Putting perfume on a skunk

Pakistan’s military mobilisation bogey didn’t work—it only exposed the army’s hand in the Mumbai attacks

It is hard to say whether the good retired brigadier Shaukat Qadir actually believes in his own fairy tale or is merely trying to make the skunk smell good in public. For he argues that “the token withdrawal of troops from our western borders was also an exercise in employing defence to further diplomatic ends and accelerate international efforts to defuse tensions between two nuclear neighbours; and it was successful.”

His first argument about how Pakistan showed tremendous restraint in the face of belligerent words and actions on the ground by India is factually wrong. According to the the same paper that published his analysis, Pakistan threatened to pull back 100,000 troops on 29 November 2008, even as the Mumbai siege was in progress. Far from responding to any hostile action from India, Pakistan’s alacrity in troop movements suggests that this was a pre-planned move, and half of which failed in the end.

And his argument that moving one armoured and one infantry division to a strategic location that would threaten India’s lines of communication is ridiculous. For if all it took to deter India from attacking Pakistan were army divisions at strategic locations, then why did Pakistan ever have to invest in nuclear weapons at such great cost to itself? It is plain and simple that Pakistan is using its nuclear weapons to provide cover and protection to terrorists. That smell won’t go away so quickly.

14 thoughts on “Putting perfume on a skunk”

  1. The expression, I believe, sir, is putting ‘lipstick on a pig’. Unless you refrained from the porcine metaphor out of consideration for the good brig’s delicate sensibilities.

  2. True. Pakistan is like that overconfident little child out to bully others through tough words, and a whole bunch of nonsense.

    Wonder where the bravado would go if the two countries actually go to war.

  3. Nitin,

    Why is India asking Pakistan to cut the war rhetoric? I believe it should continue because Pakistan will not dare to open attack. Starting a war is completely in our control.

    War mongering has leaked a lot of Pakistan’s intentions and their commitment to the so-called peace process and a little more of it could actually bring out the truth. The world will see. Pakistan may even be a state sponsor of terror, if we were to analyze the chronology of events in post 26/11 Operation Cover-Up.

  4. @jay,

    Per Vanni Cappelli’s brilliantly argued article in Pragati, Pakistan’s game was obvious to the US a long time ago.

    That they don’t put Pakistan on table is out of a lack of options, not for lack of evidence.

    Not sure if we have new options now. War hysteria is contagious. Why should we waste our energy jerking off in the way the Pakistanis do?

    What we need to do is give them hell where it hurts, ceaselessly until they come around. No bloody peace processes until that time.

  5. The main story about continued terrorist attacks on Indian soil is slowly getting sidelined by sub-stories like who said what to who and why. One month on there is absolutely no progress on ground, except for symbolic moves such as a brand new agency for investigating terror acts, and diplomatic circus of pressure on Pak.

  6. I don’t think skunk actually smells bad by itself. It can spray nasty stuff on offending party as a defensive mechanism. So a skunk is much better animal then the stinking Pakiland 🙂

  7. Pakistan has resorted to the war rhetoric to pre-empt India’s options for a punitive strike against terror camps. We now see politicians from India’s ruling party claiming that airstrikes would do little good and would only be cosmetic anyway. This shows that Pak rhetoric has been successful in its goals.

    The only redeeming outcome I can see here is that India may be considering a deeper response, such as deploying troops to Afghanistan. I’m all for avoiding cosmetic solutions, as long as this isn’t made into an excuse for complete inaction.

    Take a look at the latest from this retired Pak general:


  8. When skunks of the same colour converse with each other, the result could be anything between brawl and bout. Indeed the commentators aim is not to comment on the article but to show their hatred. You only hate us because we like veal stakes.
    By the way your own Home Minster is going to your present masters in DC wearing lipstick begging to implicate Pakistan. Keep trying!

  9. Yakuba,

    Surely you don’t expect us to show love towards people who see nothing wrong in sheltering terrorists. The hatred is understandable.

    But not because you like veal steaks. We like them too. But we pity you: if you can’t even spell it right, perhaps you are not getting the best meat. Perhaps because there’s not enough grain to feed the livestock?

  10. Udayan,

    You have endorsed my point of view on hatred.Individuals like you would never let things normalise in South Asia because much of it has come in you genetically, having a long history of agonizingly close minds. No one supports the terrorists and by analogy verbal terrorism is equally reprehensible as the physical terrorism in which all of you indulge as a matter of conviction and also does not shy away from violence when given the opportunity. The killer of Gandhi was a Hindu fanatic and not Kareem or Amir from Muradabad.There was a mispell but let me tell you that in recent years the livestock was imported in Pakistan from India and you are right in saying that we are not getting good quality meat. You know why? Because we imported lazy Indian cows.

  11. By the way your own Home Minster is going to your present masters in DC wearing lipstick begging to implicate Pakistan. Keep trying!

    That coming from a Pakistani is very amusing indeed. You are simply asking to be reminded of the global begging tour your administrators undertook just a few months back – from China to Saudi to the US to the IMF. Also how you went about begging to Uncle Sam not to bomb your “sovereign” territory! All in vain, of course – the US just curtly reminded you people of all the alms given over the past few years and asked that you to gulp it down quietly, which you promptly did.

  12. Yakub,

    Go elsewhere for flame-baiting. Any further comments by you, and responses to your comments will be deleted.

  13. Again one of you has proven what I said, you have indeed close minds. You are at liberty to delete my response but remember by deletion the facts are not going to change.
    Yes I agree we did go to some countries for help and what is wrong in it when ailing economy needs it. But we are not the only ailing economy. The cumulative failure of MNC’s the pride of the west and their borrowing spree from here and there shows that anyone could become needy. But you are essentially like ostriches with heads in the sand ignoring implosion. With 600 million Indians living below the edge of poverty no one is required to be cheeky to point a finger at others. This is exactly what you have to understand. You need to clothe them, give them food and to provide shelter instead of throwing them on Mumbai pavements. Wasting money to buy fancy jets from France, UK and Russia is cruelty with the poor of India, who don’t nurture hatred against Pakistan but against exploiting plumpies in your country. “Bhawgan” save us from chutzpah of fanatics.

Comments are closed.