often direct, frank and thoughtful. -------------- Consistent with his assessment, he holds a proper view on first use policy. Even US also has the same policy.
Indian rational for no-first-use deployment serves as a rational to deploy second strike capabilities and development of strategic triad. Pakistan would simply find it impossible to invest in such capacity building. When faced with a far larger conventional army, the exercising first use option is a thoughtful approach.
The question which amazes is that while being so thoughtful and analytical on strategic matters why does he see India as an existential threat. To fathom the working of the strategic thinking beyond this Indian threat perception is a domain where he have really failed. If those fears are real, it is all the more necessary to address them with policy correction. If those designs are aggressive in intent, then no efforts ought to be spared to foil those intents and make him accountable to not just Indian law, also question whether he can be permitted to steer the destiny of Pakistan with such ulterior motives.
Re: quality of intent makes the real difference
by Ramesh on May 07, 2011 10:35 AM
It is not clear whether Gen Kayani had any role in Mumbai terror. The pointers towards him are only reportage, not evidence.
One would always like to be respectful towards Constitutional authorities, but the circumstances are also extraordinary and the responses are not one expects from a gentleman soldier. For, the terror tap to India continues, clearly as a component of their security doctrine.
Re: Re: quality of intent makes the real difference
by Ramesh on May 07, 2011 10:52 AM
We need to ask ourselves why best of Pakistani strategic minds consider India as an existential threat. They have invested their whole lifetimes in this misconception, and causing severe losses in terms of lives and properties and more so in terms of opportunity costs.
Think, somewhere beneath their obsessive India-centric worldview there is a deep sense of affection, a sense of bonding and affinity to India, its our betraying this expectation which drives the deep seated rage.
There surely would be scope for empathic reconciliation, specially when they begin to trust their capabilities to overcome any surprise distrust from India. Per ancient Indian thought when abhaya i.e. fear is overcome, truth prevails. We can only hope that Pakistan becomes strong and secure enough to perceive truth about quality of Indian intent and establish mutual trust.
Re: quality of intent makes the real difference
by Ramesh on May 07, 2011 05:28 PM
If it is established that the Mumbai terror was per state intelli blueprint and executed by Constitutional bodies, the crime would be placed on a totally different genre than 9-11.
Law is not backed by might alone, though it must be backed by might. It is one thing to say that might is the criteria for right, and another to say right invariably develops superior might to finally win. The critical discernment is that right and might are never in contention.
But State sponsorship of Mumbai terror, if it really took place, would definitely bring Pakistani might in contention with rights - human, international and Indian.
It is for Pakistani legal framework to take timely remedial action in order to avert the consequences of such contention.
Re: Re: quality of intent makes the real difference
by Ramesh on May 07, 2011 05:56 PM
The key consequence may be the forfeiture of legal right to retain crown jewels, which anyway have not been accorded legitimacy by international laws yet.
Re: Re: Re: quality of intent makes the real difference
by Ramesh on May 07, 2011 09:27 PM
Acquiring legitimacy for the crown jewel ought to be the primary focus of their state policy and all it needs is for their security establishment to conform to and work within their legal framework.
It is a fact that a large number of people of both India n Pakistan live under poverty line.The percentage may be more in Pakistan.In such a situation,both the countries should give up their respective egos n come forward to resolve all outstanding issues including Kashmir through dialogue.Pakistan always commits a blunder by comparing itself with India.They should realise that India is a bigger country n has a much better repuation than Pakistan among the international community.They should not try to compete with us.Instead of utilising their scarce resources (including foreign aids) for building military capabilities n nurturing terrorists,they should utilise the same on social sectors.A war between the two countries will serve no good purpose.Pakistan has proved time n again that they r unreliable.They may use the nuclear weapons which may destroy both the countries.So,it is advisable on the part of India to continue the process of dialogue n mobilise the opinion of international community for arrest of all declared terrorists including Dawood Ibrahim.
Re: No war
by MAHESH GUPTA on May 07, 2011 11:40 AM
Excellent thoughts Mr.Biswal. Only if Pakis could see reason, whole of south Asia would be a much better place.
Pakistani Army cannot indulge in nuclear black mail of India.A nuclear conflict will certainly be a catastrophe as salman bashir says but forgets that it will mean Extinction for Pakistan.Pakis should come out of their mediveal thinking and stop being bealigerant I hope General Kayani is a trained military officer who will know Indias military and nuclear prowess.
Re: Kayani against No First Use Policy.
by Siul Azuosd on May 07, 2011 10:27 AM
Whatsoever nuclear arsenal we have should be used on Paki to demolish all terrorists which they harbour to harrass the world.
Do we believe if Pakistan has No first use treaty with us they will not use against us. They not use? Rubbish!!!! They wont mind using against us.infact they want use and eliminate us, it old true pak policy Other side always believes in having cordial relationship with pak. It is better that such treaty should not exist otherwise we will be in wrong impression. Pakistan army is very hostile country, because they are full of terrorist They attack us they kill us in mass. It has happen so many occasions. Actually it is failure of our diplomacy that, pak is close to china as well as USA. Our policy is very non aggressive we had a chance in past to have control over pak but we wasted. Had there would have been any other country they would not have allowed pak to have atom bomb. Like US is doing against iran and Israel is doing in middle east. Now Pak matches India army wise, little we can do because pak will blackmail, threan us they use atom bomb. The only solution is covert policy and improve our intelligence RAW. Which is slipping agency?
