What Mr Mani Shankar Aiyar won’t say

[MilSpec]

Those are missed opportunities which even indira gandhi could not take advantage of. Dont expect current leaders to do some thing like that now.

Attacks have decreased since mumbai 26/11. Just need to wait for pakistan to self destruct. See whats happened to afghanistan. For countries it will take decades to change fortunes just like for india post 1990's.

You seem to be a proponent of the diplomatic engagement- on similar line what we have been doing for decades now.

All I am asking is show me one tangible result produced by the approach. Just one.

attacks have decreased since 26/11, why? is it because we sent dossiers? also let me ask you what if your loved ones were killed in the attack, would you still say the same? God forbid What if they are killed in an attack tomorrow? will you still say > lets sit back and let Pakistan self destruct, doesn't matter what they did to my family?

You cannot have one reality for yourself and another for the victims my friend.

 

[Sky lord]

Those are missed opportunities which even indira gandhi could not take advantage of. Dont expect current leaders to do some thing like that now.

Attacks have decreased since mumbai 26/11. Just need to wait for pakistan to self destruct. See whats happened to afghanistan. For countries it will take decades to change fortunes just like for india post 1990's.

Pakistan is stable in a very unstable kind of way, it is not going to self destruct. If having half the country under water during the floods and millions dispossessed, earthquakes and regular bomb blasts did not destabilize Pakistan then it is a stable country.

What India needs is some way to train them. For every bomb blast traced to Pakistan we need to make them pay a very heavy price and to do that you need assets on the ground. As Doval said, if you do another Mumbai you will lose Baluchistan. That seems a fair trade.

Congress policy is bordering on traitorous.

 

[Spectre]

How? What have you gained by policy of contained, what have you contained, Nuclear proliferation, MTCR proliferation, a mega threat on your eastern flank from a country that you could have demolished in 71-78? terrorism? What exactly is this containment? and which metrics determine that this has been the "best strategy" when the results produced indicate the opposite. Compare that to offensive actions that put the opposition on the backfoot, straight tangible measurable result. show me one from this "containment"


And who will determine this "time of choosing" - Manishankar Aiyers of the world? And what choosing of your time, what have you choosen, your civilians are being killed dime a dozen and you send dossiers - Try selling this policy to victims of state sponsored terrorism in India- see how many takers you get.
And what reaction are you referring to, what has been Indian reaction to x numbers of attacks ? My blood boils when I hear this sophisticated rhetoric where behind all of it we are more concerned of sensex taking a dip than lives of our own country men.
lets admit what the reality is- we are a nation of cowards- who in turn elect cowards> who in-turn sell this cowardice as successful diplomacy... the one with some balls join the forces to be frustrated with this cowardice day in and day out.

Your talks with pakistan did not affect outcome of there outlook - actions by Indian Armed Forces did! stack it up against all of the diplomatic exchanges and figure out what produced results.

let me tag @Joe Shearer see if i can get an opinion from him on the topic,

The offensive strategy don't work well with an irrational enemy at asymmetrical battlefield who employs suicide bombers and terrorists to achieve the nebulous end-game. US went in Afganishtan and Iraq and after death of thousands of soldiers, Orwellian mass surveillance and trillions of dollars spent which wrecked their economy and in turn caused multiplicative suffering what is the end result ?

Muslim world at large hates US and there are hundreds of thousands of budding terrorists who get up everyday with an intention to kill Americans requiring continued deployment of soldiers in far away lands and expenses which would beggar any other country. Still the sporadic attacks happen and let us not confuse ourselves with the US - we do not have the defense or economy to support that kind of measures.

Even US drew the line at Pakistan and opted for containment and engagement via carrot and stick - despite Pakistan's active patronage of terrorists.

I do not mean to undermine the grief and tragedy victims of terrorism have suffered, we should get Justice - but let us be clear about the costs and consequences.

If our actions end up leaving us worse off - then perhaps it is better we remain circumspect and cautious. Misguided sense of false price and an over-estimation of one's capability would be our undoing

 

[MilSpec]

The offensive strategy don't work well with an irrational enemy at asymmetrical battlefield who employs suicide bombers and terrorists to achieve the nebulous end-game. US went in Afganishtan and Iraq and after death of thousands of soldiers, Orwellian mass surveillance and trillions of dollars spent which wrecked their economy and in turn caused multiplicative suffering what is the end result ?


Muslim world at large hates US and there are hundreds of thousands of budding terrorists who get up everyday with an intention to kill Americans requiring continued deployment of soldiers in far away lands and expenses which would beggar any other country. Still the sporadic attacks happen and let us not confuse ourselves with the US - we do not have the defense or economy to support that kind of measures.

Even US drew the line at Pakistan and opted for containment and engagement via carrot and stick - despite Pakistan's active patronage of terrorists.

I do not mean to undermine the grief and tragedy victims of terrorism have suffered, we should get Justice - but let us be clear about the costs and consequences.

If our actions end up leaving us worse off - then perhaps it is better we remain circumspect and cautious. Misguided sense of false price and an over-estimation of one's capability would be our undoing

as I said, show me one, just one tangible result of decade old engagement with pakistan, Please explain how you deem "containment" as the best strategy, please tell me what have we contained?

 

[Spectre]

as I said, show me one, just one tangible result of decade old engagement with pakistan, Please explain how you deem "containment" as the best strategy, please tell me what have we contained?

Indian economy is growing unhindered by the spectre of war and in turn creating quantifiable improvement in quality of life our citizens irrespective of the weasels in the Govt. The alternative would have been withdrawal of investment - after all who would invest in a country mired in war.

The above is no consolation to those who lost their loved ones in acts of terrorism and insurgencies but still better than the alternative which would have gained us nothing.

It is not the issue of us choosing the bad options but us choosing the least bad option.

 

[MilSpec]

Indian economy is growing unhindered by the spectre of war and in turn creating quantifiable improvement in quality of life our citizens irrespective of the weasels in the Govt. The alternative would have been withdrawal of investment - after all who would invest in a country mired in war.

The above is no consolation to those who lost their loved ones in acts of terrorism and insurgencies but still better than the alternative which would have gained us nothing.

It is not the issue of us choosing the bad options but us choosing the least bad option.

(Do not take this personally, my post is directed to institutional inaction. )
So let me wrap my head around this, according to you, Indian economy's upswing is a direct product of it's lack of reaction to state sponsored terrorism. so there must be some rudimentary price that must have been in the equation, how many dollars per head of an Indian Civilian? I am sure 200 people is a small number to hedge against FDI, what in your opinion would be a good number 1000 maybe, or how about 2000 to get a reaction, what in your personal opinion would call of "reaction" what is the price according to you? But then why the mobilisation of the army in 2002, that did not fit the equation, where was the investment concern back then?

Also what has happened to investment in Israel? they respond to invading country as a reaction to kidnapping of six soldiers, their prosperity did not dry up, did it?

 

[Bang Galore]

attacks have decreased since 26/11, why? is it because we sent dossiers? also let me ask you what if your loved ones were killed in the attack, would you still say the same? God forbid What if they are killed in an attack tomorrow? will you still say > lets sit back and let Pakistan self destruct, doesn't matter what they did to my family?

You cannot have one reality for yourself and another for the victims my friend.

There have to be consequences for any major attack on India, no doubt about that. Not inflicting that can only result in the emboldening of those who carry out such attacks. What those consequences are & how they are inflicted is a different matter. However there is some logic in keeping a line of communication open. It is my opinion that it should almost never be at prime ministerial level but talks should happen at lower levels on a whole bunch of issues & see whether small agreements can be worked out.

No one here believes that the big stuff of Kashmir, Siachen (specific) would be resolved but it would be better to allow them to come up with offers or grandstand, whatever it is that they choose, because it really is no skin off our back. We should inflict punishment if there is an attack or provocations but I see little harm in keeping up a pretense of talks. This government however seems to have positioned itself in such a way where either the Pakistanis have to back down or we have to. That will be the somersault method of going about things if we give in.

On the principle of it, I'm inclined to agree with your idea of not engaging substantially unless there is a real change in attitude because it would serve no purpose. I'm not sure that we would need to block even the barest of contacts for that to remain the general idea.

 

[Spectre]

(Do not take this personally, my post is directed to institutional inaction. )
So let me wrap my head around this, according to you, Indian economy's upswing is a direct product of it's lack of reaction to state sponsored terrorism. so there must be some rudimentary price that must have been in the equation, how many dollars per head of an Indian Civilian? I am sure 200 people is a small number to hedge against FDI, what in your opinion would be a good number 1000 maybe, or how about 2000 to get a reaction, what in your personal opinion would call of "reaction" what is the price according to you? But then why the mobilisation of the army in 2002, that did not fit the equation, where was the investment concern back then?

Also what has happened to investment in Israel? they respond to invading country as a reaction to kidnapping of six soldiers, their prosperity did not dry up, did it?

( I respect your opinions and an admirer of your posts, even I am conflicted about the paucity of response by Indians making it clear to Pakistan that would be a direct cost if they indulge in anti-Indian activities and in any other public forum my views would be if not different then certainly more balanced but this being an anonymous forum I am playing devil's advocate)

1. There is no direct correlation in terms of lives lost and investment gained but then I believe you were being rhetorical. That said the costs are there and have to be factored in - there is the acceptable cost and then the un-acceptable cost which threatens the very fabric of our sovereignty. I don't like this and am sure no individual would but then the institution cannot be driven by emotions and has to be a cold hearted creature of pure logic. I don't know what the threshold is 200 lives or 2000 lives - but I believe it is lot more complicated than pure dollars vs x number of lives. It is the matter of affordability - we do what we can afford.

2. We have a choice b/w direct military action, diplomatic offensive and covert action. I believe we have utilized the other two options as well as we can - Mani Shankar Aiyer and Salman Khursheed not withstanding.

3. Israel and India are two very different countries - to compare both is doing grave injustice to Indians. I can list numerous factors unique to Israel which are responsible for it's prosperity but then I believe that is not the point you were trying to make. I urge you not to compare Israel and India in isolation - the results would never be pretty. Suffice to say their small but hardy population and active patronage of US are the major factors which distinguish Israel. Even if our combined population had even 50% of Israeli populations industriousness, sense of nation before all else, perseverence then India would have been numero uno but since it does not .... In addition we have held ourselves well when the times were bad.

4. Stopping at just mobilization in 2002 is indeed telling is it not.

Regards

 

[MilSpec]

( I respect your opinions and an admirer of your posts, even I am conflicted about the paucity of response by Indians making it clear to Pakistan that would be a direct cost if they indulge in anti-Indian activities and in any other public forum my views would be if not different then certainly more balanced but this being an anonymous forum I am playing devil's advocate)

1. There is no direct correlation in terms of lives lost and investment gained but then I believe you were being rhetorical. That said the costs are there and have to be factored in - there is the acceptable cost and then the un-acceptable cost which threatens the very fabric of our sovereignty. I don't like this and am sure no individual would but then the institution cannot be driven by emotions and has to be a cold hearted creature of pure logic. I don't know what the threshold is 200 lives or 2000 lives - but I believe it is lot more complicated than pure dollars vs x number of lives. It is the matter of affordability - we do what we can afford.

2. We have a choice b/w direct military action, diplomatic offensive and covert action. I believe we have utilized the other two options as well as we can - Mani Shankar Aiyer and Salman Khursheed not withstanding.

3. Israel and India are two very different countries - to compare both is doing grave injustice to Indians. I can list numerous factors unique to Israel which are responsible for it's prosperity but then I believe that is not the point you were trying to make. I urge you not to compare Israel and India in isolation - the results would never be pretty. Suffice to say their small but hardy population and active patronage of US are the major factors which distinguish Israel. Even if our combined population had even 50% of Israeli populations industriousness, sense of nation before all else, perseverence then India would have been numero uno but since it does not .... In addition we have held ourselves well when the times were bad.

4. Stopping at just mobilization in 2002 is indeed telling is it not.

Regards

we have our positions,

but something that caught my eye was the following "Even if our combined population had even 50% of Israeli populations industriousness, sense of nation before all else, perseverence then India would have been numero uno but since it does not .."

Isn't that the crux of our diplomatic fallacy? isn't that sense of apathy flowing through this institutional inaction masquerading for decades as restraint in our foriegn policy?

 

[Indika]

You seem to be a proponent of the diplomatic engagement- on similar line what we have been doing for decades now.

All I am asking is show me one tangible result produced by the approach. Just one.

attacks have decreased since 26/11, why? is it because we sent dossiers? also let me ask you what if your loved ones were killed in the attack, would you still say the same? God forbid What if they are killed in an attack tomorrow? will you still say > lets sit back and let Pakistan self destruct, doesn't matter what they did to my family?

You cannot have one reality for yourself and another for the victims my friend.

Diplomatic engagement or game is one way of keeping them occupied. I get your frustration that we have not able to show big tangible things on ground.

As individuals we can think of fight but we as nation cannot do that. Reason being we have more to lose than to gain. Of course ppl like manmohan singh and others have reinforced that helpless image. Remember even british took 200 years to conquer india.

Problem with pakistan is that they were created as a tool to counter balance india. Any immediate/sudden action will never be appreciated by the western powers. Practically our solution lies in bleeding them dry and then striking. Last 10 years pakistan has more deaths than any war.

 

[Spectre]

Isn't that the crux of our diplomatic fallacy? isn't that sense of apathy flowing through this institutional inaction masquerading for decades as restraint in our foriegn policy?

I don't believe it is just apathy - it is a combination of acceptance of reality which differs from common public perception for obvious reasons and self imposed Nehruvian constraints on aggressive foreign policy and non alignment.

 

[MilSpec]

Diplomatic engagement or game is one way of keeping them occupied. I get your frustration that we have not able to show big tangible things on ground.

As individuals we can think of fight but we as nation cannot do that. Reason being we have more to lose than to gain. Of course ppl like manmohan singh and others have reinforced that helpless image. Remember even british took 200 years to conquer india.

Problem with pakistan is that they were created as a tool to counter balance india. Any immediate/sudden action will never be appreciated by the western powers. Practically our solution lies in bleeding them dry and then striking. Last 10 years pakistan has more deaths than any war.

There is no bleeding, there is no striking. And that exactly is my point. do not attribute thier failings as our our sucess, thee deaths have nothing to do with India, and I have no interest in engageing that pakistan, when I say Pakistan i am refering to the deep state.

 

[Indika]

Isn't that the crux of our diplomatic fallacy? isn't that sense of apathy flowing through this institutional inaction masquerading for decades as restraint in our foriegn policy?

There are lot of factors involved in it. Though what you say is correct but unless you have sizable economic prowess and sufficient capacity to strike at enemy then only it makes sense to go to war. We need leaders who can pull up the whole nation together that has no yet happened. Things will have to start at ground level before it reaches echelons of power.

We are too big country to fix all things at the same time. It has to happen one at a time.

There is no bleeding, there is no striking. And that exactly is my point. do not attribute thier failings as our our sucess, thee deaths have nothing to do with India, and I have no interest in engageing that pakistan, when I say Pakistan i am refering to the deep state.

Remember pakistan has moved from stage of fighting direct war to terrorism for the very simple reason that they no longer can fight. We are becoming stronger than them. As the gap widens economically we can certainly splurge more on military and proxies to keep them tied down. As of now their military is our only hope. More their military runs the country deeper their institutional rot.

We need to get away from the mindset of having instant gratification or glamorous results. Things will take time one result at a time.

 

[Sky lord]

There is a whole wide band between doing nothing at all and going to war.

The point is that India has retaliated not at all. The government point of view as Mani Shankar aiyar says - we should ignore all provocations and just "keep talking"

To respond suitably we need to build ourselves options and that takes time and government will.

We do not need to go to war and do not need to lie back, close our eyes and think of England. Most countries build themselves a third option - so should we.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Because - For perplexing reasons congress still continues to exist as a political entity in India and beleive it or not these Gandhi family butlers actually get cabinet posts that shape the foreign and domestic policy in India. It has happened for a good part of last 65 years, and will continue to be so...



As I said this punching below has become a syndrome.
"1. Other side wants attention and would start wars for "engagement" - So are we incompetent imbeciles? If anyone wants war then be it - you are standing of shoulders of Giants... the second largest standing force on this planet. If anyone has the balls to take us on, I say bring it.

"2. Other side has the nuclear umbrella - under the shade of which all kinds of mischief's are planned and executed."

And we have Plastic Umbrella? If they can play mischief, so can we at a much larger scale. But we continue to remain docile- That's who we are, that who we will remain.


UPA and NDA? are we forgetting last 65 years of history here?

All a matter of objectives and perspectives - from where we stand war is harmful to our long term prospects. We will fight when compelled and necessary but until then containment is the best strategy.
Yes, we have taken body blows terrible ones at that, sometimes we hit back using force other times diplomatically. The thing is we cannot let out enemy control our reaction - if and when we retaliate it will be at the ground of our choosing, time we are comfortable and force we deem appropriate.

Pakistan wants - war - that is the best case scenario for Pakistan not so for us, so it would be great if we don't oblige the enemy.

The other point about docility - I don't give a damn if we are considered docile (we aren't) if it gets us to our objectives of development. My friend we need to be smart here not give in to our basic and baser instincts.

Regards

@MilSpec @Spectre you are amongst my most respected contributers on here and I beleive there is a middle ground that is being pursued by the current GoI. I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed the exhaustive effort the PMO/GoI(MEA) are putting into the "terror is terror" line (ie- no such thing as "good/bad terrorists" paradigm). Wherever the PM goes, whenever there is a large terror attack anywhere in the world this is the line the GoI and PM utter in unison. The PM takes this further by imploring the world enact a convention on terrorism at the UN with a clear and closed defintion of terrorism and states sponsering terrorism.

Global events are (tragic as they may be) playing into the hands of the PM/GoI and it won't be long before India's call is taken to its logical end. This is only going to massively hurt Pakistan in the long term as the PM has been stating, states who sponsor terror need to be held accountable and isolated.


I think the "limited engagment" the GoI is pursuing right now is merely a formaility, this is a long term game being played out.


+ Pakistan itself is actually helping India's strategy quite neatly- threatening India with TNWs (whislt on US soil no less), handing over hollow/baseless "dossiers" on Indian "terrorism" to the US, releasing 26/11 masterminds etc etc.