Welcome Mr Biden

It was surprising to read your comment about India insisting on doing a Gaza in Pakistan. While I am emphatically not a drum-beating, chest-thumping patriot, this seems to be a travesty of truth. At the time of the tragedy, Indian ministers, including the Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister and the new Home Minister, took pains to draw a distinction between Pakistani individuals acting as part of a fringe group, and the state apparatus of Pakistan. Subsequently, if you really have been observing the sequence of events, it has been a gradual, reluctant and step-by-step process, whereby first it was analysed as acts of a team working under the training and tutelage of an organisation known to be violent votaries of terror; then of a team working under an organisation which still carried signs of support and encouragement by, perhaps, rogue elements of a part of the State; then, still later, there were unsuccessful attempts to convince ourselves that the involvement of the State organisation, the ISI, to call a spade a spade, may have been involuntary, and may not have been currrent; then we tried to ease the pain by supposing that perhaps the ISI was working on its own, without support from the government (a conjecture which almost suggests itself), and even perhaps without support from the Army; finally, our ministers found themselves reluctantly forced into a corner by the sheer volume of materiel recovered which pointed to one, unmistakable conclusion.

All this while, not a single shell landed on Pakistan, not a single bomb touched Pakistan soil, not a single Pakistani soldier was shot. Forget about Pakistani civilians. Are you serious in comparing this to what is going on in Gaza?

Would it be unfair to suggest that India has exercised self-restraint and forebearance at a time when every nerve screamed out for a release through some direct retaliation? Does that seem apparent to you at all?

On the point of evidence, some of what has been suggested by apparent sceptics about the reconstruction proposed by Indian policemen is puerile and laughable. Nowhere, at no time, was it sought to be conveyed that the evidence available was of the sort that would satisfy a court of law, sitting in conditions of peace and the rule of law, with respect to the rules of evidence. On the contrary, this was evidence which was required to establish with great urgency who was responsible for the planning and the logistics support, for the financing and the indoctrination. It is in my humble opinion not intended to go further than that. It may never be possible to establish what actually happened; one is painfully aware of the nature of South Asian transparency of information, ranging from the destruction of war records in Pakistan after the 1965 war to the suppression of the Henderson-Brooks report in India. Perhaps some decades later, a fading soldier grasping desperately at his fading laurels may set things down in a self-serving memoir. Until then, all we have is SIM cards, telephone numbers called, conversations taped, impressions of regional accents used, evidence obtained under duress under the third degree, and the like. Not Old Bailey stuff, I regret to say. If that is the level of evidence that Pakistan and Pakistanis want, then I see no way forward at all.

Let us agree that Pakistan denies any involvement, at any and every level, and that there is no blame accruing to the State, to the Pakistani Army, and the Chief of Army Staff, General Kayani, or to the ISI, or to its Director, and certainly not to the democratic political establishment, who have clearly identified their peace-loving, anti-terrorist credentials on numerous occasions, whether we consider M/s. Zardari, Gilani and company, or Mr. Nawaz Sharif. Let us accept that all of Pakistani civil society is completely blameless of encouraging these acts either today or in the past.

Perhaps we really should apply our minds, corrupted as they are from excessive poring over the Chanakya Arthashastra and the Kama Sutra on alternate days; obviously, these attacks were organised by little green men levitating down from shiny bright UFOs, and obviously, if we bring in the right Americans in the correct dark suits, and not those thick-headed, crime-oriented oafs from the FBI, we will find that Kasav’s head comes off on hinges and there is a little man inside.

Quite simple really, once one gets off the beaten track.

And now we can all live peacefully for ever.

I do beg your pardon for not waiting for your detailed reply, which is what I would have done normally. But it needs to be pointed out that you stated, quite unambiguously, as follows:

[Quote]
In India situation is indeed different from Israel but since the very start of the Mumbai fiasco it has shown little interest interest in solving problems through established mechanisms and has insisted on doing a Gaza in Pakistan. That of course would mean a full blown war between the nuclear armed countries. A full blown war if it is fought in accordance with the hardliner and opportunist agenda would certainly serve their cause not ours.
[Unquote]

I am objecting specifically to the statement that India has insisted on doing a Gaza in Pakistan. This equates the wish with the deed. Nowhere did I suggest, nor has any reasonable Indian suggested that there were no calls on the Indian side for immediate action. There were many such calls. And that is precisely what was contained, and deflected, by the Indian political leadership, and in fact, the possibility of ‘doing a Gaza in Pakistan’ was prevented.

It is precisely this gap between what you have claimed as a done deed and what actually is happening that upsets me so deeply. This kind of equation cannot contribute in any positive way to forming the framework for a discussion.

Speaking of which, would you care to dilate on the established mechanisms that India has ignored in its reaction?

@vakibs

Your opening words are an excellent summary of what I imagine that an Indian with a desire to see peace between India and Pakistan would have undergone in recent weeks.

Regarding your other remarks, I withhold comment, for the simple reason of being a guest on somebody else’s blog, hence reluctant to go beyond the boundaries set by the host.

Please take it that I neither agree nor disagree with your conclusions, that is, your numbered paragraphs; your narration of the responses from the Pakistani establishment is different, I agree with it and I imagine that this common perception contributes to the sense of depression that many Indians who hope for peace are suffering at the moment.

Finally I confess to a deep sense of disappointment that even moderate and balanced Pakistani commentators, journalists and bloggers are expressing rather extreme views at the moment.

@abdlsy

On a slight tangent, I don’t think any army – leave alone the Indian Army or the Pakistani Army – can ‘crush’ insurgency and terrorism. As far as I know, the Indian Army has always taken the stand that their task in the counter-insurgency role is to bring down or subtract the element of terror in daily life, so that civil administrators can move in and rectify the situation that caused trouble in the first place. This is what they sought to do in Mizoram, for instance; brought in law and order and enabled the police force to function again, so that civilians could bring in employment oriented development, and the political leadership could acknowledge and co-opt the local leadership. The same is the situation in Nagaland, with a complication which is local; ditto for Manipur, Tripura and the Bodoland. Each is similar, but has a local twist. The Army feels it’s not its job to fix the problem, it’s to create an environment within which to fix the problem. It’s the Army’s job to prevent civilians being terrorised to the point that the justice system breaks down, individuals are kidnapped and killed for opposing the terrorists, and the terrorists impose their own code of conduct, including forced espionage on the administration, payment of parallel taxes, participation in terrorist acts, including murder, and public opposition to the law and order activities of the armed forces, Army and paramilitary alike.

The Indian Army has refined its doctrine relating to counter-insurgency operations considerably, and with regard to physical aspects, has created specific training programmes. However, it is quite clear in its mind that it has a temporary, very partial role to play, and the enforced peace that it can bring must be used quickly and effectively by the civilians and the politicians.

It is not clear that there is a parallel process developed as a standard by the bureaucracy – their methods seem to be rather more ad hoc – partly because the politicians standing behind are never united, so they cannot possibly have standardised responses themselves, and therefore they cannot and do not respond in a uniform way to the efforts of civil administration to follow up initial military effort.

The effects of this are evident; some situations blow up faster, and are tackled faster, but the follow-up phases take various twists and turns, not all of them mandated by local conditions. At least to some extent it depends on the statesmanship and broad vision of whoever is in power at the Centre, and the maturity and experience of politicians at the local level. All three have to work closely together to heal the situation.

I hope that this longish excursion is of interest to you and to others who are seeking answers to their local situations. Clearly, these responses cannot be imported, but have to be developed – perhaps against an existing model – locally, and implemented locally, through a process of trial and error. Our experience tends to the conclusion that the process is painful but possible.

Please note that I have drawn no parallels.

My apologies for going off-topic.

@abdlsy

You have posed a moral dilemma, and I am glad not to be in a position where I have to take decisions on either side.

If we opt for the short, sharp approach, shoot on sight and solve the problem, as in Baluchistan and in Sri Lanka, the problem is liable to disappear from the surface and linger on concealed from sight for years, perhaps to break out suddenly in a much more dangerous form. Or the problem may be crushed once and for all. In between, there will be a lot of ‘collateral’ damage.

If we opt for the long way around, a large number of soldiers, airmen and policemen, as well as a large number of civilians, though perhaps not as large as in the other case, are likely to be killed. Only a very strong leadership and a very disciplined force can do this.

I have no idea which is more effective. If you say your way is, you may well be right. Personally, however, I believe that I have no choice but to support the long way, because of a somewhat rigid set of thought processes that I carry around as baggage. Regrettably I can’t do much about it, at this stage of life.

This might explain why I am not in favour of ‘surgical strikes’ and the like, or any other form of trans-border military intervention by the Indian Army or the Indian Air Force, but would rather leave it to the authorities in Pakistan to perform their duties. I would hope that they would do so with the greatest concern for innocent people caught in the cross-fire.

@abdlsy

Your last post was alarming! What you stand for is a robust, red-blooded, two-fisted approach to topics and issues, which is refreshing and very enjoyable, and not in any sarcastic sense either. It will be a tragedy if you become a soft-boiled egg. I hope if I say something inaccurate, or imprecise, or illogical, you will not hesitate to knock down my arguments, and clean the floor with them (my arguments, that is; you wouldn’t hurt a short, dark rice-eater wearing glasses, would you? I sincerely hope not!).

On another level, what intrigues me is that each new post by Pitafi has resonance with some Indian situation – not an exact parallel, but enough to create resonance. This is bewildering for someone who has had a very different image of Pakistan for all these years. Even more bewildering is the quality of these blogs and the people writing in. I am really confused and disoriented. I hope you realise that condescension is not in any way part of this. This blog, too, has been an education: Pitafi writes with great depth, enormous grip over detail and genuine emotion. There are moments when I find myself disagreeing very strongly; he maintains his serenity and grace even at such moments. I now find myself addicted, eagerly looking forward to seeing what’s next.

We shall meet at Phillippi.

Heh, heh, heh.

Just an example of over-elaborate humour falling flat on its face. I was trying to be funny.

I was indeed referring to your last post, precisely the one in which you said, “Thanks bonobashi!, I enjoyed your last comments.PEACE”

I was trying to say that the vision of your saying peace, instead of charging out at full speed in full battle regalia, was alarming, because you in your belligerent mode are always more enjoyable and fun to read. I personally wouldn’t like you to soften up; stay tough, old chap, and knock down anybody who doesn’t think before writing.

Sometimes I see fellow-Indians writing stuff that makes me cringe. I am inhibited about taking them apart for the sake of not washing our dirty linen in public, in this case, before (I presume) a largely Pakistani readership, although I suspect Pitafi is widely followed in India. In such cases, only people like you can relieve the frustration that I feel. Good for you, and keep it up.

What I wrote was in a spirit of mock-combat, with tongue parked firmly in cheek; I assure you nothing you wrote was offensive, or hurtful, or taken amiss. But it’s always fun when we don’t agree, and argue it out with logic and wit, and with no malice on either side. It was in hope of such future fair-minded, good-tempered battles that I said to you that we shall meet at Philippi.

Cheers, and all the best.

A clarification: I wasn’t referring to Vakibs, by the way. Don’t agree with all he writes, but he’s not writing the cringe-worthy stuff I mentioned. In fact, I quite agree with most of what he’s written, except the single sentence, “All bravado aside, Pakistan cannot stand up to the military might of India.” I don’t agree; on balance as things stand, in the absence of a great stroke of strategy, any war between the two countries can only be indecisive due to the parity of forces and their quality, and mutually harmful to both countries.

Holy Moses! Do you think it’s genuine? It’s breathtaking in its plain speaking and bluntness.

What do you think about the specific points, by the way?