An unstable Pakistan is not what India needs; it needs a reasonably stable Pakistan with enough problems of its own to worry about India or anyone else.

Unless India has a day by day plan to micromanage after-invasion Pakistan, you’re only to invite war on all fronts.

Can we talk about defining political culture in India? It would be interesting to see what you think about the political landscape, and how people respond. The most interesting point -for me – would be what exactly is Hindu Extremism? Is any Hindu coalition extremist? Is there any ‘legitimate’ response by a Hindu faction to Muslim extremism? Must Hindus wait for a long time (forever) for Muslim ‘moderates’ (wherever they are. . ) to speak up against, issue fatwas against extremism? Every major world religion can censure their more extremist wings, with the exception of this purest religion. How can India – the origin of the world’s oldest living religion – ever truly be secular in the American sense; even in America, there is a Protestant predominance in the executive. If there is a Hindu majority, but everyone is treated fairly, it seems that this is still not ’secular’ according to Muslims. Even with Haaj subsidies for select groups, India is still not secular. So I think that defining the political landscape wrt India – and clearing these perverse notions that lead to Anti-India sentiment by India’s Muslims and ’secular’ Hindus – is a key step, whether done at the beginning or the end, towards getting India back on track.

And speaking of re-aligning incentives, what is to be done (and how?!?!) with illegal immigrants? Talking of clearing out 50(+?) million illegal Bangladeshis (which would be a third of India’s 150 million Muslim population, if I remember correctly), I can already hear the ’secular’ groups in India and passionate US-based Sonal Shah supporters chipping in their two cents on genocide; no matter that Indian farmers are killed in Assam by these illegal immigrants, BSF jawans are killed and sent back in pieces, and LeT operations are (as we knew all along, and the world now has spelled out for it) run by Bangladeshi terrorists!!

I’d also be interested in seeing commentary on transitioning India from a parliamentary to a presidential system – I’ve talked to numerous people, incl. Harsh, and have received interesting feedback from them, but would like to get a wider response.

Sorry if I’m a bit incoherent – like everyone else, I’ve been up for a while. .. and kudos on a great journal – it’s relieving to see that we’re going somewhere, hopefully soon!, with all of this.

Yes, I was referring to ur post only. The emphasis was on the predictable occurrence of the terrorist strikes and to underline the ability of the terrorists to strike any time, any place, at will. Sorry, if it was not clear enough.

What exactly do you think was going for the past five years? I know you secularists need to look at the religion of everyone killed to make a balance sheet of how many muslims and hindus are killed in riots to see if which group is more secular.

Can you balance the numbers killed in terrorists attacks – based on religion, of course, to satisfy your secularism? Were more Hindus killed then Muslims? And then tell us who exactly is responsible for those killings? And then tell us who exactly was in charge of stopping these killings?

And then tell why you (and your type) hate Modi? Because he is an unabashed practicing Hindu? Because he speaks truth about Bharatiya history – both of Islamic plunder and white colonialism, without the veneer of JNU history? Because he speaks, without mincing words, about terrorism sponsored by Pakistan? What exactly is your grouse about Modi? Are you saying he himself killed his fellow citizens?

Again count the numbers killed under your monster Modi and tally it with the numbers killed in the terror attacks (just in the past three years)….On what basis exactly do secularists support Congress I and its UPA is beyond me….

Only thing that makes sense is, you secularists hate Hindu politicians – a Hindu hater like Nehru would be perfectly fine, ruling over majority Hindus, despite national disgrace of defeat and humiliation vs a Hindu like Sardar, who care more about the country then anyone and probably would have saved the country from the disgrace….

Your pseudo-secular nonsense is mind boggling!

Lots of Indians believe that Modi becoming PM is a nightmare situation for jihadi types and their sympathizers. You seem to be living in your own world.

Thats exactly what I was afraid of. Modi becoming a PM of India come next election, with his roles of omission or comission in Guj-2002 still not accounted for, is a nightmare scenario – and could be a dream situation for these jihadi types.

I hope and pray that doesnt come about- it would be a big victory for the terrorists. I hope we get reasonably tough laws on terror from the UPA instead of blanket “no POTA, not even anything that comes close to POTA” electioneering-as-governance slogans. I’d take an effective UPA over the NDA.

Lets look at the brighter side: terrorists are being met head-on whether in Jamia Nagar, or Bombay. No negotiations. Malegaon is being investigated regardless of religion of perpetrators.

Pls reconsider… Advani and Co came out in full force support for Sadhvi. As pathetic as the UPA has been, there doesnt appear to be a secular alternative. I wish the BJP challenged it on a more secular plank.

Thanks,
Jai

And no I have full sympathy for innocent people who died in US but why should our tragedy that cumulatively is of bigger size than any other nation’s be described in other terms.

_W_O_W_!

??? ??? ????, ????? ?????. ???? ??? ???????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ???????!