Bharat Rakshak

surinder wrote:I am reading Steve Coll's Ghost wars. Interesting tidbits about TSP. What do people here think of that book?
It says that in 1971, KSA provided air defence for Karachi.
Interesting that we support them against the Israelis. Pathetic actually.

surinder, I haven't read the Ghost Wars yet. But, his other book, as 'Gus' said, on the bin Laden family was excellent.

As for KSA, there were many other countries that helped Pakistan in 1965 & 1971 like Indonesia, the UAE, Jordan et al. Why, the US is the single important reason for Pakistan's wars and terrorism against us and the British created Pakistan. Today, we have cordial relationship with all of them. Contexts change. The Saudis have made uncharitable comments about us in the OIC but after the mid-90s, their approach towards India has changed. The art of diplomacy is to convert as many to our PoV as possible, I suppose. India's robust growth helped in no uncertain terms either, and that is true with KSA.

I think Steve Coll got a Pulitzer for his 'Ghost Wars'. It is a good book. However, like other books written by Americans, it is silent on Paki terrorism in India.

nice tu-tu-main-main going on. Meanwhile Zardari claims he is doing the art of impossible

"We want to make history, not headlines. I tell you politics - which we have left to our prime minister and the cabinet - is the art of the possible. But making a nation is the art of the impossible and I believe I am doing the art of the impossible,"

I also note from other puki reports that Zardari warning Supreme Court to honor constitution...I mean how much more funny it can get...

[*]Constitutional Civilian head seek outside help to bring pressure on jernails
[*]Jernails file case against Civilian head rather than just doing the routine coup which they have so perfected
[*]each of the two As in AAA (Allah, Army and America) are apparently at logger heads
[*]President is reminding Supreme Court of its primary responsibility to honor constitution
[*]puki people (journos) who are supposed to write about stuff are getting killed like flies for ....well..writing stuff.

This is a reality show folks...at a grand scale. Bollywood has serious competition and it doesn't even know about it.

SSridhar wrote:The Saudis have made uncharitable comments about us in the OIC but after the mid-90s, their approach towards India has changed. The art of diplomacy is to convert as many to our PoV as possible, I suppose. India's robust growth helped in no uncertain terms either, and that is true with KSA.

Official KSA position has changed quite a bit. IIRC, they refused to comment on Indian muslim issues on the behest of Pakistan saying India has more muslims than us. They may still be funding or turn a blind eye to funding of madrassas that spread ideology that we don't like.

abhishek_sharma wrote:I think Steve Coll got a Pulitzer for his 'Ghost Wars'. It is a good book. However, like other books written by Americans, it is silent on Paki terrorism in India.

The books primary audience was Americans and NATO type countries. So, it was no surprise of the silence that you speak of. Indian blood is still cheap..even to Indians. At least Steve Coll is not an apologist to US policies in Pak and he was quite critical of many things that we are critical about.

A_Gupta wrote:RajeshA, we have a good example of what you're advocating - Israel and its enemies, blow for blow. So that is understandable. India following such a policy with Pakistan will certainly achieve something. What is not clear is what exactly that is? And, can just a majority of BRF endorse this policy?

A_Gupta ji,

there is a whole list of what our aims in Pakistan could be:

1. Diplomatically isolate Pakistan from the world community
2. Downgrade Pakistan's economy
3. Downgrade Pakistan's military capacity
4. Destroy the terrorist networks in Pakistan
5. Give the Pakis a big psychological humiliation
6. Keep Pakis off-balance so that they cannot attack India
7. Keep Pakistanis distracted with other external security challenges
8. Create terror and chaos in Pakistan
9. Make Pakis afraid of attacking India
10. Break up Pakistan
11. Takeover some parts of Pakistan to build a land route to Central Asia
12. Denuclearize Pakistan
13. Make Pakistan dependent on India (for money, for water, for outside access, for energy, etc.)
14. Make Pakistan India's whore and rent-boy
15. Re-convert Pakis to Dharma

No single strategy against Pakistan would give India all we desire. We will have to use a multitude of strategies, to achieve our goals. Even for a single goal we may have to use a combination of strategies.

The question on what should be India's goal and finding consensus on that is based on a false premise, that we need to pursue a single goal at any one time. All these goals need to be pursued in parallel using multiple strategies coordinating them so that they have a multiplier effect and are not in conflict.

The goal of Eliminating or Exhausting the Puki non-uniformed security forces against War on Terror and/or by exploiting internal fault-lines is quite alright.

We just need to get-on with the program and remove roadblocks that exist now.

- Paki Army initially protected Bin Laden and later sold out; Just as Civvies knew about the Bin Laden attack plans, Civvies should use their loud microphones to let public know that Jernails also knew about the plan and have approved - even if it is a lie, don't they know all is fine and dandy in a good cause.

- Drones shuru karo and publicize that drones are now with "approval" from Puki army

>>despite what's being portrayed by panting and creaming female anchors of the burqha brigade.

Of a certain age... The current generation doesn't give a crap...

>>MMS "abject surrender" ...

What has MMS actually surrendered?

re "clarity on goals" ...

It is highly unlikely that GoI will ever articulate goals apart from generics (peace and love to all, boost mutual trade to $X billion, etc). I venture to suggest that this will be the case even when we are the main power on the planet, or in the top two, or the top three. There will be never any official statement reminiscent of us being an "indispensable" power or "Indian exceptionalism" or anything like that...

re "covert action"

Unless we screw up, that will never be heard of either, except possibly in dribs and drabs now and then, and people will be trying to string together reports to put up a picture (this will be like the blind men of Hindoostan situation). Even now does anyone know what exactly we did with Mukti Bahini or the LTTE apart from the bits and pieces we pick up now and then?

I had an interesting conversation recently with someone from our side who has spent quite a bit of time in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and East Timor. We are doing nothing in Balochistan or the Cyber Pakhtuntwat apart from encouraging economic development and supporting the principle of democracy. Zero. We are also by and large bending over for China. Really. And even if we were doing something "we can't really discuss it can we ha ha ha"... And that was that.

So we have to learn to live with a GoI which really does not care to satisfy our jingoistic yearnings. Better that way.

JE Menon wrote:>>MMS "abject surrender" ...

What has MMS actually surrendered?

The word "surrender" is being pushed down our throats by a certain member. I have serious objections to this entire line of thinking. Truth or Fiction, but if it is repeated often enough it becomes a scripture.

JE Menon wrote:>>MMS "abject surrender" ...

What has MMS actually surrendered?

26/11 and starting talks with TSP on Kashmir. Just as the US sheriff ordered and TSP demanded, and RNIs wanted.

Satya_anveshi wrote: - Paki Army initially protected Bin Laden and later sold out; Just as Civvies knew about the Bin Laden attack plans, Civvies should use their loud microphones to let public know that Jernails also knew about the plan and have approved - even if it is a lie, don't they know all is fine and dandy in a good cause.

all such civvies will be sunroofed by a vaccum blast.

The only people who can go against Jernails publicly to certain extent are the mullahs but why will they even think of joining with civvies when the army's gravy trian is what feeds them.

>>26/11 and starting talks with TSP on Kashmir.

What exactly have we surrendered here?

>>Just as the US sheriff ordered and TSP demanded,

What has "US Sheriff ordered"? TSP has demanded many things...what have they got?

>>and RNIs wanted.

Pls clarify... are you referring to Nayyar, Barkha and so on? What have they got? Please don't tell me talks and Sharm Al Shaikh and so on... We are waiting for the Paks to ask us to discuss Balochistan with them.

JE Menon wrote:So we have to learn to live with a GoI which really does not care to satisfy our jingoistic yearnings. Better that way.

JE Menon saar,

I know people approach their involvement with BRF with diverse expectations. IMO, one reason we are here, is not just to analyze what GoI's current policy is, some of which we know and some not. Our effort also flows into molding public opinion, including the opinion of influential people. It is about presenting alternate scenarios and different ways how to approach issues.

So of course we have to face GoI's way of doing things, but it does not mean we should stop trying to influence it through public opinion building.

Altair wrote: The word "surrender" is being pushed down our throats by a certain member. I have serious objections to this entire line of thinking. Truth or Fiction, but if it is repeated often enough it becomes a scripture.

Give me a break. There are any number of members who are not spinning the truth, and what MMS did by resuming composite dialogue with TSP despite 26/11, and their mockery of India thereafter (mocking evidence is literature etc). If thats not a surrender, I don't know what is.

TSP has always said: come to the negotiating table and discuss Kashmir, and terrorism will come down. Isn't that what we are seeing?

Now, some like DocJi and GuptaJi argue that there is a wise Chankyan strategy behind this, unlike 1971, there is no clear goal in taking on TSP, they even suggest that this is same or even better than superpower USA's appeasement of TSP. I find that its a bogus argument, the art of spinning at its vintage best. But I also respect their view in that like me, they are also frustrated at India's travails, and are seeking some way to explain India's inactiion despite the humiliation and lives lost and cost TSP/USA/China have imposed on India.

Some say, MMS had no chance given that USA came down hard on India and USA's support to TSP meant any military action is ruled out. Plus the nuke factor. I find some resonance with this viewpoint.

But I take the view that it is a surrender plain and simple, and I hope Indian public realizes this and MMS pays at the ballot box next time around. Between all out war and current surrender, there are any number of measures he could have adopted. TSP has gotten away with murder. Furthermore, by drawing an equivalence between non-existent so called "Hindu terrorism", MMS has even revealed his true colors to me, where his heart is, and how seriously he takes TSP terrorism. In short, he truly believes that it is his manifest destiny that he must take TSP along, and if that means excusing TSP of its crimes against India, so be it. In short, he believes in "South Asia", not India, in synch with the prevailing colonial worldview as scripted in Washington, and endorsed by London, Paris, and Bonn.

CRamS wrote:

MMS has even revealed his true colors to me, where his heart is, and how seriously he takes TSP terrorism

Wow, when did MMS chat with you?

TSP has always said: come to the negotiating table and discuss Kashmir, and terrorism will come down. Isn't that what we are seeing?

Yes, terrorism has come down. But what did MMS tell you he gave away? Besides the chai and biskoots?

But I take the view that it is a surrender plain and simple,

Sure. This is a forum where one must air and have the right to one's views.

Hohum, now for a tot of rum

RajeshA

>>but it does not mean we should stop trying to influence it through public opinion building.

Of course it should not mean that. On the contrary, that is one of the reasons why BR(F) exists. Not at all suggesting it should. However, lack of influence or inability to influence should not be construed as being because of incompetence, cowardice, etc. on the part of GoI (not saying you are interpreting it as such). Persistent breast-beating will have zero impact on GoI, apart from some amusement in circles which may care to read posts now and then, but it will certainly have an impact on BRF.

JE Menon wrote:re "clarity on goals" ...

Even now does anyone know what exactly we did with Mukti Bahini or the LTTE apart from the bits and pieces we pick up now and then?

No, but it can be found out. And not just bits and pieces.

^^I'm just going by the reality of the information available to the general public since then. It is possible to find out, I suppose. There are two possibilities: someone serving or formerly in GoI knowingly or unknowingly leaks the full story - unofficially; or GoI itself releases the information. Both seem highly unlikely at this juncture. And if that is the case for the 71 and Sri Lanka situation, consider what the prospects are for getting any information on operations that may or may not have been going on, let's say, over the past 20 yrs ...

Of course, GoI may have been doing nothing (i.e. zero) with regard to Pakistan after Gujral supposedly shut down our covert capability. Everyone can have their personal views on this, no doubt. I personally don't think that is the case.

Given the state of relations between India and Pakistan between 1965 and 1971 and the fact that any armed insurgency in East Pakistan before the 1970 elections would have been widely publicised, I believe that India's "support" to the East Pakistan independence movement was merely a gleam in the eye before March 26, 1971.

In the reams of history written about the 1971 war by numerous nations, not a single reference that I have seen speaks of Indian support before 1971. If anyone has actually read something and point out the source it would help.

Everything that happened between India and Pakistan militarily was between March 1971 and December 1971.

Will try and post some info that I have.

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote:Many Indians are perfectionists. Their conditions for going to war, or to assassinate some terrorist, etc. should meet all the conditions. There should be no international fallout. There should be no "failure" - in fact nothing that can be construed as failure by some journo anywhere in the world. There should be threat of nuclear war. It should be a clear war. India should not be seen as anti-Islamic. There must be a final solution to the Pakistan problem. We need to have full control over the fallout from war, etc. etc..

We have in fact pushed ourselves into a corner through these preconditions. But all these preconditions are simply to set the bar very high, so high that we and reality never can reach there.

Rajesh you are wrong. You just have not read about military planning, good and bad. There is plenty of material, but your interests and reading are clearly different. There is no other way to plan war.

shiv saar,

what you speak of is tactical planning for war. What I speak of is specifying the mission aims for the war within a political context.

shiv wrote:It is easy to talk war and retaliation when you ignore the fact that you are sending some men to their deaths. How many men you keep sending and for how long and to what end becomes a political problem. So this rhetoric about "perfectionist" and "self defeating" is just that - rhetoric to post a contrarian argument and one ignorant of military planning at that.

That is not to say that leaders have not thought the way you think. But they lose wars. the US has lost many wars in this way but has glossed over them. Vietnam, was a great example. Afghanistan is one more. But let me just point you to a quote from a book that I posted in the mil forum in another context.

That is ingenious.

We Indians don't really allow the Indian Army to make political statements or threaten adversaries or anything of the sort. We consider that as the Indian Military going beyond its brief. That is considered the sole preserve of the political leadership.

On the other hand when civilians start speaking of war and peace, the critique is made that we don't appreciate the severity of war and we should not talk about it 'light-heartedly'!

Thus the discussion is throttled from both sides!

We are NOT talking about military planning. We are talking about formulating the right response to the threats we face and encouraging the political leadership to make the resources available to the military to meet those aims.

When I speak of "perfectionism", I speak of political leadership not willing to accept the political fallout resulting from any Indian muscular intervention in Pakistan. You however understand this as my criticism of "detailed military planning". Two different things.

The issue is that the "perfectionists" are looking for a magic bullet strategy to deal with Pakistan. There is no such thing. Whatever strategy we use, there would be some fallout. We may not succeed in killing the beast completely. We may not achieve everything we set out to do. Such an outcome is interpreted as abject failure. This is the wrong attitude, in my view. Perhaps our first bullet will only injure the beast or may just provoke it, but it would change the status quo. If we are good at planning, we may make full use of the new circumstances and use another bullet.

I think the expectation of full control over the situation is "perfectionism". In no war, can one have complete control over its progression. That is the nature of war. One has to be nimble and improvise.

It is the uncertainty and variability surrounding war that paralyzes the intellectual, who believes that he needs to sort out all equations first before jumping in. That doesn't work, because after the first minutes of the battle, the situation changes and new variables pop up anyway.

However the focus is not on the military campaign here. The focus is on the political aims of a conflict, and IMO as the political costs would rise, our political leadership would just have to buckle up and face them as they arise - be it in international diplomacy, be it due to resources, be it due to internal vote-bank considerations, etc.

self deleted

RajeshA wrote: I think the expectation of full control over the situation is "perfectionism". In no war, can one have complete control over its progression. That is the nature of war. One has to be nimble and improvise.

"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." - Sun Tzu

Pranav wrote:

RajeshA wrote: I think the expectation of full control over the situation is "perfectionism". In no war, can one have complete control over its progression. That is the nature of war. One has to be nimble and improvise.

"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." - Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu spoke from the PoV of a party, which has the option of war or no war; of a party, which is not under siege or being attacked; of a party, which is not seeing its adversary become more and more deadlier by the day!

Pakistan is already conducting a war against India, the war of thousand cuts. Pakistan is already besieging India with terrorism. Pakistan is producing nukes more quickly than anybody else, its demography is bulging at the seams, and Salafism is spreading. The more advanced we become, the more we have to lose at the hands of the Paki nukes.

So wisecracks are good, Sun Tzu is better, but all in context.

RajeshA wrote: The question on what should be India's goal and finding consensus on that is based on a false premise, that we need to pursue a single goal at any one time. All these goals need to be pursued in parallel using multiple strategies coordinating them so that they have a multiplier effect and are not in conflict.

Who said that we need to pursue a single goal at any one time?
The way planning works is, first there is a vision of where we want to go. Then typically N goals are proposed that are consonant with that vision. Each goal gets examined - what is the desired outcome, how will we know we've succeeded? what are the costs, risks, feasibility? What are the benefits? When each goal is understood, then the synergies and conflicts between different goals is understood, and finally a package is put together using all the information developed.

Let me give an example, you may disagree with the particulars, but I want to point out the pattern of thought that recurs here.

So, e.g., "break up Pakistan" would examine the possibilities of a secessionist movement in Sind, Baluchistan, among the Pakhtoons, and Balawaristan; and also the capture of territory by the Indian Army. Probably Baluchistan has the best chance, but even there it is unrealistic given how tiny the population is. Even an all-out insurgency there will not succeed in breaking up Pakistan. I think realistically, considering all factors, this "break up Pakistan" is a wet dream; just like the Pakistanis dream that the Maoist movement will break up India.

Thus, until there is a significant change in circumstances, this one should be put aside.

a. Like the good strategic thinkers we are not, however, we keep harping on it. Because we do not do the analysis, and instead are lead by wishful thinking.

b. The wishful thinking keeps us from looking at more realistic, less grandiose goals.

c. Lack of any signs of action towards these wishful goals leads people to think the GoI is lacking in initiative.

And that is the BRF circle of life.

A_Gupta wrote:a. Like the good strategic thinkers we are not, however, we keep harping on it. Because we do not do the analysis, and instead are lead by wishful thinking.

b. The wishful thinking keeps us from looking at more realistic, less grandiose goals.

c. Lack of any signs of action towards these wishful goals leads people to think the GoI is lacking in initiative.

And that is the BRF circle of life.

There can be goals which are not grandiose! One can start with small goals!

Me thinks, some people have made piskoanalyzing Indians their methodology. If one succeeds in pointing at the cause of frustration of Indians, does that in any way solve our problem. If a child is frustrated that he did not win the race competition, your prescription to the child would be: "Don't participate next time! Then there will also be no frustration!". To an ostrich one may say, "Your fear is because you keep on looking here and there! If you don't look and put your head in the sand, then your fears would also go away!"

Some come to BRF to vent their frustration. Some come to BRF to make constructive suggestions. Most come here to better understand. All these reasons are justified. But what they don't come here to hear is that their sense of nationalism is the cause of their mental commotion, and they should rather tone it down a bit, as that would help them pass their day less agitated.

They come here because they think, that through BRF they can build public opinion and have the optimism, justified or naive, that public opinion matters in a democracy.

It is a bit condescending to think, that BRF is the psychologist's chair and people are streaming in to be cured by a panel of piskology doctors of their frustrations (read naive optimism).

-----------

The fault is not with analysis of the situation. There may be some ideological subjectivity, but it is clear what Pakistanis think of India, how their Army is hardwired, and what they have been trying. On our end too there is clarity that GoI has adopted a 'non-belligerent' stance and would rather kick the can into the future rather than pack the Pakistani problem at the horns. This is not to say, that our security forces have lowered their guard. But the political leadership does not intend to take any transformational initiative wrt Pakistan.

Anything that contributes to our knowledge of Pakistan is positive. Anything that contributes to our understanding of GoI is also appreciated, even if it is disappointing at times. But turning piskology on ourselves, and stamping "cowardice" on our piskological profiles is a shear waste of time!

I think the expectations of BRFites upon GoI are much more realistic than what some give them credit for.

^^^OMG. RajeshA saar. Tour-de-force only. But just you wait, 'em piskos will be back. Soon very soon. And they'll try to cure you of these jingoistic delusions for free, whether you want it or not. LOL.

Either this thread should be renamed Indo-Pak thread or we should give up all pretense of trying to separate India and Pak or start a new thread discussing India and Pak. If we cannot discuss Pakistan without dragging India everytime there's no point telling others not to do an equal-equal.

If someone were to google for India or Pak and come upon this thread their beliefs about "India-Pak" will be reinforced.

In some respects, Pak cannot be discussed without India - considering their war of a thousand cuts and support to terrorism but I do remember a time when we did discuss Pak mostly.

I ask the moderators whether it is possible to enforce such a policy?

In general, in recent days, I am beginning to sense the possibility of an alternative future for Pakistan. I am not saying that this will definitely happen, but it's a possibility.

First, please note that there is difference between why Pakistan exists and why Pakistan survives.

Pakistan exists because its identity is "not India". Minus that identity there is no Pakistan. But it also survives. Why does it survive?

Pakistan has survived with an intense anti-India ethos for two reasons
1. It gave Pakis (esp Paki army) a reason to "ally" with the US and get US aid in exchange for fighting US wars.
2. It served as a convenient excuse to keep the army in power

What has happened in recent days is that the Pakistan army finds itself unable to meet the commitment that the US demands from it. This is at least partly because the Pakistani people have become anti-US even before the army became anti-US.

The problem about being anti-US is that it is not good for Pakistan's survival. The US is the primary aid agency and primary supporter. If the US is pissed off, Pakistan's ability to play games with India (required for being separate from India and hating India) will be drastically reduced.

So the Pakistan army and the people of Pakistan are at a sort of "crossroads". They have asked the US to get out.

Of course the US does not want out, but if it the US does go Pakistan will be deep in doodoo without US aid. Pakistan's anti-India stance will lose its greatest supporter. In my view China is not going to step right in and support Pakistan in the way the US has done. I say that because the US's ability to pressure India is vastly superior and vastly more sophisticated than China's ability to do that. Apart from anything else - US equipment will start degrading soon enough requiring continued US support or else. So you can expect Pakistan to start looking at making the relationship with India less risky.

It is possible that we may see a different side of Pakistan - maybe all taqiyya. Only taqiyya and pretend friendship with India and swallowed Paki pride can allow Pakistanis survival if the US goes. Let's see.

Statements coming from all sorts of directions suggest that something is afoot. Of course something may go amiss if there is one more terrorist attack. Need to see what the Paki army is thinking. If the Paki army is involved in new thinking about the US they have to swallow and suppress India hate and keep their LeT on a tight leash. Dekha jayega...

RajeshA wrote: But turning piskology on ourselves, and stamping "cowardice" on our piskological profiles is a shear waste of time!

Are you alleging that MMS is not a coward? Or that his actions do not reek of pusillanimity? Could India be brave but held back by one cowardly PM?

I always believed and this was my family's experience in Karachi during partition, that Pakis are back stabbers.

So, Shiv, when you say something is afoot, we must heighten our vigilance.

see this: (apologies if posted earlier)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... r-war.html

Pakistan and India take steps to prevent accidental nuclear war

Pakistan and India have made tentative steps towards a fresh treaty designed to stop an accident triggering nuclear war between the two atomic rivals.


Analysts believe the warming in relations comes as Pakistan's military looks to shift its focus from the eastern border to the west, where the US has begun withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.


At the end of two days of talks in Islamabad, a spokesman also said Pakistan was ready to move heavy artillery back from the Line of Control, the de facto border between the two countries which runs through Kashmir.

Are you alleging that MMS is not a coward? Or that his actions do not reek of pusillanimity? Could India be brave but held back by one cowardly PM?

In the spirit that has occupied this thread in the recent past, let me suggest an alternative.

MMS is not a coward but duplicitous, i.e. worse than a coward. After all, he was born in Pakistan and must be a closet Pakistani. He wants to weaken India from within, much like Mama Shakuni, another character who hailed from those parts.

</sarcasm>

rajanb Pakis are also ( sorry - I must use the word once again) er - cowards. They will do a downhill ski and backtrack on anything. I suspect we are going to see some serious downhill skiing wrt India in coming days. How india responds and how far shitistanis can go remains to be seen. Just a hunch. Will be the first to admit I was wrong if it does not occur.

Jaspreet wrote:

Are you alleging that MMS is not a coward? Or that his actions do not reek of pusillanimity? Could India be brave but held back by one cowardly PM?

In the spirit that has occupied this thread in the recent past, let me suggest an alternative.

MMS is not a coward but duplicitous, i.e. worse than a coward. After all, he was born in Pakistan and must be a closet Pakistani. He wants to weaken India from within, much like Mama Shakuni, another character who hailed from those parts.

</sarcasm>

Like a true patriot you recall all the key parts of Indian history.

Resuming talks after 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack without any real action on the perpetrators and de-linking TSP govt with terror acts by non state actors based in TSP are two things that UPA govt did.

Jaspreet wrote:

Are you alleging that MMS is not a coward? Or that his actions do not reek of pusillanimity? Could India be brave but held back by one cowardly PM?

In the spirit that has occupied this thread in the recent past, let me suggest an alternative.

MMS is not a coward but duplicitous, i.e. worse than a coward. After all, he was born in Pakistan and must be a closet Pakistani. He wants to weaken India from within, much like Mama Shakuni, another character who hailed from those parts.

</sarcasm>

Am I a closet Pakistani too?

shiv wrote: Could India be brave but held back by one cowardly PM?

Such things have happened before. 62 comes to mind.

ramana wrote:Resuming talks after 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack without any real action on the perpetrators and de-linking TSP govt with terror acts by non state actors based in TSP are two things that UPA govt did.

My personal suspicion is that the US was somehow involved in behind the scenes pressure/diplomacy here. No proof.

One of the reasons why I see MMS + UPA as an odd figure is that in some ways he has been very bold. There is a saying in Kannada "Manege Maari, pararige upkaari" - "She's a she-devil with her family but a philanthropist with everyone else"

MMS has taken risks with his government during the nuclear debate as well as this unpopular move of restarting unconditional, uninterrutible talks with Pakistan. On here the explanation we have is that "He is selling the country. He is a coward and a traitor". But a traitor who is openly traitorous must be bold too. That is why I ask if we Indians in India are stupid or equally cowardly.

Is he fooling all Indians? Or are Indians just dumb? it's got to be one or other. The whole country is up in arms about Lokpal. But Pakistan? What gives? Are our explanations right?

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote: But turning piskology on ourselves, and stamping "cowardice" on our piskological profiles is a shear waste of time!

Are you alleging that MMS is not a coward? Or that his actions do not reek of pusillanimity? Could India be brave but held back by one cowardly PM?

I have never used adjectives like "coward", or "pusillanimous" for any Indian.

India's political leadership have their own political considerations, different experiences and different priorities. Our attitude towards Pakistan of "non-belligerence" has a much broader consensus among India's power elite, than just MMS.

If I may offer an opinion, the Indian political elite views Bharat as a cow rather than a horse. Sounds almost like an Islamic quote, I know, but lets try to look at it independent of that. When one has a horse, one wants to ride it to places, explore the world, feel the speed, rejoice the freedom, test one's limits! When one has a cow, one wants to take care of it, feed it, and drink its milk and eat butter from it. One does not however want to ride a cow into battle, and one certainly does not want to put one's cow in danger! With a horse one feels strength. With a cow one feels fulfillment. It is not a question of cowardice, but rather a question of their sense for Bharat, the country's moods and nature and their place in it.

shiv wrote: Is he fooling all Indians? Or are Indians just dumb? it's got to be one or other.

Neither, its called information asymmetry, comes from the stupid education system that you have been exploring elsewhere.

-----------------------

The problem with trying these pisko games is that people who have spent too much time around you also begin to catch on.