Well, where to begin with the criticism? There is a good amount for the Bush Administration, which tends to underplay such terrorism in the interests of propping up Musharaff. There is plenty for Pakistan, which has not dismantled their terrorist infrastructure. But most of the blame lies with India. Regardless of the party in charge, no government wants to take the risky steps needed to curb terrorism. That all this violence took place while Indo-Pak relations are "improving" is laughable.

But, I guess so long as Indian politicians are being feted by the international press, it doesn't matter that several dozen Indians are killed with such regularity. The Indian government does not seem to care if their citizens are killed overseas (Saudi Arabia) or at home.

There is plenty for Pakistan, which has not dismantled their terrorist infrastructure. But most of the blame lies with India.

Most of the blame lies with India? By that logic, wouldn't you have blamed 9/11 on the U.S.?

Primary responsibility lies with the criminal, not the defensive measures or lack thereof.

" There is plenty for Pakistan, which has not dismantled their terrorist infrastructure. But most of the blame lies with India.

Most of the blame lies with India? By that logic, wouldn't you have blamed 9/11 on the U.S.?

Primary responsibility lies with the criminal, not the defensive measures or lack thereof."

Manish, compare the reactions of America after 9/11, and India after almost any terrorist attack. The U.S. reached halfway around the world and knocked the Taliban out of power. Understanding that the Taliban was an outgrowth of an unhealthy political culture in too many Muslim nations, the U.S. felt it necessary to redraw the Middle East. It is a long-term, risky strategy, that carries many costs - financial as well as soldiers lives. The Cold War lasted over 50 years; you and I may not live long enough to see if this pans out. But Americans do not shirk from a challenge. Tactics may change, but the U.S. can develop a strategic visions and implement it.

No Indian government was ever willing to risk anything to secure its citizenry. From failing to protect against terrorists to failing to monitor the safety of the nation's railways, Indian governments are notorious for their disregard of human life.

After an Indian Airlines jet was hijacked in 1999, the world's largest democracy was brought to its knees by the Taliban, and released several terrorists. Daewood Ibrahim, considered the mastermind behind the Bombay blasts of 1993, is considered by many Sources to live either in Karachi or Dubai - this is even reported by Pakistani newspapers. India asks Pakistan to hand him over, and Pakistan says, "Daewood who?"

While Israel hunts down 90 year old Nazis for crimes committed 60 years ago, India cannot work up the nerve to track down mass murderers of today. Israel can launch a missle with pinpoint accuracy to eliminate the wheelchair bound spiritual leader of Hamas, but India does nothing while the head of Laskar e Taiba walks around Lahore or Musaffarabad raising funds.

And this unwillingness to treat murder as a capital offense is not relegated to foreign-sponsored terrorism. Which bigwigs have been convicted in the Gujarat riots of 2002, or even for the anti-Sikh riots in New Delhi of 1984? Naxalites operate with near impunity in some under-developed parts of India.

Indian governments have looked to others to do the work they ought to do themselves. Whether it is looking to foreign companies to invest in infrastructure that they have not developed over 50 years, to asking foreign governments to put pressure on India's adversaries - the Indian political class consumes tremendous resources, and delivers remarkably little.

Manish, compare the reactions of America after 9/11, and India after almost any terrorist attack. The U.S. reached halfway around the world and knocked the Taliban out of power. Understanding that the Taliban was an outgrowth of an unhealthy political culture in too many Muslim nations, the U.S. felt it necessary to redraw the Middle East. It is a long-term, risky strategy, that carries many costs - financial as well as soldiers lives. The Cold War lasted over 50 years; you and I may not live long enough to see if this pans out. But Americans do not shirk from a challenge. Tactics may change, but the U.S. can develop a strategic visions and implement it.

And a whole lot of good it has done to the US, apart from creating more illwill and helping the terrorists recruit members in more numbers than before. It's easy to have armchair opinions about making strikes in other countries to fight terrorism, but it's usually a recipe for a bigger mess than before. Look no farther than Iraq to see what could happen.

KXB,

While you make some valid points KXB, in your comparison of response to terrorism in India and the US response to 9/11 you fail to take into account that the US is the richest and most powerful nation.

If the US decides to attack a country (Afghanistan/Iraq) it has support of all the major powers including the UN irrespective of whether the attacks are on terrorists from the respective country or not. Do you think if India decided to attack Pakistan after the Parliament attacks it would have garnered any support from the international community? Instead
India would have had to deal with sanctions and loss of international trade which for a developing country would make a substantial difference. Not to mention the costs of going to war.

I do however agree with you on Indias inabilities to successfully deal with the internal problems.

No, I agree with KXB here (though primary culpability is still with the terrorists). Trading hijack hostages for terrorists, then having the guys you let go attack your Parliament, that's in the dictionary under 'humiliating.'

There have been no Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, following both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. In Iraq, the target of most attacks is no longer American troops, but Iraqi civilians. But Iraq did hold an election, the first Arab state to do so. Other Arab regimes have reconciled themselves to the new status quo. Libya gave up its nuclear weapons, Syria is out of Lebanon, Egypt is going to try and hold a real election. Bush deservedly deserves to be criticized for not forseeing the guerilla war, but there are solid, identifiable gains that came about through the war. These recent positive changes are by no means set in stone, and there is always the risk of backsliding. But the main point is if the U.S. sees a threat, it will pursue that threat, and worry about public opinion later.

I understand that America’s size and strength affords it options that India does not have. But even smaller countries, with the right leadership, can devise and implement strategies to capture its enemies. A number of years ago, Turkey suspected Syria of harboring a wanted Kurdish terrorist. The Turks said hand him over, and Syria said no. So, to get the point across, Turkey massed 20,000 troops on the border, and several hundred tanks. The Syrians suddenly had a chance of heart, and could not hand him over fast enough.

After an attack on its Parliament, India mobilized over half a million troops to try and intimidate Pakistan. But Pakistan is not Syria. Instead, all India got was Bush to say Pakistan must stop infiltration across the LOC – which is nothing to sneeze at, but I would have preferred a dismantling of terrorist camps and handing over their leaders. Threatening an invasion of a nuclear-armed Pakistan was a bluff, and Musharaff called India on it. Instead, had Indian sent several well trained counter-insurgency forces across the LOC (small, mobile, and allows for plausible deniability) would have been far more beneficial to India. But because Indian governments tend to value symbol over substance, a grand massing of armies was pursued instead.

But there are still attacks on Indian soil, as recently as two days ago (12 Killed in Separate Attacks in Kashmir, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=726034)

In short, there is no international 911. Nations are responsible for their own security. If nations can identify a threat, but chooses to not take necessary steps to address that threat, those nations cannot then complain to others about suffering from terrorism.

See, unlike the US, which is separated by the seven seas, India cannot afford to simply bomb its neighbours into rubble. Of course this is independent of the many other difficulties that India faces in going to war. And as far as India's ability to handle war and such like issues are concerned, I may point out that India has done what even the US has been unable to successfully achieve-help create a nation which could independently govern itself.

The other thing is that while there are a great number of terrorist attacks in J&K, they are lesser in number than before, and the costs of such activities on Pakistan have escalated. The military mobilization did achieve more on the ground than what Mr Bush said (which I may point out is of no real consequence to Indian policymakers, given the trustworthiness of american assurances). It inflicted pretty large costs on the Pakistani army, and made it unambiguously clear that a it cannot fight a war with India and hope to win anything. It also allowed the Indian government to create the right security climate for elections in J&K, which in my opinion was the most significant gain, and has led to a reduction in terrorist activity in J&K.

The solution is for India to hold a plebicite and let the Kashmiris decide.
Pakistan controlled Kashmir has no money and they have to beg the federal goverment in Pakistan for all their needs.
If a plebicite was held in an environment free from the intimidation of militant groups, theres every chance that the Kashmiris will decide to go with India.

“See, unlike the US, which is separated by the seven seas, India cannot afford to simply bomb its neighbours into rubble.”
Actually, it is more expensive to fly a bomber across an ocean to bomb a nation than it would be to bomb someone next door – which of course I never suggested. I suggested small mobile units, on the ground, crossing the LOC. Afghanistan was not bombed into rubble, seeing as how the rubble was there for centuries. And the bombing of Iraq lasted about one week, and the buildings left standing in Baghdad are still probably in better condition that what you see in Calcutta.
“Of course this is independent of the many other difficulties that India faces in going to war. And as far as India's ability to handle war and such like issues are concerned, I may point out that India has done what even the US has been unable to successfully achieve-help create a nation which could independently govern itself. “
Yes, going to war is an intensive undertaking, with tremendous logistical problems. Given the sorry state of India’s infrastructure, India looked foolish in threatening an invasion it could probably not pull off or afford. Again, since you did not think it important to read what I wrote – that is why I thought threatening invasion was foolish.
“The other thing is that while there are a great number of terrorist attacks in J&K, they are lesser in number than before, and the costs of such activities on Pakistan have escalated. The military mobilization did achieve more on the ground than what Mr Bush said (which I may point out is of no real consequence to Indian policymakers, given the trustworthiness of american assurances). It inflicted pretty large costs on the Pakistani army, and made it unambiguously clear that a it cannot fight a war with India and hope to win anything. It also allowed the Indian government to create the right security climate for elections in J&K, which in my opinion was the most significant gain, and has led to a reduction in terrorist activity in J&K. “
If Mr. Bush’s opinion is of no consequence to Indian policymakers, why do Indian politicians throw a hissy fit everytime Bush glosses over Pakistani misdeeds, whether its Kashmir, nuclear proliferation, or porous border with Afghanistan? Pakistan learned the hopelessness of conventional war back in 1971, which is why they embraced war by proxy. And even if the chances of bleeding India to the point where it simply abandons Kashmir are diminishing, the Pakistani strategy does tie down several hundred thousand Indian troops, is a drain on coffers, and inhibits India’s ability to take a greater role on the world stage. After all, if India cannot get its own backyard in order, it can hardly claim to becoming a new permanent member of the UN Security Council. For Pakistan, keeping India an almost-ran on the world stage will make up for not getting Kashmir.

A perspective from an Indian:

Indians care the least bit about bombing Pakistan to rubble. The country is god-forsaken already, with its jihadi Frankensteins coming home to roost and with various ethnic groups killing each other. Attacking Pakistan might actually unite them all against India!

The smartest thing for India to do is develop economically and get business from the so-called "developed" nations and make the country a big cog in the world economy, so that the world cannot afford some near-dead state like Pakistan to try anything stupid.

While the border between India and Pakistan has been fenced from J&K through Punjab, some terrorists will get in. Let them, it will keep the armed forces fighting fit and improve their anti-insurgency skills. Also, this will keep the "Pakistan-backed terrorist attack" headlines on the news - again good for international diplomacy as well as insurance that a lot of money is spent on defense. India in the next 10 years needs to upgrade its defense capabilities and also try to deploy a rudimentary satellite weapon as a backup.

The best POA for India should be (and the govt. is doing this-more or less):
1),2) & 3) Develop economically
4) Fence sensitive sections of the border, esp. with Bangladesh and China. Good fences make good neighbours.
5) Spend big on defense - buy arms as well as learn/develop technology to gain some measure of independence to prepare for the bigger threat - China.
6) Keep up diplomatic offensive against Pakistan for terrorism and build a good lobby in the US and elsewhere to promote pro-India policies. (i.e. ask the US to help it to be a bulwark againt China)
7) Use 1), 2) & 3) to raise more people above the poverty line.

If this can be done for just 10 years, the progress achieved will be a million times more than any war. The smartest way to defeat someone in war is not have to fight one at all.

--
And I have to respond to "Al Mujahid" - would you ask for a plebicite in Texas and California (Spanish/Mexican territories which became American through war or war-related treaties) to decide if they should go to Mexico? If not, please do not be offended if Indians ignore your words of wisdom..

Nations are responsible for their own security. If nations can identify a threat, but chooses to not take necessary steps to address that threat, those nations cannot then complain to others about suffering from terrorism.

What necessary steps would those be? Small time forces that do what is happening in J+K will not work. It has been tried in Kashmir in 1989 and it worked miserably....there was big time international scrutiny and the plan backfired and led to further militancy in retaliation (jihaids and the like).

I dont care if you call it primary, secondary or teritiary, placing any sort of unjustified blame on the victim of terrorism is inhuman. ("She deserves secondary blame for the rape because she wore revealing clothes"). Please. One would think from the comments that Indians actually like being terrorist victims and have done nothing about it. Well guess what, legions of intelligence officers a lot smarter than you or me have spent their lives tackling the problem, the solution is a lot more complex than "we should grow balls like G.W."

But Iraq did hold an election, the first Arab state to do so.

I suggested small mobile units, on the ground, crossing the LOC.

But the main point is if the U.S. sees a threat, it will pursue that threat, and worry about public opinion later.

Thank God India is not stupid enough to follow such a policy in a nuclear-capable theater...and as a direct result, it (like Pakistan) continues to exist.

Thank God India is not stupid enough to follow such a policy in a nuclear-capable theater...

Disagree, India should've issued a warning after the Parliament attack saying it was going to hit back precisely without escalating into war. Then it should've done surgical missile strikes or air raids on the terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

You've got to punish the adversary instead of wasting money symbolically massing troops. India culturally has a preference for grandstanding over action. That produces lots of intellectuals and precious few results.

“What necessary steps would those be? Small time forces that do what is happening in J+K will not work. It has been tried in Kashmir in 1989 and it worked miserably....there was big time international scrutiny and the plan backfired and led to further militancy in retaliation (jihaids and the like). “
_____

Simply wrong – indigenous Kashmiri militancy was dwindling to such low levels by 1999, that the Pakistani military felt that the Kargil incursion would rejuvenate militancy in the valley. This is not just my opinion, you can also read “Pakistan: Eye of the Storm” by Owen Bennett Jones (former BBC South Asia correspondent) or Pakistan’s Jihad Culture by Jessica Stern of Harvard. Indigenous Kashmiris were sidelined by the mid 90s – the majority were Pakistanis, Afghans, and Central Asians. Lashkar-e-Toiba, the group that introduced suicide bombings in Kashmir, is composed primarily of Punjabis from Pakistan. Since they do not live under Indian rule, India cannot reach out to them and negotiate.
______

“I dont care if you call it primary, secondary or teritiary, placing any sort of unjustified blame on the victim of terrorism is inhuman. ("She deserves secondary blame for the rape because she wore revealing clothes"). Please. One would think from the comments that Indians actually like being terrorist victims and have done nothing about it. Well guess what, legions of intelligence officers a lot smarter than you or me have spent their lives tackling the problem, the solution is a lot more complex than "we should grow balls like G.W."”
___________________

Trying to draw a comparison between a nation-state and individual is handy as an illustrative device, but of little value. First off, the security environment between states is qualitatively different from that within the state. Any person assaulted can refer to the police and courts to track down the culprit, if the apparatus of the state is functioning properly.

If a nation is assaulted, there is no international police force or court system to refer to – hence, the greater emphasis on a pro-active foreign policy. And while I am sure that Indian intelligence officials are quite smart, it is accurate to say they are not particularly effective. After all, the Indian government takes no real action when a citizen is beheaded in Saudi Arabia, or if a plane is hijacked, or if the Parliament is attacked. The message is simple, nothing will happen if you kill an Indian.
_______________

“But Iraq did hold an election, the first Arab state to do so.
Incorrect. Palestine had them a little while back. “

__________

Palestine is not a state yet. If you are referring to that joke of an election the Palestinians held in the mid-90’s, where Arafat was effectively the only candidate, I’ll have to assume you hold a low standard for democratic behavior. Their most recent election is more promising, but unless they can get Hezbollah and Hamas under control, it won’t matter.
____________

“Other countries have had them as well. One may say they were non-representative or rigged or faulty...but the Iraqi election was clearly unrepresentative since Sunnis overwhelmingly boycotted. Moreover, all but 2 of the African nations have also held elections, but much of the continent remains in civil war. Wiping out a leadership and installing a puppet democracy, unsupported by any semblance of a functional bureaucracy is a farce. See what happens to Iraq in the near future.”

_______________

Would it trouble you too much to read what I wrote? I was referring to Iraq being the first “Arab” state to hold a competitive democratic election, and you start talking about Africans? Unless you meant Egypt, where Mubarak has been “elected” for over 20 years.

I agree that a number of sub-Saharan nations have made admirable progress in promoting democracy, with considerably fewer economic resources and more ethnic diversity to manage than the Arab states, which should be a greater source of shame for the Arab world.

The Iraqi election unrepresentative? Considering that even Arab naysayers like Al-Jazeera had to grudgingly admit that the elections were free and fair, you must be privy to information that even Al-Jazeera does not have.
_____________

I suggested small mobile units, on the ground, crossing the LOC.
“What a suggestion, do you think this type of thing hasn't been tried before? Move over George Fernandes, move over Pranab Mukherjee...In fact, such a policy of passive aggression has been tried by both sides for over 50 years, and it is the direct cause of the continued violence that exists today. “
_______

Consider that Indian Air Force pilots did not cross the LOC even during Kargil, under clear foreign attack, all to placate the opinion of the international community. Since crossing the LOC would be an “escalation”, India opted not to do it.

_________

“Not to mention the minor point that it is illegal under international law and looked upon very poorly by the international community. But more importantly, this policy will lead to violence, not peace.”
“Thank God India is not stupid enough to follow such a policy in a nuclear-capable theater...and as a direct result, it (like Pakistan) continues to exist.”
________________

Right … it’s much better to just sacrifice a few dozen Indians every month for the sake of “regional stability”. You seem more concerned with the opinion of the international community than the security of Indians.

It’s a bit annoying to have to repeat this, but in no case am I advocating an invasion of Pakistan, or even threatening an invasion – since it would be pointless. But is fair to say that Indian leadership has been ineffective in addressing terrorism, no matter how “intelligent” they may be.

Unemployment is a major curse for terrorism in India and major islamic countries. Terrorists like Bin laden make use of these unemployed innocents for his Jihad against India or US or any countries who support US. Another biggest barricade to end terrorism is the islamic clerics who fundamentally teach evil doings than preaching for good will. Most of the unemployed youth follow the path of terrorism in underdeveloping countries b/c of these clerics. They are not existing in underdeveloping world also but as underworld preachers in India too. Is India going to crack on these suckers who brood the blood of this country for the sake of their religion or just wait and sacrifice all its roots in the name of secularism?

would the owner of this site enlighten us about the origin of the name "SEPIA MUTINY"?....please
?

See our FAQ

Dear readers

India basically suffers from the self glorification as a world peace maker and apostle of peace. during the tenure of Nehru times it founded Non Aligned Movement along with President Sukarno of Indionesia, marshal tito of yugoslavia, President Gamel abdel Nasser of Egypt and preached world peace and some world nations joined the out fit. Most of these nations were insignificannt and poor nations and had no say on world affairs, They were jusr clapping crowd. NAM has now literally died although Indian politicians from Coingress party do not accept and shout at pitch of voice of its success, Although NAM stood for no internal quarreling its own memmbers fought each other in bitter wars. The present terrorism in India is its own self doing. The vascillating and appeasing ploicies towards Muslms right from the days of Independence has made Indian Muslims very bold and a section has takem towards terrorism. Kashmir is a self doing of Pandit Nehru who refered the matter to UNO when India was on the brink of victory and till to day it is an unresolved issue. For the last twenty years India is plagued by Terrorim in J and K. Scores of Muslim fundamentalists out fits a have surfaced in India and these are abetting another partition of India. The appeasement policies in India have done great damage to the nation. Muslims in India feel that they have special status as citizens and are now even demanding speactl reservations in jobs and educaton. Indian justice is highly delayed. It is unable to even hang the anti natiopnals after awarding death sentence. India is hated by every of its immediate neighbor. None of the Arab countries came to Indias help in Indo Pak wars in the past and India takes up all Arab causes at world forums. India although has done well on IT sector and its Rupee has done well against Dollar, the country sufferes extreme poverty and distribution of wealth is improper. There are multi storied buildings while next to it people sleep on foot paths. There are hunger death just opposite the five star hotels. There are many suicides for failure of crops. Militancy is on rise in India. Police firings are very common in India and violattors get Scot free. India has its own way of life and one Communist Russian in past commented , after seeing India He started believing God. that summerises all
Dr K Prabhakar Rao.