25 thoughts on “Jaipur attacked”

  1. Or that we will take the battle to the terrorists

    Interesting. What are you proposing exactly?

    Abstractions are one thing but the devil is in the details. Sadly, we may be reaching a stage where we cannot discuss even abstraction without resorting to politically incorrect characterizations of entire communities and peoples. Perhaps.

    Given that ‘terrorists’ don’t wear a “I’m a terrorist” signboards (i.e., the first degree ‘price’ discrimination solution in economics), the next best solution is to look for terrorists where they’re most likely to be found – hiding in places of worship, places of religious instruction, and urban ghettos of a certain community. Recall how Deve Gowda in Banglore, Mulayam in UP and Salahuddin Owaisi in Hyd pressured law enforecement to ‘go-slow’ in precisely these areas? Where is the sense of scandal, of outrage against such treasonable clowns?? The people of this country deserve better but, having failed to demand strongly enough better anti-terror enforcement, are getting what they voted for. And we should be careful lest our honorable pradhan mantri lose his precious sleep again, oh no!

    Of course, post-blasts now that only thing remaining in this hackneyed choreograph is the spectre of our honorable PM asserting that ‘we hope our relations with Pakistan, a fellow victim of terrorism, will continue to deepen. Meanwhile we’ve started Moitri express with Bangladesh’, our honorable Grih mantri chanting “we condemn terrorism (like we have in all the past 21 cases in the last 3 yrs)”, communists saying “investigation shouldn’t be one-dimensional” and the media dutifully reporting how the brave Jaipuris have gone back to normal within 48 hrs.

    IMVHO, of course. Its a sad day. My prayers to families of the victims killed by the blasts and maimed by sharpnel.

    Jai Bharat
    /Have a nice day folks, if you can.

  2. These blasts and the recent infiltration bid in Samba sound more like a message for PM Gilani in Islamabad than as a just another attack against India. Knowing the pacifist statements he’s been making lately, I am not surprised that that state within a state is trying to send a message this way.

  3. In addition to Sud’s points, we are going to see the PM and Sonia Gandhi making visits to the hospitals to sympathize with the victims. And a heavy round of condemnations also from the BJP along with accusations against Pakistan/ISI/Jihadi outfits. Nothing ever came of the last investigation in the recent Bombay blasts (some names were announced but none of the main culprits have been apprehended) and nothing is going to come of this one either. In a week, it will be business as usual.

  4. This ghastly act likely has strategic consequences. Any prospect of BJP coming to Congress’ aid on the nuclear deal is now extremely remote. Who knows, perhaps this is what the terrorists intended.

    The frustration Sud articulates is understandable. Our state has yet again failed our people. Not surprising perhaps, but appalling nevertheless.

    However, his suggestion to focus more aggressively on Muslim communities is not the panacea we seek. Indeed, no one should be shocked to learn that our police already does so — notwithstanding any political and constitutional pressures. Besides, this formulation ends up treating counter-terrorism as a police action rather than war that it should be.

    What should India do? What would Israel do?

    Whoever the pawn terrorists are, planting bombs among innocent people, there are deep pocketed and heavily armed sponsors behind them. If India were Israel, these sponsors would constantly look over their shoulders, fearing their well-deserved and brutal death. Who has India taken out in all these years of horror? No, we specialize in springing terrorists from our prisons and flying them to their welcome wagons in Kandahar.

    Rather than wasting diplomatic energy on acquiring symbolic power (e.g., selection to Security Council), we should be creating the space to take meaningful action against these terror sponsors — no matter where they are. If this leads to wider conflict, then so be it. For what other purpose do we spend 3% of our GDP on military if not to take the war to the enemy?

    Will we do this? Of course not. Our entire political spectrum is spineless and cowers pitifully when challenged.

    In this moment of intense national despair, India sure doesn’t feel shiny and incredible.

  5. What can one expect when one has Mr. no-balls as the home minister and the PM owes his mere existance to a higher authority more interested in the family than the country.

  6. We have to live with it. Even the people who took terror to terrorists have not found a solution (example Israel).

    Peace talks is the only way. I think, India is taking necessary steps in that regard.

  7. >> We have to live with it. Even the people who took terror to terrorists have not
    >> found a solution (example Israel).
    >>
    >> Peace talks is the only way. I think, India is taking necessary steps in that regard.

    Of course. As Lebanon is a great example /sarc

    Israel has been a success. Peace talks is a waste of time. Engage them, make all the nice noises, but take real effective action when needed.

  8. Dear Invalid,

    Peace talks are a great idea. So who do you propose India have peace talks with in order to stop these terrorist attacks?

    Pakistan? But we’re already in peace talks with them

    Hizbul Mujahideen/Hurriyat etc? But we’re already in peace talks with them.

    Are you proposing India conduct peace talks with Lashkar-e-Taiba, HuJI etc?

  9. Invaliad wrote:

    >>We have to live with it.

    Why?

    If we have to live with it, we might as well draw up a contract with terrorists that we’ll supply them every year X number of people to kill. Will you be the first to sign up?

  10. Hello Nitin,

    There is a division of labor among terrorists. The actual manufacture, loading, carriage and placement are done by the trained terrorist, mainly Pakistanis. While the local support, maybe even funding, without which no attack is possible, is provided by the muslims who live here.

    The Pakistanis also seem to have done some preparatory work, do notice a series of missile tests and deployment, before giving their boys the “go ahead”.

    As for the Indian response, some of us advocate the hard state response of Israel. India’s pain threshold seems to be very deep, since Mumbai 2006 should have been the fault line. There was no response by India, except the usual clichés of accusations. A hard state response is also not possible without completely “Silencing” the Indian media, i.e., Barkha Dutt, Rajdeep Sardesai and Co.

  11. Why are we not bleeding Pakistan and the sponsors of terrorism within it? Why doesn’t India aggressively finance militant groups in Pakistan to give them a taste of their own medicine? Why can’t we launch 360 degree attacks on *individuals* who even remotely support terrorist acts against India?

  12. Srirangan
    Israel didn’t taste the success. It rained rockets there last year. If Israel has succeeded, then it should have been a normal rain.

    Oldtimer
    I am not asking to bend our heads before them and say take us. Avoid these incidents and make sure that it doesn’t happen in future thru peaceful means.

    Nitin
    Needless to say that these people are driven by ideology. If they are driven by money, you can use the force to stop the supporter. It is hard to stop these people driven by some ideology; even if you eradicate them by force, a new bunch will spring up. Only way is to break the ideology thru peaceful means. Force the supporter to cut the support thru peaceful means. Covertly, break organizations that are behind these acts. Military actions will only add fuel to the fire. I suppose we talk to those orgs (overtly or covertly) you mentioned.

    In simple, peace talks, covert operations to break the organizations and nullifying the ideology are the only steps that can show success.

  13. Invalid,

    I repeat my question: who do you propose India should hold peace talks with? A person, an organisation, a group of people…who?

  14. So what does Manmohan Singh do when he hears of this catastrophe?

    No expression of regret, of moral outrage or even a platitude of bringing terrorists to book.

    Nothing.

    He merely throws a bone at the victims’ families and goes right back to sleep, only to awake when one of the accused ends up in jail, and CNN-IBN shows the murderer’s “poor destitute mother”.

  15. Invalid,

    That is a vague answer. Why negotiate? Why not just assassinate their leaders? Indulging every terrorist who attacks you will encourage more of them, no?

  16. Sorry, I really don’t know what to answer for your question “Why negotiate?”.

    If one leader goes out of this world, another one is going to come up. When you give ticket to them, you make them heroes. If you catch terrorists, put them in front of the court and award them death sentence. At the same, when ever you get opportunity to covertly capture the leader, put them in isolated cell or kill and deny that you don’t have them. If you want to use force, go ahead and use it but certainly not in public.

  17. “Why not just assassinate their leaders?”

    That’s exactly what the Israelis did after Munich in 1972. Golda Meir said then that “every society sometime needs to negotiate a compromise with its values”. What are our values exactly? And are we willing to negotiate a compromise with them?

  18. You can’t go around putting these bastards through our bureaucratic processes of courts and tribunals. Once found, send them to death. Certainly, they find it easy to kill first and ask questions, why shouldn’t we?

    All this talk of being better than the enemy and not killing them, and these vague remnants of Dharma Yuddha that we claim to follow are nonsense, primarily because we follow everything about forgiveness and lawfulness in warfare. However, we find it convenient to leave out that one last law of Dharma Yuddha. I don’t think anyone in here has a single idea about the line. Go back and read the Mahabharata again where Krishna reminds Arjuna that the final law of the laws of Dharma Yuddha says that if your foe does not follow it, you are not obliged to follow it, either.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1_RtFCIC9g

    Watch all parts of both movies.

    Watch and Learn.

  19. mrtyudand’s comment of “Certainly, they find it easy to kill first and ask questions, why shouldn’t we?” brings about a sense of unease. Didn’t Nietzche say “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” I don’t know how exactly shooting first and asking questions later solves the issue. Wouldn’t it be better if we addressed the root cause (state-sponsored terrorism and our government’s inability to be responsible for its citizens)

    I first say we get rid of Shivraj Patil and get someone more competent to handle the Home Ministry. 21 attacks in 3 years is a monumental tragedy brought about by incompetence

    The problem I find is that if we start talking to terrorists, where do we stop? If we start compromising, where do we stop? Have we learnt nothing from the lessons of history when appeasement hasn’t really helped? Chamberlain gave up half of Czechoslovakia and a fat lot of good that did! Closer to home, Andhra Pradesh decided to “talk” to the naxalites and at last count, Naxalites are very much alive and well in India!! Talking to the enemy is all fine and dandy, but these are non-state actors….and I have a feeling we’re not going to be doing as much talking as we are compromisng.

Comments are closed.