Naxalism

Sometime back prime minister himself had described the naxalism to be greatest internal threat. But as global markets and share markets once bounced back from recession, even Afghan-Pakistan issue also lost its charm in the euphoria from mainstream media leave alone naxalism. Just before Pune blasts, most recently the blantant showcase of commercialised politics was on display in the from of security to MNIK.

But two recent happenings(Abduction and Killings) have shown that four decade old problem of naxalism is not so easy to be forgotten. In my view, graver is the problem of romanticism with naxalism than the actual problem of naxalism. A lot of folks(intellectuals) I have come across defines it as ideological battle between supressed men and government. The same intellectuals tend to ignore the human rights of common man while shouting loud for the rights of naxalites. But the realities come out quite opppsite way. Take for instance recent abduction, abduction of an innocent officer to free their own people doesn't feel like very humanaly. Killing 10 innocent villagers just because someone didn't adhere to their ideology again doesn't seem to be ways of suppressed men.
I think this is the worst kind of terrorism because when some remote group of people attack on us in the name of jihad, we know it is not our people, it becomes easy to point out someone; but when extremism rises from our own backyards, it is difficult to root out the bad weed without touching the good crop.

War and Terror

In India I hear 'Hang kasab' from people, I don't hear 'Bring kasab to justice'.
What is so differetn over there at Uncle Sam's?

Vanity of Pakistan

However impotent he may be as a chief of a country(unofficially/but not really), there is one thing about Zardari to be appreciated: his art of rhetoric. Some quotes from his latest editorial
"...we need no lectures on our commitment. This is our war. It is our children and wives who are dying."
"...The situation in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India is indeed critical, but its severity actually presents an opportunity for aggressive and innovative action."
"...Assistance to Pakistan is not charity; rather, the creation of a politically stable and economically viable Pakistan is in the long-term, strategic interest of the United States."
In a single editorial he tries to convey a threat of militancy, ask for a charity(politically assistance), justify actions of government and army.

On the other hand, there is USA point of view from Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and columnist David Ignatius:
"All countries have armies, but here, an army has a country."
"...the Pakistani army, with its stockpile of nuclear weapons, may include officers linked to a terrorist attack on the country's neighbor."
"...it's much more opaque than it is transparent... ...it can sometimes be difficult to figure out who did what to whom..."

Apart from what has been said in above quotes, there is a lot that can be inferred from these two essays
1. Civilian society in Pakistan is just there to die either in hands of terrorist or in hands of its own army or in hands of USA.
2. Zardari needs to know the distinction between a corporate house and a state. He cannot make difference between opportunity to show talent or need of security to people.
3. Stable Pakistan is in interests of India not that of USA unless USA needs Pakistan for war with terrorism.
4. USA is unable to comprehend the inter-relation between ISI, army and terrorism in Pakistan.
5. USA is happy just to see just a deployment of some troops for USA's fight(not Pakistan's) on the face. It's unable to learn from sixty years of experience of India with Pakistan.
6. USA is still unable to detach Kashmir problem with that of contemporary form of terrorism.
7. I wonder if Pakistan is rogue state or a state at all...
8. India has another worry to add in its list now, US intervention in Kashmir issue.

26/11 Mumbai Attacks: War with Pakistan

While reading this post from Vinod, I really got confused. I am in dilemma between the question of 'war with Pakistan'.

War with Pak: Yes
There is no way Pakistan govt will help finding perpetrators of any terrorist attacks that have happened in India over the past, forget about current Mumbai attacks. This is shown in their blatant act of ignorance that any terrorist activity even does exist in Pakistan at all. Similarity can defined for Pakistan govt with Taliban which did not take any action against Al Qaeda, and now Pak is reluctant to recognise LeT (and group). Pakistan's behavior in this respect is also criminal, giving refuse to other criminals. It is Pakistan's compulsion or urge, we cannot tell. How to pressurize Pakistan is question which is answered by only taking unilateral military action.
We are left with only military action because over the past, any bilateral or multilateral talks involving India and Pakistan, have been failed utterly in achieving the objective. Though one should not be cynical that if talk has been failed in the past, it is bound to fail again. But going with conditions in Pakistan and attitude of its govt, it is safe to assume.
The other way would have been multilateral pressure on Pakistan with the support of USA(may be Israel also). But here again the glitch is at this point of time, favoring India over Pakistan is not in strategic interests of USA. USA would not want to jeopardize its fight with Taliban on Eastern front of Pakistan, which is its high priority and in which it has already invested.
All India is left with, is unilateral action(not talk) on Pakistan which transforms to war.

War with Pak: No
The solution is not so easy. Lets say we go to war with Pakistan.
First of all that is really not direct solution to India's problem. 'War' means war with Pakistan govt which is in fact supporter of terrorists, not the actual culprit which happens to be LeT and Company Inc.
Secondly there is the mess of Taliban. If there is war between Pakistan and India then Pakistan finds itself in pieces. It will be highly unstable because of war from two fronts - Eastern(India) and Western(Taliban). Now again, unstable Pakistan is highly undesirable for India. India may win one war, but will have to face another war.
There maybe a arguments that Taliban will support Pakistan. Really? The given war will be only platform for Taliban to gain solid stand in Pakistan. After Pakistan goes bust, Taliban will rule the left-overs. Taliban is no mere terrorist group, it has a monumental army gathered(80,000 read somewhere).
On top of that, If India goes to war with Pakistan then it will jeopardize its strategic relations with USA because for USA Pakistan is a crucial ally in fight with terrorism. And in this situation when India is vulnerable from three fronts - Pakistan(west), China(Northern border) and internal threats(like naxalism), it will be a blunder to not have USA as an ally. Because at this point of time, on international front only USA is strong ally for India.

The Question
What should be India's response, as foreign strategy, to Mumbai Terror attacks?
still remain unanswered.

26/11 Mumbai Attacks: In response to NYT

Dear Gosh,
With all due respect, You are so wrong!! Perhaps you need to analyze the Mumbai attacks with more care. These attacks were even more significant than 9/11 not for world or America but for India. Think carefully if the same perpetrators could have kept the whole nation at ransom for three days if the same incident would have happened in USA. No, we are not talking about America, we are talking about India. We are talking about something which is more than number of casualties. It is about national security, it is about corruption of politics, corruption in security forces, it is about ripping of whole nation. 9/11 is significant to world because it was not about world trade center of America but about the price whole Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan had to pay.
And what else do you expect from a city other than returning to normal life, where life is more tough than anywhere else in India.

But yes, I agree with you on:
"Defeat or victory is not determined by the success of the strike itself; it is determined by the response."

Dear Friedman,
Even with more respect, I ask you to read Zardari's response. USA can invade a sovereign nation(Pakistan that is) to find her criminals but India cannot even make a descent request to hand over perpetrators.

And Pakistan's sincerity towards countering terrorism is shown in their ignorance (act of ignorance):
"if any evidence points towards any individual or group in my part of the country..."

Mere Mumbai or India?

Once again, terrorists can count another masterpiece against the failure of government in standing unto its words. Anything to say is sheer wastage of words. But I felt guilty of not mentioning this terror in my blog which for ages is exploiting the Indian soil.
I feel like shouting loud in all my helplessness. But I will have to be content with small rant.
Some were surmising the damages in vicinity of attacks. Others were updating the sequences of last terrorist attacks from far away.

Just wondering what all politicians(Lalu Prasad, Advani likes) will say on these attacks. What will they have in defense of their words?? But will the defend their words at all or will they achieve new heights of dumbness?? And wonder, where will people like Raj Thackeray find place in all this.