Yoda-esque Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Agree, perhaps this can be run in parallel to solving un-employment problem. But, you still need resources to drive this effort and lets say you get it approved, create the department to execute this, then what stops in employing the un-employed for the same? ( perhaps required education levels). And I am not sure one can create and run such drives w/o approval from the state. and even if you get this far, I still forsee un-employed masses flooding through the gates of some such body/org. So my point is, it is a novel thought and I always wished some such thing (e.g. mandatory army service), but I do not see it happening before we solve bigger problems - education, poverty, unemployment. Those problems will take ages to go away.Things have to be done in parallel.
zen Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 The Pak problem could get solved if a certain someone from Gujarat becomes the PM
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I think you are confusing two totally different issues here. One is the internal administration part of a government's functioning. The civic duties that it performs can be questioned under the RTI act and petitions etc. The municipalities, the PWD,water,food ministries etc. However matters like foreign policy, national security etc do not come under this category. I cannot raise an RTI query asking how many people are protecting me, or how the government is planning to evade further terrorist attacks. What I do know is that its the government's job to ensure security for all its citizens. This is not a demand for a new 'right'. Its up there with the most basic of rights. If I feel that this government isnt serious enough about ensuring the security of the country, I will simply cast my vote for the candidate whom I feel is more capable. If a large enough number of people have a similar perception then that candidate will get elected and will get a chance to deliver what he promised. RTI was just one of the example. As you pointed out, vote is in your hands. And that is what I said, you can work only through the tools provided to you - legally / by constitution. Also you know, to get to the power - the candidates can (& do) lie, and once in power, they would do whatever they (their party) wish and you have to bear for 5 years, or until the end of their term. For us it has been like choosing one-eyed king. Anyway, things are changing slowly, but surely. e.g. Earlier it was easy for powerful people to get away with murders in and around Delhi, now its relatively better and I hope will continue getting better.
Guest Gunner Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 It is a pretty sad day. I was quite shocked to read it had happened again in Mumbai however I won't claim to be very surprised by this. India faces some fundamental problems in fighting terrorism: 1) Massive population. It is very difficult for the government to control things with the size of our population unless we turn into a totalitarian police state and I am fairly sure no one sees that as a plausible solution, 2) India is not as strong as we Indians sometimes assume us to be. It is just like the Dominica test issue where we all felt India should have gone for it and pummelled the Windies, I thought so too. However we have to realize that whether it is cricket or geopolitics we are just not that domineering. 3) Our diplomacy options are fairly limited too. Unless you are a fairly wealthy country no one will care about you. Look at the NSG issue, we have been outmanoeuvred by some pretty nifty diplomacy. What have we been able to do about it? Nothing. We have to be economically stronger for anyone to care and lastly 4) War is not an option, it would only set us back to the stone age with nothing to show for it. These are the things which I feel limits our abilities even though we may consider ourselves all powerful. What we can do is continue diplomacy, improve our intelligence services, get the people to be more sharp and proactive by improving education. This will limit the number of terror assaults but most certainly won't stop it. We just live in a rather poor and volatile region, until the overall region becomes more educated and prosperous nothing will change. Lastly, I find comparisons to Israel laughable. I think they are a great country who have shown the world what can be achieved through hardwork but trying to emulate them is foolish. For one they are a country with six million people which is far more easier to police, hell they have built a wall around themselves. Secondly, they do have enormous support and intelligence sharing with the americans which we don't have at the moment
ganeshran Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Throwing stones, attacking properties or lighting candles is not going to solve the problem of terrorism. The first part of the solution is to have an effective intelligence agency - one which is not solely comprised of lazy babus and one which can break terrorist cells. I mean terrorists dont function alone - they need people, financial support, logistics like explosives - most of these leave a trail which can be followed. Most of the terrorist attacks are foiled in the planning stages because of some trail being caught or information being leaked out. The second part of the solution is to have a government which appears decisive in the face of a threat to national security. I am not talking of a trigger happy or war mongering leadership - but rather one which makes it clear that any hostile action will be retaliated with equal measure. A military which can mobilize fast enough to initiate a conflict before international pressure comes into play. The key point is if we dont cross the border within 72 hours of the terror attack, the chance of a later retaliation becomes lower and lower - and then we sit and wait till the next attack while making all kind of hollow statements. Wars dont have to necessarily be nuclear in nature. The most recent conflict between India and Pakistan was after both countries had gone nuclear. I dont believe that both India and Pakistan the diplomatic capability or conviction to use a nuclear weapon first. But they will make statements about striking with nuclear weapons in case of a war. If we make similar noises about preemptive strikes, both nations will end up not using them.
Guest Gunner Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 The first part of the solution is to have an effective intelligence agency - one which is not solely comprised of lazy babus and one which can break terrorist cells. I mean terrorists dont function alone - they need people' date=' financial support, logistics like explosives - most of these leave a trail which can be followed. Most of the terrorist attacks are foiled in the planning stages because of some trail being caught or information being leaked out. [/quote'] What makes you think that we don't have an effective intelligence service? Have you considered the possibility that for every terror attach which occurs or you might know about there are ten which might have been stopped? I agree with the larger point that we can continue to improve our services however I don't buy into this theory that they are inept and incompetent. If they were you wouldn't sleep in peace in the night my friend. Someone gave the example of Mossad earlier on, can you vouch for their 100% success rate? Have there been no terror attacks in Israel? It has stopped only after they built a wall around themselves and confined the palestinians into a very large jail with no freedom of mobility. Now replicate the situation to India, so you see any plausible solutions?
asterix Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 This time terrorists got lucky. There could be many instatnces when Security agencies foiled them. For example, there could've been many attempts during the WC2011 and especially during Finals in Mumbai.. I shudder to think what could've happened when the jubiliant crowd was all over the place in Mumbai after we won the WC..
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Throwing stones, attacking properties or lighting candles is not going to solve the problem of terrorism. The first part of the solution is to have an effective intelligence agency - one which is not solely comprised of lazy babus and one which can break terrorist cells. I mean terrorists dont function alone - they need people, financial support, logistics like explosives - most of these leave a trail which can be followed. Most of the terrorist attacks are foiled in the planning stages because of some trail being caught or information being leaked out. What is your source of information that RAW and other Indian intelligence agencies are not doing their job or are all lazy bums? RAW is not something you see in typical state/central-govt offices. In fact, in most likelihood, you would never ever get to see in your lifetime - inside workings of RAW. many of the failed attempts we do not even get to know - for some reason. The second part of the solution is to have a government which appears decisive in the face of a threat to national security. I am not talking of a trigger happy or war mongering leadership - but rather one which makes it clear that any hostile action will be retaliated with equal measure. A military which can mobilize fast enough to initiate a conflict before international pressure comes into play. The key point is if we dont cross the border within 72 hours of the terror attack, the chance of a later retaliation becomes lower and lower - and then we sit and wait till the next attack while making all kind of hollow statements. You cant be serious there!!! Wars dont have to necessarily be nuclear in nature. The most recent conflict between India and Pakistan was after both countries had gone nuclear. I dont believe that both India and Pakistan the diplomatic capability or conviction to use a nuclear weapon first. But they will make statements about striking with nuclear weapons in case of a war. If we make similar noises about preemptive strikes, both nations will end up not using them. Again, its not a game of cards - that both parties will keep their Ace-cards till very late. the weaker the opponent, the more desperate it can be to use its best chance first. Anyway, I have faith in our military and defense strategy.
zen Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I didn't write on what the govt. can do is because I don't think it is capable enough to do something meaningful considering Ind's resources and traditionally weak leadership .... When it comes to resources, I imagine Ind to be like a person with a short blanket. You tried to cover the head and the feet get exposed and vice-versa For a country that has gone through wars with its neighbors, the intelligence gathering falls short. Forget about anything else, I don't see a modernized police force. I am not sure if Indian police has helicopters, I don't even think the inter-department communication is there Don't expect much from Indian govt. All this talk makes me wonder if these are all talks to pass the buck on to the govt. As they say you get the govt you deserve. Unless citizens don't become vocal and seek responsibility in India, things are not going to change Instead of wasting time on proposing what the govt should do (and delivering bhashans like take a leaf out of Israel/USA), those living in India should learn to take matters in their own hands and show the anger, along w/ hopefully the way my 2c
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I didn't write on what the govt. can do is because I don't think it is capable enough to do something meaningful considering Ind's resources and traditionally weak leadership .... When it comes to resources, I imagine Ind to be like a person with a short blanket. You tried to cover the head and the feet get exposed and vice-versa For a country that has gone through wars with its neighbors, the intelligence gathering falls short. Forget about anything else, I don't see a modernized police force. I am not sure if Indian police has helicopters, I don't even think the inter-department communication is there Don't expect much from Indian govt. All this talk makes me wonder if these are all talks to pass the buck on to the govt. As they say you get the govt you deserve. Unless citizens don't become vocal and seek responsibility in India, things are not going to change Instead of wasting time on proposing what the govt should do (and delivering bhashans like take a leaf out of Israel/USA), those living in India should learn to take matters in their own hands and show the anger, along w/ hopefully the way my 2c Abey pagla gaye ho kya??? Whole of this post is pathetic. You are too far from reality.. there is corruption, there are inefficiencies but its is not a state of anarchy in India. Lot of people are doing their job very well.
zen Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Abey pagla gaye ho kya??? Whole of this post is pathetic. You are too far from reality.. there is corruption, there are inefficiencies but its is not a state of anarchy in India. Lot of people are doing their job very well. Can you first tell me what did you understand from the parts you bolded?
asterix Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I've realised that retaliation is not a solution and those who have committed these atrocities actually want/expect some sort of retaliation.. The best way of retaliation is to "bounce back" & continuously move forward in the economic front. However I would like to have strong judiciary and legislation to punish appropriately those who get caught and made an example of.
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Can you first tell me what did you understand from the parts you bolded? What are the various possible meanings of "taking matter in their own hands and show anger"??
zen Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 What are the various possible meanings of "taking matter in their own hands and show anger"?? What did you imply from that? Can you describe an action that related to taking matters in our own hands and showing anger?
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 What did you imply from that? Can you describe an action that relates to what you imagined? I do not need to imagine - you already gave examples from your vast knowledge..e.g. throwing stones on paki embassy.
ganeshran Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 What makes you think that we don't have an effective intelligence service? Have you considered the possibility that for every terror attach which occurs or you might know about there are ten which might have been stopped? I agree with the larger point that we can continue to improve our services however I don't buy into this theory that they are inept and incompetent. If they were you wouldn't sleep in peace in the night my friend. Someone gave the example of Mossad earlier on' date=' can you vouch for their 100% success rate? Have there been no terror attacks in Israel? It has stopped only after they built a wall around themselves and confined the palestinians into a very large jail with no freedom of mobility. Now replicate the situation to India, so you see any plausible solutions?[/quote'] They are not totally inept or incompetent but they are not effective either. Failure in stopping terror attacks cannot be condoned using supposed statistics of those which have been foiled. One failure is still one too many. The capability to mobilize quickly is a prerequisite for any army not just India- it is more pronounced in case of India because of the nuclear flashpoint and high international attention to the region. If we take a week to mobilize the army, diplomatic pressure would have effectively prevented us from pursuing any action. Strong leadership is not the ability to mobilise, but strong leadership is one which can be trusted to use the capability of the army if available. I disagree. Pakistan will not /can not launch a full scale nuclear attack on India. At best they will deploy a low yield weapon on Nasr followed by statements threatening a full scale nuclear attack. If India makes similar statements of a pre-emptive strike, a hasty truce would be worked out. They hardly have any second strike capability or a missile defence program. The realization that any retaliation can be military needs to be factored in by the enemy while planning a attack against the country. If they feel that India is never going to take military action because of the threat of nuclear war, their security agencies will be tempted to push the envelope every now and then.
asterix Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 What did you imply from that? Can you describe an action that related to taking matters in our own hands and showing anger? Candle light march led by Mahesh Bhatt?
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 They are not totally inept or incompetent but they are not effective either. Failure in stopping terror attacks cannot be condoned using supposed statistics of those which have been foiled. One failure is still one too many. I am sure you must have visited some crowded markets/slums at least once in your life. Also, you know how easy it is to make these small bombs in house. It is not yet possible to track each and every individual. Also, what works in US/UK, may not necessarily work in Indian conditions. The capability to mobilize quickly is a prerequisite for any army not just India- it is more pronounced in case of India because of the nuclear flashpoint and high international attention to the region. If we take a week to mobilize the army, diplomatic pressure would have effectively prevented us from pursuing any action. Strong leadership is not the ability to mobilise, but strong leadership is one which can be trusted to use the capability of the army if available. Again - what makes you think that Indian army is not capable of mobilizing its forces in time. or they do not camp at appropriate strategic locations? I disagree. Pakistan will not /can not launch a full scale nuclear attack on India. At best they will deploy a low yield weapon on Nasr followed by statements threatening a full scale nuclear attack. If India makes similar statements of a pre-emptive strike, a hasty truce would be worked out. They hardly have any second strike capability or a missile defence program. The realization that any retaliation can be military needs to be factored in by the enemy while planning a attack against the country. If they feel that India is never going to take military action because of the threat of nuclear war, their security agencies will be tempted to push the envelope every now and then. First of all - it is not 1 on 1 fight and neither it is like you make one strike and then pull out swiftly and wont expect a retaliatory action in future - in various forms. Also - I will repeat again - "Do not start a fight, but if you must, you must finish it(enemy) off - or die trying." So you have to be very sure of finishing it off, unless it has already come to a matter of life and death (as a nation).
Guest Gunner Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 They are not totally inept or incompetent but they are not effective either. Failure in stopping terror attacks cannot be condoned using supposed statistics of those which have been foiled. One failure is still one too many. Platitudes!! No country has ever stopped all terrorism, it just doesn't work. Secondly, we simply don't have that kind of resources. Whatever you might consider India to be they are just not that powerful. The capability to mobilize quickly is a prerequisite for any army not just India- it is more pronounced in case of India because of the nuclear flashpoint and high international attention to the region. If we take a week to mobilize the army' date=' diplomatic pressure would have effectively prevented us from pursuing any action. Strong leadership is not the ability to mobilise, but strong leadership is one which can be trusted to use the capability of the army if available. [/quote'] You just repeated yourself using a different set of words. I asked you a couple of pertinent questions in my previous post, please answer those. You simply don't understand do you. For one, neither you nor I know what exactly Pakistan will do let alone write things like "wed low yield tactical nukes to nasr". Secondly, if you read Akshayxyz correctly wrote in his previous post that the weaker you are the more desperate you get. The Pakistan army just needs to perceive existential threat for them to launch a nuclear assault, there doesn't have to be one. And what diplomatic pressure? Once they launch the nukes in retaliation to your "mobilization in 72 hours" plan, it is fait accompli.
Recommended Posts