Vijay Ramachandran (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} vijayr) wrote,@ 2009-01-07 18:11:00 |
|
Neighbourly "love"
What does one do with a failed state like Pakistan as neighbours? Take this statement by their FM, Quereshi, from this article:
Does this mean that the act of terrorism in Mumbai - if supported through acts of omission, or worse, commission by another Nation - is not to be construed as an act of war? What, then, is an act of war? Suppose some "mercenaries" or "local malcontents" hit terrorist camps in PoK - would that be an act of war?
Consider, also, the Pakistani cry for "proof", and calling whatever is presented is "insufficient" - classic stonewalling tactics. Also, Pakisitani statements indicate that they seem to be convinced that India is going to attack it. Does anyone believe that India actually wants to go to war with Pakistan? Even those fringe loonies on the right only want reactive war, i.e., to a provocative act (or set of acts) - whether actual or real. Its downright surreal that one country - India - is attacked by people originating from another country - Pakistan, and the attacking country claims that its the one being violated!!
Given that both are nuclear states, with Pakistan seemingly quite desperate, war is out of the question. I wonder what the answer is, though? How does India get out of this mess? What do you do with neighbours who want to keep fighting you, even if all you want to do is ignore them? What kind of stick does one use without risking nuclear annihilation? One clearly does not Israeli style of lunatic retribution (anybody paying attention to the photos of the dead Palestinian children??) Any ideas?
What does one do with a failed state like Pakistan as neighbours? Take this statement by their FM, Quereshi, from this article:
"On the other hand, God forbid, if war is imposed on Pakistan, then Pakistan will fight back. And every Pakistani will fight back with full commitment and force of conviction. But we do not want a war."
Does this mean that the act of terrorism in Mumbai - if supported through acts of omission, or worse, commission by another Nation - is not to be construed as an act of war? What, then, is an act of war? Suppose some "mercenaries" or "local malcontents" hit terrorist camps in PoK - would that be an act of war?
Consider, also, the Pakistani cry for "proof", and calling whatever is presented is "insufficient" - classic stonewalling tactics. Also, Pakisitani statements indicate that they seem to be convinced that India is going to attack it. Does anyone believe that India actually wants to go to war with Pakistan? Even those fringe loonies on the right only want reactive war, i.e., to a provocative act (or set of acts) - whether actual or real. Its downright surreal that one country - India - is attacked by people originating from another country - Pakistan, and the attacking country claims that its the one being violated!!
Given that both are nuclear states, with Pakistan seemingly quite desperate, war is out of the question. I wonder what the answer is, though? How does India get out of this mess? What do you do with neighbours who want to keep fighting you, even if all you want to do is ignore them? What kind of stick does one use without risking nuclear annihilation? One clearly does not Israeli style of lunatic retribution (anybody paying attention to the photos of the dead Palestinian children??) Any ideas?
