Indian Non-response to Terrorism after Mumbai

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 21 Jan 2009 07:00

I'm not sure about this Siddharth Srivastava but when Manekshaw wouldn't strike as soon as IG wanted they teased him for not having the stomach!(Much of it I believe was gone with his WW2 injuries).

FWIW. before we find a conspiracy or predict our own doomsday onlee.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Jan 2009 07:05

http://deccanherald.com/Content/Jan2120 ... 113738.asp The tough stand adopted by Union Home Minister P Chidambaram on Bangladeshi immigrants and his plain speaking against Pakistan have unsettled part of the ruling UPA dispensation.

know your enemies. pakistan or UPA. cast your vote.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 21 Jan 2009 11:14

while UPA dithers, other are moving decisively
Mumbai attacks trigger UK response

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 21 Jan 2009 21:22

ramana wrote:JwalaMukhi, I ask you a question in return? What state do the vocal supporters of TSP belong to?

Thanks Ramanaji.
Is Bakistan being groomed to be not just as a pawn that can be used for checkmate in the region to various players, but also being conciously cultivated as "autoimmune disease" in the region. Sort of like, if the concerned handlers are in the danger of loosing/or have lost the great game stakes in future, to prod these attack dogs (baki) to run amok and cause the whole region to become unihabitable. i.e., classic paki mentality, if it can't win, then nobody else should also win.

For instance, "baki the disease" currently acts as the custodian of "NewClear" toy for Islamic world. This toy is single use case. It means the toy can be used by the ummah only once, atleast that is what the facilitators and abetters of this toy have envisaged. If this is what the envisagers have determined, pretty much it would also have been determined "where" it is to be restricted to be used. The handlers want to ensure with iron-clad gurantees the "where" component and much less concerned about "if" component.
All policy from the handlers will flow with "where" component in mind and not about roll back or "if" component. If it was about roll back, there would not have been abettment in the first place.

This clearly points to "Bakistan" being cultivated to be the "democles sword - autoimmune disease" in the region.

How critical is existence of bakistan to global prememinence for the powers. If bakistan and its existence forms the corner stone of being the global power; then it will also be the achilles' heel. One needs to ensure bakistan is unviable in true sense (not just replaced by other states in bakistani mould coming into existence). At some point, India needs to bite the bullet and drown the idea of Bakistan in the arabian sea. Sealing and cutting off of the sea route to that section of landmass is paramount for starters.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 21 Jan 2009 21:41

I continue to maintain that all these theories of grand designs and TSP being "groomed" etc. are not realistic assessments of how policy-making works. They are far too complicated.

It is true that professors think up some obscure theories and convoluted designs, but long before they get to the policy level, they get distilled down to 1-sentence summaries, or 2-word summaries that the political appointee Mantris or Secretaries can remember between cocktail parties and fundraisers. A "Policy Argument" has to survive bullets from hordes of Panels and Committees - and nothing that requires more than 1minute of attention span has any hope.

So the most that the US Pakistan Policy may consist of is something like:

1.

Let's maintain enough access so that our HUMINT doesn't dry up like in the 90s.

2. Then there is the issue of

What should we do today? Look at what we did yesterday and do the same because we don't know any better today than we did yesterday

3. And there is the third:

Senator/ President/ VP XYZ wants this sale to go through, because it means many jobs (meaning campaign funds) in his/her constituency

And then there is a 4th possibility:

4.

Let's do this, though it is crazy and stupid, so we sink this damn political appointee well and good.

I claim that these 4 explain EVERY foreign "policy decision" of the USA.

There is no level of oversight where someone says:

Is this consistent with the Vision of the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights?

because there is really no penalty for doing things that results in the death/dismemberment/rape/ other trauma of foreigners, esp. Third-Worlders. "Their" OWN governments (see GOI if u don't believe) don't care 2 hoots for those, so why should the US?

So, as a General Rule of Conspiracy Theories, if it gets more complicated than a 1-minute PowerPoint presentation, it's imaginary. They just ain't so smart.

If anyone can say they are, from in-depth experience, please say so, because this is vital to analyzing the real roots of several present foreign policy disasters. Seriously..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jan 2009 01:43

X-Posted...

IndraD wrote:Pak warns US, says will review options if Obama not patient

"Pakistan hopes that Obama will be more patient while dealing with Pakistan. We will review all options, if Obama does not adopt a positive policy towards us," Pakistan's ambassador to the US Hussain Huqqani told Geo TV in Islamabad.
In lieu of $1.5 billion of non-military aid to Pakistan, Islamabad would be required to making concerted efforts to prevent al-Qaeda and associated terrorist groups from operating in its territory and make concerted efforts to prevent the Taliban from using its territory as a sanctuary to launch attacks within Afghanistan

One way of looking at the non-response from India is it has reduced it to a two person game (TSP- US) from the three person game (TSP-India-US) that was being staged by TSP and US. This way they have to directly deal with themselves and not collude agaisnt India.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 22 Jan 2009 02:23

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 013483.cms

Candid admission of current state of affairs by Rahul Gandhi...Let's see what comes out of it.

Rahul admits to system failure on 26/11
21 Jan 2009, 0000 hrs IST, TNN

JAIPUR: In a frank remark that could churn a new controversy, Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday voiced what many in Mumbai had felt and said soon after the
terror attack on 26/11 began: That the system had failed.

Even as the nation prepares to honour on Republic Day with Ashok Chakras the fallen police officers in Mumbai who are hailed as heroes, the young Gandhi said, "A hero is only necessary when systems fail.''

At a meeting of top IPS officers from across the country, Rahul referred to sub-inspector Tukaram Ombale who took about half a a dozen bullets during the Mumbai massacre but managed to capture Ajmal Kasab alive.

"In my eyes, Mr Ombale is the hero. We gave him salary and a lathi but probably no training,'' Rahul said. Then elaborating with candour, uncharactersitic of politicians, he added, "We have given him practically nothing. But when he comes face to face with enemies of our country, he grabbed their gun and allowed us to capture one of them. He gets seven bullets in his stomach and he is gone.''

And ending on a poignant note, he said, "Now, after Ombale is dead, his grandson asks: 'Why did they shoot my dada?''

"We found Ombale because of circumstances but there are lots of other heroes, too, who also did a lot of things but we don't know them,'' Rahul added. "My concern is that our heroes should not die for no reason. These people need to be valued,'' he added.

The young Gandhi's comments at the conclave 'Police Performance and Public Perception' could act as a trigger to introduce overdue reforms in the system to better equip the forces against terror attacks.

But Rahul felt that the solution did not lie in just weapons or bullet-proof vests. The real problem, he said, lay in the fact that neither the government nor the citizenry value police. "We have to listen to what they have to say,'' he said.

Rahul also set the stage for ticket distribution in the forthcoming Lok Sabha polls, saying the party should take action against potential rebels who could harm the prospects of Congress right before the ticket distribution process.

He said one of the biggest drawbacks of Congress was that it treated the same way those who work for the party and those who harm its prospects. He was speaking at the first meeting of PCC functionaries, MLAs and MPs after Ashok Gehlot took over as chief minister of Rajasthan.

"We all know that who works for the party, and who does not... the accountability should be fixed or assessed before the commencement of elections, not after that,'' the AICC general secretary said.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Jan 2009 05:09

India Vows Boost of Defenses
By Steve Herman
New Delhi
21 January 2009
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-21-voa15.cfm

The defense and foreign ministers of India are speaking about boosting the country's military capabilities and the need for the international community to crack down on states not doing enough to fight terrorism within their own borders.

Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony (2008 file photo)<br />
Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony (2008 File)
India defense minister, A.K. Antony, is calling for the country's military to be modernized, arguing it is operating at less than 30 per cent of the capability the nation requires.

Antony says this needs to be done as quickly as possible because India is surrounded by "inimical elements."

The defense minister made the remarks Wednesday in the state of Goa during the commissioning of a new coast guard patrol vessel.

Meanwhile here in the capital, New Delhi, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee is calling for action by the international community against countries which sponsor terrorism or allow their soil to be used to carry out such acts. He tied the need for such resolve to the Mumbai terror attack in late November, which India blames on Pakistani elements.

Indian Minister of External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee, 02 Dec 2008
Indian Minister of External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee, 02 Dec 2008
"It is high time for the international community to recognize that such recalcitrant states must be brought to discipline by resorting to various international mechanisms," said Mukherjee.

New Delhi has been increasingly frustrated over what it sees as a lack of concrete movement by Islamabad to neutralize and bring to justice those responsible for the siege of Mumbai, in which more than 170 people died.

The Indian foreign minister also acknowledges disagreement with London over a recent statement by British Foreign Secretary David Milliband. London's top diplomat linked the regional terror problem to the unresolved Kashmir territorial issue between India and Pakistan.

Milliband observed, in a British newspaper article, the Kashmir dispute gives terrorist in the region "one of their main calls to arms."

Indian media have reacted furiously to the comment. The Asian Age newspaper calls it "an appeasement of terrorism" while the Hindu newspaper says the remark plays into the hands of those who justify violent extremism.

India and Pakistan have fought two wars over Kashmir since the violent partition of the subcontinent following the end of British rule in 1947. The banned Pakistani jihadist group India blames for the Mumbai terror attack, Lashkar-e-Taiba, has carried out numerous attacks on Indian soil as part of its quest to oust India from Jammu and Kashmir.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jan 2009 05:19

When the UPA came to power they did their utmost to ensure that defence purchases are not made in all the five years they were in power. Added to that they downgraded the defence personnle using Sith pay commission and launched the Sachar commode commission. An now they have the gall to claim improvements in defence purchases?

If you look at the history of India from the epic age to the advent of the colonials, India's armies were defeated by the political leaders who ensured the armies are divided, under equipped and in small numbers. Every engagement, battle that was lost has its root causes in these three areas. Mrs G was the oly one that did not allow these three causes to hinder her. Even Nehru in 1962 caused the disaster with these three causes.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 22 Jan 2009 05:21

"It is Pakistan's focus on India that has Washington concerned, yet the heightened tensions between Islamabad and Delhi suit both countries. India has to hold general elections before May, and the ruling Congress-led government needs to be seen as doing something about the Mumbai attacks. Pakistan, meanwhile, has an excuse to bail out its highly demoralized troops on the western borders with Afghanistan by moving them to the Indian border. "

Asia Times Online

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Jan 2009 05:26

OK did somebody say IA is not ready for swift and punitive action? RM/DM uvacha is defacto confirmation.
As desh ka neta rightly Rahul G Baba G, pointed out we don't want jawans and officers to die doing duty for the nation. We want them equipped and LEAD by competent leadership.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 22 Jan 2009 06:05

When the UPA came to power they did their utmost to ensure that defence purchases are not made in all the five years they were in power

UPA has bought as much as NDA. If you check the SIPRI records - may be even more. In terms of helping local industries MoD has opened up more in UPA period than NDA. The 'downgrading' of service personnel was a result of the pay commisson not an intentional act, most certainly not an act with ulterior motives as it is made out to be. They shall have a seperate pay commisson henceforth anyway.

If you look at what kept the armed forces divided - the most dangerous was the public spat between Gen.Deepak Kapoor and Lt-Gen. Panag due to the latter not tolerating corruption in the northern command or so it is said.

What needs criticism is ossified rules/bureacracy of MoD/IAS babus denies armed forces quicker access to newer weaponry. Was babudom any better in any age? Was IG any better with propping up Bindranwale?

What is need is institutional reform not allegations of ulterior motives etc.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Jan 2009 06:41

[quote="ramana"][/quote]
Even if UPA has done enough purchase there is something else.
What is needed is the leadership which understands clearly what is the threat to India. This is a regime which does not have leadership and legitimacy. This weakness results in neglect of the military.

The weak rulers look at the military as a threat to itself and it is considered for keeping order.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 Jan 2009 07:36

Employ other options

After British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s jarring visit, India needs to fundamentally change tack in order to make Pakistan verifiably dismantle its military-nurtured terror complex

Brahma Chellaney

Asian Age, January 21, 2009

Ever since the Pakistani-scripted Mumbai terrorist assaults, it was clear that diplomacy alone would not make Pakistan sever its ties with terror groups, especially if it was not backed by forceful pressure. Yet New Delhi chose to fire only empty rhetoric. Now the external affairs minister admits that Pakistan remains “in a state of denial”, while the home minister says Islamabad’s response thus far is: “Zero. What have they provided? Nothing”. Almost eight weeks after the attacks, India’s options are rapidly shrinking, even as a Rand Corporation report warns of more Mumbai-style carnages. But it is still not too late to change tack.

Let’s be clear. First, it is naïve to contend that the only alternative to the present course — waging an almost-daily war of words with Pakistan and urging the international community to fight India’s battle against Pakistani-fomented terrorism — is war. Between these two extremes lie a hundred different political, economic and diplomatic options — none of which New Delhi has exercised. It has, for example, not recalled its high commissioner from Islamabad, or suspended the composite dialogue process, or disbanded the farcical joint anti-terror mechanism, or halted state-assisted cultural and sporting links, or invoked trade sanctions.

Furthermore, despite the Inter-Services Intelligence agency’s direct involvement in the Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul last July and indirect role in the more-recent Mumbai attacks, New Delhi has neither declared nor urged the U.S. to designate the ISI as a terrorist organization. Yet by New Delhi’s own account, that rogue Pakistani agency has a long history of plotting and executing terrorist attacks in India, including the 1993 serial bombings in Mumbai which killed hundreds of people and the 2006 Mumbai train bombings that left more than 200 dead. India’s commercial capital has been repeatedly targeted to undermine the country’s rising economic power.

New Delhi actually has shied away from taking even the smallest of small steps as a symbolic expression of India’s outrage over Pakistan’s role as a staging ground for the Mumbai assaults. Such glaring inaction does not jibe with the prime minister’s thesis that “some Pakistani official agencies must have supported” those attacks. Nor does it square with the popular expectation that the attacks would serve as a tipping point in India’s forbearance with Pakistan’s use of cross-border terrorism as an instrument of state policy.

Second, even in the military realm, India has more than one option against Pakistan. Contrary to the simplistic belief, there isn’t just one military option — waging war. Mounting a military attack is at one end of the spectrum and, obviously, can be the option of only last resort. India ought to look at a military option that falls short of war.

Often in interstate relations, as history testifies, a credible threat to use force can achieve objectives that actual use of force may not help accomplish. But for a threat of force to deliver desired results, it has to be realistic, sustained and ceaseless until the adversary has demonstrably delivered on its promises to conform fully to international norms and rules. Mounting such a threat entails full-scale force mobilization so that the adversary realizes it will face a decisive military onslaught unless it complies with the demands being put. But there can be no credible threat if the adversary believes — as it did during India’s botched Operation Parakram in 2002 — that the threat is not backed by the requisite political will to carry it out.

Furthermore, given that a credible threat of force demands war-like simulation, the strategy brought into play has to replicate war scenarios. As modern history shows, the outcome of any war is crucially shaped by elements other than the sophistication and range of weaponry. The single most-important factor is strategy. War can be won by taking an enemy by surprise, or by punching through a front that the adversary didn’t expect to be the focal point of attack, or other flanking manoeuvres.

There will be little surprise element in the present circumstances, given that an all-out troop mobilization will become known. But the second element — keeping the enemy on tenterhooks as to which front may be chosen for the principal onslaught — can be ensured through offensive military deployments along the entire length of India’s border with Pakistan.

Such a strategy, if sustained and backed by political resolve to go the whole hog if necessary, will put unbearable pressure on Pakistan at a time when that state is in dire straits financially, with its political authority fragmented. Moreover, the snow-blocked Himalayan mountain-passes foreclose the possibility of China opening another front to relieve Indian military pressure on its “all-weather” ally.

Pakistan has never been more vulnerable to coercive pressure than today. The deployment of battle-ready Indian forces along the entire border will force the near-bankrupt Pakistan to follow suit. Such mobilization will cost it millions of dollars daily. It will bleed Pakistan at a time when it is already seeking international credit extending far beyond the $7.6 billion IMF bailout package. Bankrupting Pakistan, in any event, has to be part and parcel of the Indian strategy.

With full force mobilization in place and the armoured corps ready to punch through Pakistani defences at multiple points, India would be well-positioned to ratchet up political, economic and diplomatic pressures on Pakistan and get the U.S. and others to lean on Islamabad. For India to de-escalate, Pakistan would have to verifiably and irreversibly dismantle its military-run terror complex and hand over to India top-ranking terrorist figures. This would be an operation intended to compel Pakistan to come clean, no matter what it takes.

Make no mistake: Non-military pressures will not work because Pakistan is a militarized state, even if a failing one. British Foreign David Miliband’s visit was a jarring reminder to India to stop offshoring its Pakistan policy. Without a credible Indian threat of force, Pakistan, far from dismantling its terrorist infrastructure, will continue to prevaricate over the identity of the 10 Mumbai attackers and not bring to justice all the planners of those strikes. In fact, without the Pakistani military being targeted and cut to size, Pakistan will not cease to be a threat to the world.

More than six decades after its creation, Pakistan has not only failed to emerge as a normal nation, but actually lapsed into a de facto failed state by Westphalian standards, with the line between state and non-state actors blurred and the tail (the military establishment) wagging the dog (the state). It has become what its founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had feared: A truly “moth-eaten” state. It is the world’s Terroristan rolled into an Anarchistan. Keeping such a state intact will pose very serious challenges to regional and international security.

Rather than leave an ungovernable Pakistan and a wild Afghanistan as festering threats to global security, the time has come to think bold about a new political order in the Hindu Kush region. To fix Afghanistan, as outgoing U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said last week, we need to first “solve Pakistan”. To help Pakistan self-destruct, it has become imperative to do what Ronald Reagan did to the Soviet Union — make it broke — while cashing in on its deep internal fault-lines.

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 22 Jan 2009 07:50

Little room for manoeuvre - The fear of a nuclear exchange with Pakistan has limited the government’s ability to confront terrorism

Bharat Karnad

In the period since 26/11, the overly bureaucratized Indian state has reacted characteristically. Not by initiating programmes to enlarge and improve the skill sets of the Special Action Group—the commando element of the National Security Guard—and to equip it with sophisticated wherewithal such as thermal imaging goggles, helmet-mounted communications paraphernalia and super sniper scope rifles with infra-red sights for distant kills to surgically disable the urban guerilla terrorist in the dark and in confined spaces, but by creating new organizations. Instead, it has created new posts, and new establishments. This has added to the layer of bureaucracy, multiplied the potential for failure, and ensured that future crises will end in the usual manner.

The government has been found wanting in other respects as well. It squandered the opportunity of limited but immediate reprisal by swift aerial attack on Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) camps and supply depots in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Such action was eminently doable, would have been perceived as legitimate, met the standard of “proportionality”, reassured the people that New Delhi is on the ball, and signalled to Pakistan that the days of terrorism as a no-cost instrument of state policy are over.

Instead, New Delhi has chosen to talk tough (“all options are open”) but leave it to the US to investigate and put the squeeze on Pakistan. The policy of relying on Washington for decisive action is incredibly naïve, based on the mistaken belief that (1) India now rates higher in the US’s scale of geostrategic utility and political-military value than Pakistan—the proven Cold War pivot of the US Central Asia policy and the prime enabler of the current proactive American strategy in Afghanistan, and (2) general headquarters, Rawalpindi, can be pressured by the withdrawal of trade and touring dance troupes to voluntarily surrender the leverage of asymmetric warfare that is seen to have, if not levelled the strategic playing field, then kept India, the larger, immensely stronger, neighbour, unsettled. Worse, approaching outside powers has legitimized the US’ role as mediator (prepare for Richard Holbrooke’s New Delhi-Islamabad shuttle diplomacy with a bit of arm-twisting of both sides on the cards), adjudicator and balancer and China’s desire to be a seminal player in the subcontinent. One thing aspiring great powers never do is outsource security for any reason and in any way.

One thing aspiring great powers never do is outsource security for any reason and in any manner

It is easy to infer from New Delhi’s tip-toeing around the military option that it fears the situation spiralling out of control and into a nuclear exchange, whence Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s categorical assertion that there would be no war. This reading of the situation that Islamabad encourages ignores the cost of nuclear war for Pakistan. Should nuclear weapons use ever be initiated, the one certainty is that Pakistan cannot survive repeated Indian nuclear strikes. In the event, Islamabad has every incentive to avoid hostilities. It confers an advantage India has been loath to capitalize on. Islamabad has cannily used the overblown threat of nuclear conflagration, which is pumped up by the Western propaganda about “nuclear flashpoint”, to keep New Delhi in the throes of indecision and on the defensive.

Most political leaders and their advisers in the highest reaches of the government having bought into such alarmist nonsense have urged caution, leading the 1999 Kargil conflict onwards to India’s passivity and inaction in the face of even extreme provocation. What has been swallowed whole is US thesis that because India and Pakistan are both nuclear-armed states, Pakistan can safely fuel the insurgency in Kashmir and facilitate terrorism in India because its nuclear arsenal will deter India from retaliating with its superior conventional military forces. But this argument holds only if India does not respond in kind.

Terrorism cannot any longer be permitted to remain a cost-free option for Islamabad. Paying the Pakistani army and its creature, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), back in their own coin is the answer. This will require targeted intelligence operations to destabilize the brittle Pakistani polity. Support for sub-nationalist movements in Baluchistan, Baltistan and Sindh, stoking the anti-Punjab sentiment, and exacerbating the Sunni-Shia rift and, in parallel, for Indian special forces and the military to render live the Line of Control and the international border. In a short time, fissiparous forces will begin to tear that country apart and the sustained low-key military tension with India will sap the energy of the army and convince it that terrorism against India is not worth the consequences to Pakistan.

But here’s the rub. Such a strategy demands that the Indian government show guts, an attribute the ISI, LeT, and Washington know it cannot boast of. On the contrary, as the record shows, in a crisis the first casualty is the political will to take hard decisions. It is a debilitating weakness that inclines the Indian government to always play the victim, bleat incessantly about Pakistan doing this and that, grab at straws of supportive statements emanating from Washington, but otherwise to do nothing. The US, alas, is in a different game, one of doggedly shielding the ISI and the Pakistani army, whose culpability is sought to be minimized by inventing degrees of separation between them and their terrorist sword arm, the LeT.

Bharat Karnad is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research. Comments are welcome at [email protected]

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jan 2009 08:00

We have reams of stuff in the mil forum sonce 2004 which shows how by ineptitude or activiely the UPA has degraded Indian military capability and finds itself in a fix and worse tries to fix the blame now on the military by leaks to selective SLIME. If they are so sure about it why dont they dismiss those responsible for the mess.

but you are welcome to your views.

Nash_M · Post by **Nash_M** » 22 Jan 2009 08:34

I don’t know the facts but I think UPA is no different than NDA in terms of supporting army modernization. The bigger problem is that there is nobody in site; I mean no good leader, who can overcome petty politics and lead the nation.
{Moderator request: you need to choose a more human-sounding username according to BRF rules. If you have a preference, please let us know. I am changing your username to NishantM until then. Thanks, archan.}

arama · Post by **arama** » 22 Jan 2009 09:54

Via Stratfor: The article keeps facts on the table on why India did not act or does not respond the Mumbai attacks but explores possibilities that Afghanistan and the troop deployment may be the option Pranab Mukherjee keeps talking about

Geopolitical Diary: India's Afghanistan Option
January 22, 2009

Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said at a conference in New Delhi on Wednesday that Pakistan is still sponsoring international terrorism and must be disciplined. India has reiterated this message on a near daily basis ever since the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, yet the only disciplinary action it has taken has been limited to mere rhetoric.
There is no question that the Mumbai attacks outraged India’s decision-makers, the vast majority of whom maintain that there are clear and identifiable links between the perpetrators of the attack and the Pakistani military establishment. As far as New Delhi is concerned, the Islamist militant proxies that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency has long supported are still well within the military’s reach, and could be reined in if Islamabad actually had the will to do so.
With the blame cast on Pakistan, in the wake of the attacks, India prepared for military action, ranging from surgical strikes and hot-pursuit operations in Pakistani-administered Kashmir to a full-scale war. Pakistan soon grew nervous and started redeploying its troops from the Afghan border in the west to the eastern border with India. At that point, Pakistan’s best hope was to pressure the United States into holding India back, which it did by reminding Washington of the risk it would incur to its supply lines in Pakistan – which are critical to fighting the war in Afghanistan — if the Pakistanis were faced with the need to confront a military threat from India.
But it wasn’t just U.S. pressure that could restrain India. The Indians knew themselves that they lacked any good options for responding forcefully against Pakistan. Limited strikes in Pakistani-administered Kashmir would be mainly of symbolic value, given that many of the militant assets there had already had time to relocate. And any such strike likely would end up working in Pakistan’s favor; the local population, united by an Indian threat, would have good reason to rally behind the Pakistani military and government.
Any plans India might have had to go beyond a limited war in Kashmir did not have the full support of the military — particularly the army, which lacked confidence in its capabilities and felt that stalemate was a far more likely outcome than victory. Indian policymakers also had to deal with the uncomfortable possibility that the militants who carried out the Mumbai attacks likely had the intent of pulling India into a military confrontation with Pakistan. The more Pakistan destabilized, the more room jihadists in the region would have to maneuver. Any large-scale military action by India could be seen as playing into the militants’ hands –- and could intensify the jihadist focus on India for further attacks.
In short, India’s hands were tied post-Mumbai, and as New Delhi spent time debating among bad options and more bad options, the window of opportunity to strike in the wake of the attacks (when international outrage against Pakistan was highest) had soon passed.
But this is not to say that India is left without any options. On the contrary, India is keeping open the option of hot-pursuit strikes in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, and is moving forward with plans for covert operations inside Pakistan to target militant networks. The Indians also are cognizant of the fact that a follow-on attack would require them to take some level of military action. But there is another pressure tactic the Indians are throwing around, one that involves India stretching beyond Pakistan into the war-torn territory of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is essentially the extension of Pakistan’s western buffer against foreign threats. Without a foothold in Kabul, Pakistan runs the risk of being sandwiched between a hostile power to its west and its main rival, India, to the east — a position it remembers well from the Cold War days when the Soviet Union, then allied with India, invaded Afghanistan. As a result, Pakistan has to rely heavily on its Pashtun ties to Afghanistan to secure its western frontier.
India knows what makes the Pakistanis jumpy, and has spent recent years steadily upping its involvement in reconstruction work in Afghanistan to make good with Kabul, which currently has a very shaky relationship with the Pakistanis over the insurgency plaguing the country. So far, India has not ventured beyond its $86 million reconstruction commitment to Afghanistan, but has been throwing around the rather contentious idea of sending troops to the country to help with fighting the insurgency.
This would be a gigantic step for India to take, and one that would make the Pakistanis jump through the roof. India is extremely wary of deploying forces beyond its border. (It learned the pains of counterinsurgency the hard way when it got pulled into a bloody war of attrition with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the late 1980s.) New Delhi prefers to keep to itself in most foreign policy matters, particularly when it comes to fighting other nations’ wars. But sources in Indian defense circles say there are serious discussions going on among the political and military leadership over the Afghan option. Even Indian army chief Gen. Deepak Kapoor publicly raised the possibility Jan. 14 when he said in a conference, “Changing our strategic policy towards Kabul in terms of raising military stakes is one of the factors that is to be determined politically.”
Kapoor was being careful in wording his statement, essentially saying it is up to the politicians to give the military orders to deploy. But he was also deliberate in his message to Pakistan: If Islamabad continues to push India through its array of Islamist militant proxies, India could end up making a strategic decision to break through a few foreign policy barriers and shoulder some of the security burden on Pakistan’s western frontier. At a time when U.S. tolerance for Pakistan is wearing dangerously thin, and when the United States and India are exploring deeper, long-term and more strategic ties, this type of adversarial encirclement is a threat that potentially could shake Pakistan to its core.
That is, if India actually follows through. As mentioned earlier, this would require a major leap in Indian foreign policy — not to mention arrangements to coordinate and integrate Indian military efforts in Afghanistan with U.S. and NATO operations. And there is currently no indication that the discussions are anywhere near an implementation stage.
Also, the United States would probably prefer that India keep things as they are for now. An Indian military presence in Afghanistan would make a juicy target for jihadists in the region, and it would give Pakistan all the more incentive to redirect and intensify the insurgency in Afghanistan, putting both the United States and India in an even stickier situation.
However, the threat of sending Indian troops to Afghanistan does a decent job in keeping Pakistan off balance. And, at least for the moment, that is what New Delhi and Washington want to intimidate Pakistan into giving up its militant proxy activities. Time will only tell if the Indians actually put the Afghan option into practice, but the Pakistanis are certainly keeping watch.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jan 2009 10:07

nashm wrote:
ramana wrote:We have reams of stuff in the mil forum sonce 2004 which shows how by ineptitude or activiely the UPA has degraded Indian military capability and finds itself in a fix and worse tries to fix the blame now on the military by leaks to selective SLIME. If they are so sure about it why dont they dismiss those responsible for the mess.

but you are welcome to your views.

I don’t know the facts but I think UPA is no different than NDA in terms of supporting army modernization. The bigger problem is that there is nobody in site; I mean no good leader, who can overcome petty politics and lead the nation.

If you don't know the facts shouldn't you try to find them before writing stuff? as soon as they came to power UPA stopped many modernization procurements claiming potential corruption and haven't done anything else. They haven't proven the corruption nor bouht the stuff. This way the forces don't get any weapons.

And if one can't differentiate which and who has done what for national security one can be like the guys on youtube singing obama obama in hindi as if they are residents of US.

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 22 Jan 2009 10:14

I am wondering if relatives of Mumbai victims in the USA can file lawsuit against the Pakistani government for compensation. Even the USA acknowledged that some elements of the government was involved. Can't they file lawsuit claiming the government negligence that allowed such elements to flourish? Just asking.
Avram

Nash_M · Post by **Nash_M** » 22 Jan 2009 10:42

ramana wrote:
nashm wrote:

No doubt you have more knowledge than me in this area but my opinion was based upon my knowledge from different forums and news papers. I haven't seen anything great happening to Army during NDA or UPA govt. It is going through the same pace as it was 6-7 or 10 years ago . I also think that BJP would start screaming if UPA is responsible for all this... I haven't seen anything of that sort either...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jan 2009 10:49

You yourself said you don't know and now you know.

Excellent.

Nash_M · Post by **Nash_M** » 22 Jan 2009 11:13

Exactly my point

I don't know the facts what actually happened and who is responsible.
I know nothing significant great happened in last 10 years... so in my opinion both govt. turned a blind eye to army needs.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 22 Jan 2009 11:15

Time and again it is easy to fall into a trap of either justifying or condoning the failures of a dispensation A by comparing it to dispensation of B. Unfortunately, relative measure could be OK in some realms, but absolute measure of any dispensation on its own is a very important measure in defence preparedness.
Let us say dispensation previously was utter failure, that does not mean that the current dispensation can emulate that.
Else, one could do the Ex-Home minister Mr. Shivraj patil's idea of saying that during certain dispensation more number of people were killed due to terrorist attacks than the dispensation for which he was directly responsible, as proof that; his effectiveness or lack of it is no different.
Sorry relative measure is ok probably in political arena, but in national interest issues absolute measure is itself very mportant. Especially, all the more so when the time arrow is in positive direction.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 22 Jan 2009 12:11

Pranay wrote: Candid admission of current state of affairs by Rahul Gandhi...Let's see what comes out of it.
At a meeting of top IPS officers from across the country, Rahul referred

And why is RG addressing a meeting of top IPS officers? Is he heading the police force or does he have extensive policing experience?

RaviS · Post by **RaviS** » 22 Jan 2009 12:20

nashm wrote:
ramana wrote:We have reams of stuff in the mil forum sonce 2004 which shows how by ineptitude or activiely the UPA has degraded Indian military capability and finds itself in a fix and worse tries to fix the blame now on the military by leaks to selective SLIME. If they are so sure about it why dont they dismiss those responsible for the mess.

but you are welcome to your views.

I don’t know the facts but I think UPA is no different than NDA in terms of supporting army modernization. The bigger problem is that there is nobody in site; I mean no good leader, who can overcome petty politics and lead the nation.

nashm
Here are a link and some excerpt for your information.

http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiato ... fence.html

The good news is that the UPA Government has come out with a new defence procurement procedure which, Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee promises, will end all corruption, delays and ensure greater transparency in defence deals. The bad news is that the Government has virtually frozen all defence acquisitions for over a year now, scattering deadlines by several years. Deals on the verge of closure have not been signed as the bureaucracy, paralysed by fear of the Central Vigilance Commission and the UPA's witchhunts against the previous NDA government, goes slow on signing fresh deals. The CBI has filed an fir against South African arms firm Denel and is investigating 37 deals signed by the previous government.

Despite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assurance that "we have to make every effort to ensure that these recent events do not create a disincentive for taking timely decisions regarding armaments", that is exactly what has happened. Stuck in the pipeline are deals for buying over six hundred 155 mm howitzers, Smerch long-range rocket systems and Heron Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for the army. The navy, which will retire over 50 per cent of its current strength of 15 submarines in a decade, is gnashing its teeth over the ministry's rethink on buying Scorpene submarines from France. Each of these deals has been painstakingly negotiated over the past decade.

Since the UPA came to power in May last year, only three deals finalised during the NDA's tenure have been cleared-the upgrade of the navy's fleet of 14 Sea Harrier aircraft, the purchase of Derby beyond-visual-range missiles and extended range Grad rockets for the army.

Nash_M · Post by **Nash_M** » 22 Jan 2009 12:34

raviscorp wrote:
nashm wrote:

This is a shame. If this is true then we have no option but to throw these guys out. I was not justifying one gov over another I merely pointed out the fact that there was no real progress for a long time due to lack of political will in both parties... We need a leader who is strategic thinker and take bold decisions beyond party’s will... I read in this forum that when PC brought up the issue of illegal Bangladeshi, some people from his own party worried about their vote bank... common guys think about country at least once...

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 22 Jan 2009 12:37

When internal security systems are rotting , modernized military is just equal to papering over the cracks.

Police patrolling is horribly inadequate , even in the national capital - leave alone the rest of the country , investigating agencies are just puppets and more reactive than proactive (lets see what NIA can do) , we abate terror in the name of secularism and fake liberal media and so called intellectuals.

Aldo I don't understand the constant blaming of UPA for the apathy of the military - UPA and NDA bring only top leadership to the country and both have been equally competent or pathetic (whichever line you may choose) , it can only do so much till the MoS level , below that comes the famed bureaucracy , babus , file passers and below that are the heads of the armed forces who are in desperate need of equipment. The middlemen with the permanent jobs are the problem , not always the top leadership.

Also , if we talk of confronting TSP on the military front - we have lofty plans for the future but the here and the now is miserable , when we taken them on we are not sure if objectives will be met.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 22 Jan 2009 12:45

Nihat wrote: Aldo I don't understand the constant blaming of UPA for the apathy of the military - UPA and NDA bring only top leadership to the country and both have been equally competent or pathetic (whichever line you may choose) , it can only do so much till the MoS level , below that comes the famed bureaucracy , babus , file passers and below that are the heads of the armed forces who are in desperate need of equipment.

Yes the babus inertia is there. But George Fernandes of NDA made them move their asses by sending the same babus up the slopes to Siachen & things started moving.

UPA has to be blamed for neither doing anything, nor getting anything done.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jan 2009 16:47

The NDA fought the Kargil war.They were caught napping,as the UPA has with 26/11,but kicked the Pakis off the mountain tops and Sharif had to beat a hasty demeaning retreat to save Pak from further disaster thanks to Musharrat's folly.The Scorpene subs were ordered,Chidambaram put a financial brake on the order,delaying the project further and the UPA has done bugger all about the second line of subs which was to have also been decided upon after signing the Scorpene deal.It has also done precious little about monitoring the delays and supporting the LCA and Arjun projects too,until the Sino-Pak j-17 bird started flying and was inducted into the PAF.The 70% shortages in the Coast Guard,sub crisis in the IN and the failure to order artillerry for the IA,which a decade after Kargil has to fight with the same Bofors guns-hugely depleted in number,botched up the order for light helos,after cravenly heeding Uncle Sam's protests at losing the contract,one could go on and on,but in my opinion,the UPA fondly imagined that by staying at the heels of Marshal Bush poodle like,fear of Marshal Bush and his rangers would keep the ungodly from attacking India.Some hope,some disaster!

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 22 Jan 2009 16:49

I will agree when we say the UPA admin is incompetent, slow and stupid. That is entirely different from alleging that UPA actively degraded military capablities. It is entirely different from saying UPA did their utmost to stop defence deals etc.

rahulranjan · Post by **rahulranjan** » 22 Jan 2009 17:46

[quote="Anabhaya"THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE ENTIRE POST FROM JUST ABOVE[/quote]

Wether you call them intentional sets of actions from our politcial leadership or result of their actions, its one and the same. Govt's indecisions and inactions resulted in degraded military capablities of the nation. Also their indecisions stopped defence deals. UPA is completely responsible for the final results and have qualified for a punishment.

sum · Post by **sum** » 22 Jan 2009 22:20

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/missi ... cisf-cover/413773/

Mission in Pak among first to seek CISF cover

New Delhi: In view of the heightened security threat to Indian installations in Pakistan, especially in the wake of the Mumbai Terror attacks, the Indian High Commission in Islamabad has sought deployment of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to guard its premises.

Sources said the High Commission in Islamabad is among the first Indian missions abroad to seek CISF cover — the request coming within days of the Government promulgating an ordinance to amend the CISF Act, enabling its personnel to be deployed abroad at Indian missions and on UN peacekeeping duties. The security of the Islamabad mission is currently the sole responsibility of the host government.

As of now, the embassy in Kathmandu is the only Indian mission to have CISF security, granted to it more than five years ago. More than 100 CISF personnel are deployed there. In addition, the embassy in Kabul is guarded by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police. Sources said a proposal to replace the ITBP in Kabul with CISF is also under consideration.

It was the attack last July on the Indian embassy in Kabul that prompted the government to think on ways to strengthen the security at missions abroad. Accordingly, the government moved a CISF amendment Bill in the last session of Parliament. Since the Bill could not be passed for want of time, the government promulgated an ordinance on January 12 to make necessary changes in law.

A 100 CISF men guarding the Nepal embassy?

I thought it was a "peacetime" location.

Ant the Pakistani embassy depends on Pakis for security?

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 22 Jan 2009 22:26

With a lot of politicians wanting to fan anti-India rhetoric it is good we have CISF in enough numbers. 100 - now do 8 * 3 shifts plus admin and logistics. The number is not big by any means.

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 22 Jan 2009 22:29

Magazine endorses Antulay’s stance on Karkare
The New Delhi-based Radiance weekly said in its editorial “Antulay is right: Investigate Karkare’s murder” that “most of the TV channels played on sentiments and are not concerned with truth.”

Pointing out gaps in media reports on the Mumbai attacks, the magazine expresses doubts about official claims and leads “readers to the toned-down or ignored facts supporting the minister that the whole tragic drama was nothing more than a planned political stunt to kill two birds with one stone.”

and

The magazine says: “Mr Karkare, for the first time, unmasked the faces of Hindutva terrorists behind Malegaon blasts. His investigations were providing leads to unravel mysteries behind other blasts in Nanded, Parbhani, Kanpur and even in Samjhauta Express. Just one day before Mumbai attack, the name of VHP rabble rouser, Pravin Togadia, appeared on the radar of Karkare.”

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 23 Jan 2009 00:19

This makes one wonder are paki's nailing the last nail in their own coffin's ? Its good ! Mr.Obama get irritated and fed up very soon !!
--------------------------------------
Pak bonds with China, says doesn't need US

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 23 Jan 2009 00:21

[quote=Magazine endorses Antulay’s stance on Karkare
.”[/quote]

This is just a Bull S**t !

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 23 Jan 2009 01:09

ramana wrote:We have reams of stuff in the mil forum sonce 2004 which shows how by ineptitude or activiely the UPA has degraded Indian military capability and finds itself in a fix and worse tries to fix the blame now on the military by leaks to selective SLIME. If they are so sure about it why dont they dismiss those responsible for the mess.

but you are welcome to your views.

Ramanaji
I agree, how is this administration of Paki Born Indian Prime Minister going to take any action. He can't even overwrite the objections of lowly clerk, who got his job by paying lakh rupiya, does not have any understanding of national security of economics. Is it any surprise that he is derided in every corner of India. He is the person who will say, "Pakistan is a victim of Terror" whilst doesn't even know what Mushy was implying. It was under congress rule that SIFY had the audacity to committ fraud, Andhra CM who may deny all his involvement with Raju now, previously he was hand in glove with him. India's growth have actually gone down under this lamest of the man in this nation. The fiasco of pay commission is all well too known to everyone. This Lame Loser believes IAS scumbags are the SME on national security, military should be reduced to the level of pandu. He can't even control his colleagues in cabinet meetings, Arjun Singh runs all over him. The laundry list is so long and deep, it may make blood boil.

archan · Post by **archan** » 23 Jan 2009 01:10

nashm: you need to choose a more human-sounding username according to BRF rules. If you have a preference, please let us know. I am changing your username to NishantM until then.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 23 Jan 2009 01:12

Prabu wrote:
[url=http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/22/top7.htm wrote:Magazine endorses Antulay’s stance on Karkare[/url]
.”
This is just a Bull S**t !

Prabu, why are you so surprised. This is India my friend, remember the ethos that are taught to us, "Divided we Stand, United we Fall" or as succintly said by Russell Peters, "We are Indians, we hate eachother, we don't have time to hate anyone else". BTW Russell peters is a canadian comedian of Indian Descent. Google him up or look for him on youtube.