I think you are missing the point again. If the public is unaware and the information remains within the government, then there is less pressure on the government to carry out further attacks.
Coming to Bangladesh, what you say might be correct, but you are forgetting the most important thing. India could not have made anything public until situations were favourable. It is a long discussion, but my point is, making covert actions public is not in the best interests.
Then there is the case of plausible deniability. We are also governed by international laws. This was true in 1971 and is true today.
Look at the screenshot below. I am glad we have professionals handling the public relations department of the army. Here is an example below.
View attachment 22247
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.
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?
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
That is a subjective conclusion. You may be right or wrong.
Let me give you the example of the 1971 war, if I may use 1971 instead of 1972.
- The covert action that was taking place was in violation of international laws. The military cannot contravene those laws.
- India was not only pitted against Pakistan, but there was a serious possibility of PRC and USA invading. We needed the backing of a superpower. So, we had to wait for the official backing of the Soviets.
- India had to wait for the summer to end and cooler weather to emerge. Indira Gandhi wanted to start the invasion, but Maneckshaw, not swayed by emotional outbursts, put his foot down and even offered to give up his rank.
After considering these, do you think all this boasting is done for the interests of the country or just to offer an emotional placebo for the public to munch on?
What counts is minimizing our casualties and maximizing their casualties.
I am very much in favour of transparency, if that is a justification, but it should be equitable. I don't like the idea of making this massive hullabaloo about Surgical Strikes when we have been doing this for decades. When we cherry pick instances, it trivializes the efforts and achievements of the predecessors.
You are right about that resolution. Does it help India?
The USA, Russia and PRC can do a lot of things that we cannot.
On top of that, we are not talking about only the international border. We are talking about the international border and the LoC. Even if we cross, how is the world going to react?
When the US invaded Afghanistan, all its allies lined up behind the big boss. That ain't happening with India.
No country came to the aid of Pakistan at various points in time, depending upon the situation. Remember Kargil and Sharif's meeting with Clinton?
The international community will go soft on India when some countries are trying to sell their weapons to India. The moment they realize we are not buying, they will start making a lot of noise. This is just one example.
We should not take these flip-flops as a permanent achievement. The international community still regards J&K as a disputed territory. We do not have the economic clout to change that.
Pakistan is an asset for many countries, especially the US, PRC, and KSA.
We lack economic clout. Economics determines how much support we get to a very large extent. After Pakistan acquired nukes, yes, we are severely incapacitated to do anything.
Sorry to tell you the bitter truth.
____________________
Pakistan crossed the LoC but we did not, at least officially. The government did not allow the troops to encircle the peaks. That is why we had a massive casualty count and that is why we were able to isolate Pakistan.
____________________
Ok, that is an achievement.
____________________
The premise of your statement is that we should have done something after 26/11. What were our options? Surgical Strikes? We have been carrying out such strikes since 1948. The government allowed too. I am not getting your point.
____________________
Pakistan has been the aggressor since 1948. How many wars with Pakistan has India initiated?
____________________
See response below:
____________________
- Ok, so you see our own weakness. How can we eliminate this weakness?
- In the early 2000, China's economy was as big as ours? How did you conclude that?
- Pakistan is truly a victim of terrorism, much of it created and nurtured by itself. It is suffering from the Frankenstein effect. They don't need to pretend. When Pakistan says they are a victim of terrorism, the world believes them. I believe it too. It is true.
____________________
The Soviet Union was self sufficient. It produced everything, especially high tech weapons. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent bankruptcy of the Russian Federation in 2008 tells you how much more important economics is than we give it credit for. The fact that Russia fought in Georgia and Syria has a lot to do with geography. Russia wants to remain the sole energy supplier to Europe. That is a way of preserving their clout. Russia has geography and resources to its advantage. India might have other advantages, but we should not try to be what we are not.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
