On proof and its credibility

International relations is not a courtroom battle

Here’s a post from the archives on the matter of proof in international relations, written in August 2006 after a previous round of terrorist attacks on Mumbai. Things remain so much the same that there’s no need at all to write a new post.

4 thoughts on “On proof and its credibility”

  1. Couldn’t agree more. But the interesting point to answer now is: Since the government hasn’t (yet) mobilized troops, what’s its strategy this time? Have the available options changed since 2001, or is it just that the situation today is very different?

    Granted that there are limits to a public discussion on this issue, but one still wonders…

  2. One cannot expect Indian politicians to be more ethical than the Indian public. When the public itself is not motivated by sufficient ethics to hold the politicians accountable on pertinent issues, then it’s naive to think that politicians will automatically practice ethics for its own sake.

    You cannot pull a silk purse from a sow’s ear. There is a divergence in public opinion on what in fact constitutes ethical politics. Most people don’t give a damn about terrorist attacks as long as they can get a reservation quota or a govt subsidy. That’s what dominates their world, and thus their voting patterns. Populist policies trump ethical policies every time.

  3. IOW, true to form we Indians won’t act until crisis reeeeally hits the fan. A few 100s lost to terror is an affordable price, for everyone, to keep the pretense that all is fine. And maybe its really fine, who are we to judge, eh?

    Lets wait until crisis reaches boils point and simmers over. The vested interests will wanna keep the status quo but with so many players and games in play, the laws of unintended consequences take over real fast.

Comments are closed.