Log has written
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

One of the things that the Western media seem most surprised by is the relative calm with which India has handled the 26/11 attacks. Many Western countries had worried that our immediate response to the terror strikes would be to bomb Pakistan. And certainly, much of the commentary in the foreign press in the days after the attacks concentrated on the imminent war in the region. The predictions of an attack on Pakistan came because of the way other states have reacted to terrorism—and the US’ responses in particular. American presidents have regularly sent missiles and bombers to destroy sites in sovereign countries that they believe are being used for terrorist activities. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya. Bill Clinton bombed Afghanistan. And of course, George W. Bush’s response to 9/11 was the invasion of Afghanistan.

Illustration: Jayachandran / Mint

Illustration: Jayachandran / Mint

If we went by American precedents, India would have no difficulty in offering a moral justification for an invasion of Pakistan. Consider the post 9/11 response. America asked the Afghan government to hand over Osama bin Laden. When the Afghans refused, the US invaded and instituted “regime change”.

So, when Pakistan refused to hand over terror suspects, we could have used the same justification for launching our own invasion.

So, why didn’t we do that? Why has the mood in India been so introspective rather than aggressive? We almost seem angrier with ourselves—and with our politicians and intelligence services—than we do with the terrorists. Why don’t people who want us to carpet bomb Pakistan receive a more enthusiastic response?

I’m wary of making grand judgements but it seems to me that 2008 might go down in history as the year when Indians became coolly realistic about what it means to live next door to Pakistan.

The Indian response to Pakistan has always been complex. In the north, memories of the horrors of Partition have largely faded but a new generation of Punjabis remains fascinated by Pakistan and Pakistanis. It is fashionable to caricature the Punjabi attitude to Pakistan in terms of old buffers lighting candles at the Wagah border, dreaming of the by-lanes of Lahore and inviting professional peaceniks from across the border to seminars at the India International Centre.

Also Read The year liberalization celebrated its silver anniversary

The year of inside out and upside down

The year a city learnt to fight its fears

The year of cheap and best

But that generation is dying out. And though its descendants do not share in the nostalgia, they still respond to that old cliché: “We are the same people, really”. When I edited the Hindustan Times, I was forever being told by market research agencies that readers in Punjabi Delhi (even younger ones) wanted more news from Pakistan.

READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
ananth Said:


Why does the author believe that most people dont want to bomb pakistan back to stone age? (or atleast the militants regions) Most Indians are angry and have had enough with that rogue state. Pakistan does not deserve to be called a Nation; its a failed state. India being a stronger, more powerful country, earning the right to be called a true democracy with home grown Technology, Space Research, Nuclear talent over the last 50 odd years since its birth - cannot afford to take anymore of this "shit". Its time Indian Govt gives Pakistan a graduate school education on how to clean up their backyard. What according to the Author is the reason for hitting pause this time? The rationale attributing to the small isolated percentage of the 1 Billion population close to Punjab border, hanging on to some vague obscure relationship;- is not a strong argument. The rest of the country is indeed pissed off-

Posted On 12/28/2008 8:29:59 AM
Rajiv Said:


Vir Sanghvi describes an important and substantial rationale of the Indian public and government response to the horrific events in Mumbai. However, the complex emotional upheaval caused by the terrorist attack had many other dimensions because it derived its passion from the decades of post partition conflict, mistrust and frustration. India did not go to war because the international community would not have permitted a conflict between two nuclear powers in an area dangerous as a tinderbox, made even more sensitive by the imminent instability of Pakistan in the event of a war with India. A failed Pakistan is the world’s nightmare, especially India’s. One doesn’t cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Pakistan as a failed rogue state will extend the danger zone from Lebanon, through Palestine, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan to the borders of India. Pakistan has, for years, fought a proxy war with India. The Pakistani Army which had always projected the image of invincibility against India was badly defeated in 1971 and has never been able to come to terms with its humiliation. Knowing that it cannot win another war against India, the Army has sought to fight proxy wars with India. The Sikh terrorists were trained and supported by Pakistan. The infiltration of terrorists into Kashmir and daring attacks on the Indian Parliament, Mumbai and many other incidents wereconceived, supported and organised by elements within the Pakistani army, ISI and the private, fanatical militias of retired Generals. Other than good intelligence and effective security services, the one card India can and should play is to respond the proxy war in kind. I do not mean that India should incite terror within Pakistan. It should send in highly trained commandos to take out LeT and other terrorist facilities and personnel within Pakistan. Rather than continuously asking Pakistan to hand over terrorists and crime warlords suspected of activities within India, Indian commandos should liquidate them in Pakistan. India should develop this capability with the willing offers of help from other countries such as Israel.

Posted On 4/20/2009 12:29:16 AM