Government is here to act on public pressure itself. People must be sure that people in government are not evil or selfish. You may call yourself as professionals, but for public, you are paid servants. Adding "brand" to yourself won't change that. Government is supposed to tell everything and even explain why it is not acting and what are the reasons for the same clearly and also explain why this is the case, including historical precedents, natural resource distribution etc.
Governments are more likely to act under public pressure. If there is no public pressure, the government will be under less pressure to act. So, thank you for making my point. That is what I was trying to say. If military action against Pakistan is not known to the Pakistani public, the Pakistani government will have less incentive to act against India.
The Pakistani government can be used in two senses: (1) elected government, or (2) the military establishment.
Also, government must explain what is threshold for action. Will it allow enemies to do anything citing excuses? Will it just accept slavery or choose to die free if hands are forced etc?
Do not threaten anyone unless you are prepared to carry them out.
It is important to be as transparaent as possible. The reason for transparency is to ensure 2 things:
1) Ensure that there is no traitor within. This is important as history has shown that the greatest damage is done by traitors within. Constantine made entire Rome embrace Christianity, Ashoka made India buddhist are some examples. So, there is nothing more important than taking continuous tests of people to check for their loyalty
2) Ensure that the government is not being inefficient and to gather more feedbacks from public. Since govt has limited number of people thinking which may not be able to get best of ideas.
Constantine made the Roman Empire embrace Christianity so he is a traitor? Ashoka is a traitor because he made India Buddhist?
Interesting.
I knew this was going to gravitate towards religious demagoguery. It seldom doesn't.
You can do better than that.
You have been insisting repeatedly that Indian economy is weak. The reality is that Indian economy is indeed weak but economy is not what determines warfighting ability. India has its own food and enough iron, lead, zinc, coal etc to build arms. Also, large population is another advantage in warfighting. As long as there is food and arms, that is all it takes. USA economy is big but they are that way due to excess consumerism. This type of consumerism is actually a wastage
Economy very much determines firefighting capability. You need money, for food, clothes, equipment, etc.. The economy must be able to support the war effort.
You can have the biggest army in the world, but if you cannot feed them for 3 days, your army will disappear. I know I am borrowing this from somewhere, but I cannot remember whom to give credit to.
I think we are living in very different worlds.
I have been observing the Ukrainian Civil War for a long time. Kiev dispatched a detachment of soldiers with armoured personnel carriers from Dnepropetrovsk to Slavyansk but were not provided enough food rations. Guess what happened? The soldiers were hungry. They surrendered their weapons to the militia. The local fed the soldiers. Then, the soldiers went back to their homes.
There is no need to get everything by payment. Also, the main focus shouldn't be on getting big houses, cars but the will to dominate, even if one has to eat grass. If Indians eat food and work tirelessly without any extra demand towards militarisation, won't India become strong?
Even if one has to eat grass?
Please read this article:
Eating grass
We have been mocking the Pakistanis for making such statements. I do not intend to mock you, but pray tell me, do you have an expectation to be taken seriously when you say the same thing?
You seem to overemphasise on command/centralised economies whereby one master just doles out everything. I am seeing an alternative way of government by the people based on voluntary contribution, not contribution for selfishness. This has been possible before and is again possible if such community culture is nurtured. Before Industrialisation, people used to live in this manner itself.
Mankind is selfish. I am an admirer of anarchism (not to be conflated with lawlessness), but I doubt it can work in reality. In any case, what you say is an opinion, and I have nothing more to offer here.
Your arguments of reacting to 1971, 26/11, 1990 Pandits exodus immediately shows short sightedness. No one claims that the reaction must be immediate. But, there must be a reaction. India must at least develop an arms culture within and make defence the most important part of election campaign. The reaction is not short term but long term goal of 1-2 decades. What is being done is that all events are being forgotten immediately instead of taking steps towards arms build up.
The point I made about India having to wait is simple military tactics. You have to wait for the opportunity when you act. A good general will pick a place and time when it maximizes his chances of victory. The example I gave was to highlight that the covert action in East Pakistan had to be kept a secret until all the favourable conditions sought by India were met.
I admit I wasn't clear earlier. Am I clearer now?
India could have developed all the technology in defence just like China has. No country had developed any of the modern technology prior to WW2 and that also meant that India was not lagging behind more than 5 years at the beginning.
A lot of technological development happened before World War II. Sorry, I think you should widen your horizon a little bit. The Industrial Revolution gave a massive boost to the Europeans and they are still enjoying the benefits of that boost.
India could have avoided 1971 war itself by doing population exchange and cutting the losses completely. Not doing that despite repeated demands by Ambedkar and Rajendra Prasad was simply unacceptable.
Yes, but we would have probably lost Kashmir, and that is a problem. It is more important to have Kashmir in our control because it is a matter of our water security. How someone draws a border on a map does not necessarily reflect how borders end up getting drawn in real life.
Hiding the truth is only to cover up these activities. If people were so stupid as to exist without demanding military build up, then that is people's fault. The stupid actions must be punished with higher casualty and an overthrow of the congress. Wars don't happen as and when you want to. There is no international community that will help just out of niceties. Who helped Yugoslavia? Or Bangladeshi hindus? What was international community doing?
That is a diatribe. I'll pass.
There is no immediate solution available but that also doesn't mean not do anything. The biggest problem in India is not Pakistan but lack of identity and lack of self respect. Since there are enemies within political parties who lie and deceive by offering short sighted gifts, it is important to make people aware of the reality and force the narrative towards "genocide" and force everyone to follow that path or risk being killed by mobs. What needs to be done is simple: make people killers by speaking of war regularly. Defence build up must be made part of election campaign and the public must be imbibed in it so that there is always massive pressure on government to militarise. The display of army activities is to build this propaganda itself. It has been seen that Hindus lack self respect and there is a need to ensure that such self respect has to be built. Public pressure is obvious as this is a result of purposeful scuttling of Indian defence and making India a prostitute country. Naturally, seeking justice for this is inevitable and lot of people in high post and their families need to be publicly beheaded. The need is not to attack pakistan but build public pressure to react appropriately and weed out all traitors who keep offering carrots and prepare for action.
Pakistan is an important ally for USA, China, Arabs and in general Islamic countries. But that doesn't mean they can be allowed to do whatever they want. Right reaction and planning is needed and this can happen with only public pressure.
While arguing so much above, you only forgot to answer one of the most important problems- traitors within: How to weed out traitors within? What kind of tests and pressure should be applied to ensure that principles are relentlessly followed?
This is why extensive propaganda, social education must be focused upon.
Who is a traitor within? Who decides who the traitor is?
You asked me a question as to how to weed out traitors. Do you want the answer? Allow me to give you a cryptic answer.
If we look at the Ukrainian Civil War, we saw people chanting nationalist slogans and posturing, such as "Slava Ukraini, Geroyam Slava;" and "those who do not jump are Moskals." While this was happening in the front, Yatsenyuk, the
de facto Prime Minister took all of Ukraine's gold reserves, flew out to the US, and got the loan from IMF who took that gold as collateral.
Now, speaking of sloganeering and posturing, what purpose does it serve? It only serves one purpose. It creates a diversion for the crooks in influential positions to accomplish their plans.
The people sloganeering and posturing are not necessarily accomplices of the crime. They are probably good at heart, but nonetheless, they are instruments in aiding a crime.
So, yes, that is how you can spot a traitor - the one hiding behind sloganeering and posturing.
In terms of criminology, everyone in the scene is a suspect. No exceptions.
opens DFI.... Read first few lines.........
