, that the United States will choose to limit Indian options, and just as important, that the Indians would listen to Washington. India does not have the same relationship or dependence on the United States as, for example, Israel does. India historically was allied with the Soviet Union; New Delhi moved into a strategic relationship with the United States only in recent years. There is a commonality of interest between India and the United States, but not a dependency. India would not necessarily be blocked from action simply because the Americans didn’t want it to act.

As for the Americans, Pakistan’s assumption that the United States would want to limit India is unclear. Islamabad’s threat to shift 100,000 troops from the Afghan border will not easily be carried out. Pakistan’s logistical capabilities are limited. Moreover, the American objection to Pakistan’s position is that the vast majority of these troops are not engaged in controlling the border anyway, but are actually carefully staying out of the battle. Given that the Americans feel that the Pakistanis are ineffective in controlling the Afghan-Pakistani border, the shift from virtually to utterly ineffective might not constitute a serious deterioration from the United States’ point of view. Indeed, it might open the door for more aggressive operations on — and over — the Afghan-Pakistani border by American forces, perhaps by troops rapidly transferred from Iraq.

The situation of the port of Karachi is more serious, both in the ground and naval scenarios. The United States needs Karachi; it is not in a position to seize the port and the road system out of Karachi. That is a new war the United States can’t fight. At the same time, the United States has been shifting some of its logistical dependency from Pakistan to Central Asia. But this requires a degree of Russian support, which would cost Washington dearly and take time to activate. In short, India’s closing the port of Karachi by blockade, or Pakistan’s doing so as retaliation for Indian action, would hurt the United States badly.

Supply lines aside, Islamabad should not assume that the United States is eager to ensure that the Pakistani state survives. Pakistan also should not assume that the United States is impressed by the absence or presence of Pakistani troops on the Afghan border. Washington has developed severe doubts about Pakistan’s commitment and effectiveness in the Afghan-Pakistani border region, and therefore about Pakistan’s value as an ally.

Pakistan’s strongest card with the United States is the threat to block the port of Karachi. But here, too, there is a counter to Pakistan: If Pakistan closes Karachi to American shipping, either the Indian or American navy also could close it to Pakistani shipping. Karachi is Pakistan’s main export facility, and Pakistan is heavily dependent on it. If Karachi were blocked, particularly while Pakistan is undergoing a massive financial crisis, Pakistan would face disaster. Karachi is thus a double-edged sword. As long as Pakistan keeps it open to the Americans, India probably won’t block it. But should Pakistan ever close the port in response to U.S. action in the Afghan-Pakistani borderland, then Pakistan should not assume that the port will be available for its own use.
India’s Military Challenge

India faces difficulties in all of its military options. Attacks on training camps sound more effective than they are. Concentrating troops on the border is impressive only if India is prepared for a massive land war, and a naval blockade has multiple complications.

India needs a military option that demonstrates will and capability and decisively hurts the Pakistani government, all without drawing India into a nuclear exchange or costly ground war. And its response must rise above the symbolic.

We have no idea what India is thinking, but one obvious option is airstrikes directed not against training camps, but against key government installations in Islamabad. The Indian air force increasingly has been regarded as professional and capable by American pilots at Red Flag exercises in Nevada. India has modern Russian fighter jets and probably has the capability, with some losses, to penetrate deep into Pakistani territory.

India also has acquired radar and electronic warfare equipment from Israel and might have obtained some early precision-guided munitions from Russia and/or Israel. While this capability is nascent, untested and very limited, it is nonetheless likely to exist in some form.

The Indians might opt for a drawn-out diplomatic process under the theory that all military action is either ineffective or excessively risky. If it chooses the military route, New Delhi could opt for a buildup of ground troops and some limited artillery exchanges and tactical ground attacks. It also could choose airstrikes against training facilities. Each of these military options would achieve the goal of some substantial action, but none would threaten fundamental Pakistani interests. The naval blockade has complexities that could not be managed. That leaves, as a possible scenario, a significant escalation by India against targets in Pakistan’s capital.

The Indians have made it clear that the ISI is their enemy. The ISI has a building, and buildings can be destroyed, along with files and personnel. Such an aerial attack also would serve to shock the Pakistanis by representing a serious escalation. And Pakistan might find retaliation difficult, given the relative strength of its air force. India has few good choices for retaliation, and while this option is not a likely one, it is undoubtedly one that has to be considered.

It seems to us that India can avoid attacks on Pakistan only if Islamabad makes political concessions that it would find difficult to make. The cost to Pakistan of these concessions might well be greater than the benefit of avoiding conflict with India. All of India’s options are either ineffective or dangerous, but inactivity is politically and strategically the least satisfactory route for New Delhi. This circumstance is the most dangerous aspect of the current situation. In our opinion, the relative quiet at present should not be confused with the final outcome, unless Pakistan makes surprising concessions.

[enqyoob]

If a feared and to some extent abused law can improve the situation and deter those with notorious thoughts , then bring it on.
With the presence of free Media and a intact judicial system , the abuse of the Law has a limited scope.

It is interesting to see the rationalizations used by people when fear overcomes commonsense. Obviously, Nihat, this wonderful law should be applied immediately to "deter those with notorious thoughts" in other words, those who are out to undermine the constitution of India.

That would start with you, because you are very obviously against the Constitution of India based on the above statements that I have recorded for the law enforcement agencies. So according to your own logic, you can be arrested, put in jail for at least 6 months without being charged, then dragged before a Kangaroo Judge (since you won't be able to walk, the soles of your feet will be in ribbons from all the gentle massaging applied there and the results of having a lathi "technically inserted" up your musharraf), and you will be generously given 3 minutes to PROVE to the Kangaroo that you are innocent (despite the written confessions that you would have already signed when they had your ****s in a vise, and despite the "brain scan test results" and the "narco test" results where you agreed that you knew of various terrorist attacks. Somewhere I also think you made some statement about your religious beliefs. Q.E.D., many policemen and mob members will be happy to conclude that this reinforces their prejudices, so guilt can be presumed.

Fortunately you will then be shot within 24 hours, no sense in wasting time on appeals etc., fortunate because the alternative will be 20 years in a dungeon, with beatings and buggerings daily.

Enjoy Democracy and Freedom!

(But thanks for making those posts. I am sure you did those in sarcasm to point out the utter folly of destroying the Constitution of India, rather than the terrorist slum of Pakistan)

[SSridhar]

. . . the police pick up the 3 guys and the pressure was so intense to bury this case that they took them to the outskirts on some pretext (to find where they had stashed their acid bottles) and shot all 3 of them dead. . . .

Good. Of course, the Human Rights groups will cry hoarse and AP has a lot of them who have consistently supported the Naxalites. If these criminals had not been eliminated, they would have come out scot free in a matter of days and threatened witnesses and police and scuttled the whole affair. Let's remember what happened when Mufti & VP Singh decided to release a few terrorists when the abduction drama of Mufti's daughter was enacted. Or, how we had to release Masood Azhar. Later, Musharraf declined to take action against Azhar claiming that Indians couldn't prove a thing in their own courts even after detaining him for so many years.

[Nihat]

If a feared and to some extent abused law can improve the situation and deter those with notorious thoughts , then bring it on.
With the presence of free Media and a intact judicial system , the abuse of the Law has a limited scope.

It is interesting to see the rationalizations used by people when fear overcomes commonsense. Obviously, Nihat, this wonderful law should be applied immediately to "deter those with notorious thoughts" in other words, those who are out to undermine the constitution of India.

That would start with you, because you are very obviously against the Constitution of India based on the above statements that I have recorded for the law enforcement agencies. So according to your own logic, you can be arrested, put in jail for at least 6 months without being charged, then dragged before a Kangaroo Judge (since you won't be able to walk, the soles of your feet will be in ribbons from all the gentle massaging applied there and the results of having a lathi "technically inserted" up your musharraf), and you will be generously given 3 minutes to PROVE to the Kangaroo that you are innocent (despite the written confessions that you would have already signed when they had your ****s in a vise, and despite the "brain scan test results" and the "narco test" results where you agreed that you knew of various terrorist attacks. Somewhere I also think you made some statement about your religious beliefs. Q.E.D., many policemen and mob members will be happy to conclude that this reinforces their prejudices, so guilt can be presumed.

Fortunately you will then be shot within 24 hours, no sense in wasting time on appeals etc., fortunate because the alternative will be 20 years in a dungeon, with beatings and buggerings daily.

Enjoy Democracy and Freedom!

(But thanks for making those posts. I am sure you did those in sarcasm to point out the utter folly of destroying the Constitution of India, rather than the terrorist slum of Pakistan)

Have a look and get sense of the bill which has been tabled today in the Lok sabha , I think it is fairly balanced and does keep human rights issues in mind.

Indian prisoners can get bail however foreign prisoners may not , confessions to a police officer will not be treated as evidence in the court of law but Police and judicial custody period has been significantly increased.

Confessions as evidence is wrong but the law must have enough weight to deter potential terrorists. Be more cautious before entering into suspicious activities , fear the law which might be slapped on you , if caught alive - that should be the deterrence value of this law , the implementation of course is another issue and much more important at that.

Politicians (some of them) have always been dirty pigs and will use the Law (any law) to their advantage but should this mean that we should always have laws which are soft on many issues so that they cannot be abused.

It is tantamount to saying that defense deals should be scrapped because of corruption , very few citizens actually respect a law but many more obey it for fear of consequences.

Clean implementation is a must , but abuse does not mean we don't need a harsh law.

[harbans]

Personally i have never been in favor of a death penalty in India ever, neither have been in favor of Guaanamo Bay style holdings. I do feel this issue on 'guilty till innocent' deserves a better review than what Narayanan and Nihatji are espousing as of now. Neither does the constitution deserve to be undermined or terrorists deserve to be on the road for want of evidence. The ony way things can come to an equilibrium is a high end quality force, less psuedo liberal jerks sitting in High courts, and convictions on a fair basis of circumstantial and forensic evidences. Too much reliance on witness convictions in India is playng havocon the justice system. JMT anyways..

[enqyoob]

Nihat, there is no substitute for real, painstaking, intelligent investigation, and real proof, if crime is to be deterred. Respect for the law cannot be won through beatings and twirled moustaches and bullying, it has to be won through the realization that the Law is fair and fairly enforced, and that crime leads to swift and certain punishment. This requires intelligence, training, professionalism, and independence from interference. It needs high pay for people smart enough to really solve crimes, and brave enough to put their lives on the line.

The politicians are trying to get around all these with these "TOUGH" laws, and the citizenry are blindly following them, rather than demand real reforms and real competence, and paying for those reforms with real money. The net result will be a huge degradation of whatever makes India different from Pakistan. Already the degradation has occurred to a very large extent, but fortunately Pakistan has been sliding downhill even faster.

The state of Indian law enforcement is shocking, disgusting, whatever adjectives you want to apply. The system survives in some form only because of the heart-rending dedication and heroism of people committed to law enforcement. But the citizenry are completely unappreciative of this, and really don't deserve any of this dedication.

If it were up to me, I would completely relax all needless rules and laws, but I would make very sure that the necessary ones are enforced. Like tax collection, traffic rules, rules against possessing weapons, rules governing visas.

The key point which tells me that the proposed "non-POTA" is stupid, is the item where it says the onus of proof is being shifted to the defendant. There is no way to defend this, and there is no way that this will not result in innocents being incarcerated indefinitely, and innocent lives destroyed, and more hate generated. This one item can result in the disintegration of India.

Any politician who votes for that, should be arrested under it, like what was done to the inventor of La Guillotine. Rationalizations don't work for this sort of nonsense. But of course, all I know of the precise text of this "law" is what I read in the Indian Express, and that MAY be DDM nonsense. However, this issue is so important that Indians should be alert for once, and not let anything remotely like that ever get passed by these conniving ******s in Dilli.

[SandeepA]

Nihat is correct. This bill is a cross between POTA and the regular law as Kangress can do no better without BJP jumping and saying we told you so.