War should be in the mind

When i was in school my history teacher was telling about the wars India had with Pakistan and the blunder which he thought Nehru had committed when he didn't capture Islamabad. At that time and even till few months back i did believe that what Nehru did was stupid. Recently I had a change of heart. If Nehru had captured Islamabad then India would have been bombarded with unprecedented acts of terrors. I am not talking about the Pakistani army getting resurrected and fighting wars against India, I am talking about rouge elements in Pakistan trying to get revenge by various acts of terror on civilians. Even though at this point of time India is facing lots of acts of terror, this would be nothing compared to what would have happened if we had captured Pakistan. Right now only a small minority in Pakistan have hatred towards India. The situation would have been much different hadn't Nehru done what he had done. There would have been a huge anti India sentiment and it would have been extremely easy for the extremist and the fundamentalist to exploit this feeling and plot against India. War by rouge elements in a country is much dangerous than a war by military forces. In a military war civilians are generally not targeted where as terrorist would not refrain from doing anything. Hence I believe what Nehru did was in the interest of the country.

Now the bigger issue," the war on terror". I got this point of view from a RC passage in some AIMCAT. Even if the US destroys Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan and various other countries, they(or the world community) would never win the war on terror. When there is a war and innocent people die, the hatred towards the nation causing all the damage would sky rocket. Hence even if all the terrorist camps are destroyed its just a matter of time before new ones crop up. As people would lose what ever they have and are left with nothing to live for, naturally their only aim would be to make the country who caused them all the pain pay big time.(there are lots of examples, on of the most damaging on is the military action that Russia conducted on Chechnya, and the innumerable instances of innocent civilians killed by Chechnian terrorist as their response to Russia's military action) A terrorist to cause damage does not have to destroy an entire nation, all he/she has to do is target key locations and any nation would bleed. Even if no acts of terror are conducted, the mass hysteria that terrorist creates is even more dangerous than the terror acts. People feeling unsafe, various propaganda being circulated, the panic and fear the stays in peoples mind are various examples.

The only way to win the war against terror is in the mind. Only if we change the mind set of people can the war against terror be won. When people are reformed the chances of them turning back is very less. The only thing which any war can achieve is an exponential increase in hatred. Governments should take steps towards changing the mind sets of people. They should ensure that people are not lured by the terrorists. The various conditions such as poverty, illiteracy, hunger, which are the main cause for people to turn into extremist should be addressed by governments. No community should feel left out or discriminated against. Only when such a state is attained we can win the war against terrorism. Simply bombing and destroying countries wont do the trick.

Indian and the world

My 10th standard History teacher was teaching about world history ( something that happened 6-7 years back). NAM(Non Alignment Movement) came up. NAM countries , founded by Nehru of India, Sukarno of Indonesia and Tito of Yugoslavia(mainly), are countries which during the cold war period did not support either the USA or Russia. This does not tell us about the entire working of NAM but a part of the motivation of NAM was to have a set of countries which were independent of USA and erstwhile USSR. After saying this, he added. I will tell you a secreat, do not tell any one. Even though India was a NAM country it secretly supported USSR and some other country supported the US(not quite sure which country it was ). I mentioned this to stress upon the relationship between India and USSR.

India and Russia/USSR were virtually allies since India's independence. USSR provided us with technology and other military equipments and a moral support in all international matters. On our part we provided them with food. Russia is a country with which India has had an excellent relationship with. Russia has always supported every international endeavor of India. We used to buy military equipments from them. One thing which any sensible person will tell you is that, never leave a friend for another friend nor never pay less attention to an old and faithful friend when you get a new friend. Russia is our old friend. We should not try and improve our relations with US at the cost of Russia. Even though Russia is currently not as big a supper power as it used to be, Russia still has a big say in the world. If not anything its ethically not right on our part to ditch an old and faithful alley of ours for a new one.

The recent pro US statements by various Indian officials can be considered equivalent to backstabbing. Bilateral relationship with Russia is at an all time low. We have been neglecting Russia for a getting a better deal with the US. Its not just Russia that we have neglected. We have always had a good relationship with Iran and Iraq. Unfortunately because of our fascination with the US those relationships are also getting weak. India is trying to achieve an impossible balancing act. India wants to have good relation ship with all the countries. India is trying to take political diplomacy to an all new level.

From personal experience and various global events, its next to impossible to be a friend to all. 999 times out of 1000 if you try to have such a balancing act the result is going to be that most countries would think that India has a weak foreign policy and its only aim is to prosper using other countries. India should have a strong foreign policy. It should not change according to India's needs. Either India should go with the US, and when i say go with the US it should have a similar relation with the US as NATO or she should have a neutral relation with the US at the same time re kindling its old ties with Russia and various other countries. Its quite hard to have an ally like relationship with both the USA and Russia.

I agree that USA is a great country. Its the current super power. The reservation I have with having a close relationship with the US is that it will be like a traditional Indian marriage, with India being the bride and the US the groom. India will be forced to dance to the tune of the US. That's the impression that I get when i look at the present situation between the US and its various allies. US is a super power and it will do everything it can to ensure that it retains the title for as long as possible. Hence we should be really cautious when we go in for strengthening ties with the US even though it might be the need of the hour.

Strengthening ties with other countries is far less risky. The whole situation is like making an IPL team. Should you spend large and go for the big guns or should you be selective and chose utility players. Its a very tricky situation and is one which needs a lot of thought. The only thing i have to say that we have to ensure that we do not do anything to upset out old friends at the same time should make sure that India does not lag behind when compared to other countries in the world.