SPREAD MESSAGE OF INDIAN NATIONAL SECURITY TO AS MANY INDIANS AS POSSIBLE. LET US FREE INDIA OF CORRUPTION BY SPREADING THE MESSAGE TO AS MANY PEOPLE.MANY OF THE ARTICLES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS FORWARDED MAIL FROM VARIOUS FRIENDS . SHOULD SOME FACTS BE NOT CORRECT , YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PUT IT IN REMARKS BELOW THE ARTICLE. THIS WILL ENSURE A MORE BALANCED PERSPECTIVE OF THE SUBJECT DISCUSSED.
Monday, 10 October 2016
The Indian Army can surely take on Pakistan. The recent surgical strike across the Line of Control proves it. But what about a host of mini Pakistans in our own backyard, which several Indian politicians nurse?
Monday, 10 October 2016 | Balbir Punj
The controversy surrounding the surgical strikes carried out by the Indian Army across the Line of Control (LoC) has brought the focus back to the challenges faced by our country in combating terror from within. As expected, once the Army got a green signal, it neutralised the terrorists and destroyed their launching pads. Pakistan has, however, questioned India’s claims about the strike.
So far, the script was on predictable lines. But then, the Indian narrative hit an unexpected bump. For the first time, there were open fissures on an issue involving the security of our country and an Army operation against an enemy country. Pakistan denying the surgical strike and seeking ‘evidence’ from India is understandable.
Acceptance of surgical strikes on the Pakistani part would have meant two things. First, within Pakistan, the ‘Islamic’ Army would have become an object of ridicule for getting smashed by Indians on it’s own turf. Second, Islamabad would have suffered huge embarrassment internationally by admitting to the Indian operation. How could Pakistan confess that it harbors terrorists and has ‘launching pads’ across the LoC to create mayhem on the Indian side?
Obviously, Pakistan had no option but to deny the strike. But why did some people in India sing the Pakistani tune, disbelieving their own Army, putting India in dock? Of all the ludicrous reactions to the strike, the most outlandish was that of Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi who accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of doing khoon ki dalali with the blood of soldiers. Congress leaders Digvijay Singh and Sanjay Nirupam asked for evidence of the strike and provided ammunition to the Pakistan media to ridicule India and its Army at global level.
Digvijay Singh went a step further and called Prime Minister Modi and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval “war mongers”. On the other hand, Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal, thanks to his pro-Pakistan statements, is competing in popularity charts with Islamic icons in Pakistan social media.
The sum total of such outbursts is that relations between India-Pakistan are tense, not on account of export of terror by Pakistan to India, but because the BJP leadership loves war. If that were so, why were there conflicts between the two nations in 1947, 1965 and 1971 when India had Congress Prime Ministers? Why the likes of Digvijay Singh and leaders of the Left are always so keen to absolve Pakistan of its sins and pass the blame on to India? Recall ridiculous attempts on the part of some Congress leaders to blame the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh for the 26/11 attacks or terming the Batla House encounter in Delhi ‘fake’.
On the face of it, all this sounds absurd. Or is there a method in this madness? Does ‘vote-bank’ compulsions motivate some of the desperate ‘secular’ leaders to resort to such reckless statements on issues involving national security and pluralistic character of the country? If yes, it implies that there are Indians whose ‘loyalty’ towards the country is under suspect. They are not with their motherland but empathise with Pakistan. The constituency with extra territorial loyalties has to be large enough to tempt the leaders to pander it by resorting to anti-India rants. What are we doing to deal with this pro-Pakistani constituency?
One question frequently asked is: Can India and Pakistan live as good neighbours? Examples such as America-Canada or those of Great Britain and France (they were at war several times in history) are held as role models to buttress the contention that it’s possible. One wishes it was so simple.
While being optimistic about India-Pakistan ties, we tend to ignore the history and the mindset that led to a bloody Partition and the subsequent rise of radical Islam in the global context. Pakistan came into being, all thanks to the imperial manipulation of the departing British, intellectual support of the Left, weakness on the part of the then Congress leadership (including the Mahatma) and most important, the divisive Islamic mindset of the Indian Muslims who were flabbergasted with the prospects of living as equals with thekafir Hindus, whom they had ruled for more than 600 years, after India’s independence.
Pre-partition Muslim leadership found non-Islamic influence in the land of their birth as ‘Kufur’ and, therefore, ‘impure’ and unbearable to live in. They fought for and got themselves a separate country called Pakistan (the land of pure). As a logical consequence, during the last 70 years, the newly born Islamic nation has systematically destroyed its pre-Islamic past. Hindus and Sikhs, the living symbols of pre-Muslim era, constituting over 20 per cent of the population at the time of Partition, are reduced to less than two per cent now in Pakistan.
The same phenomenon followed in the Kashmir valley. In the 1980s, Pandits, the flag bearers of original pluralistic culture of Kashmir, were forced to flee, their homes taken over and most of their places of worship were razed to the ground. The ones that survive, managed to do so under heavy police protection.
Virulent viruses like faith-fired radical Islam, respect no boundaries, are nearly impossible to kill, particularly in hospitable environs. The virus that caused India’s vivisection still thrives in the residual India. Politicians of various ideological hues, particularly those belonging to Left genre, continuously feed and nurse this communal and divisive mindset in the name of ‘secularism’ — a brand with a wide product range that includes likes of Rahul Gandhi, Digvijay Singh, Lalu Prasad, Azam Khan to Mohammad Shahabudin. The list is endless.
Pakistan is the end product of this brand of ‘secularism’. Remember, the intellectual paradigm on which the edifice of this theocratic-terrorist state stands, was provided by the Indian Left. The likes of Kanhaiya in the Jawaharlal Nehru University are just carrying on with the ideological tradition of the Left while seeking destruction of India and azadi for Kashmir. Azadi in this context means freedom to convert the valley into yet another version of Pakistan or the Islamic State, with some local flavor.
While I write this column, comes the news that Pakistan’s Prime Minister has asked the Army to crack down on terror. Sounds like a bad joke. Can any Prime Minister order the Army in Pakistan? It is always the other way around. And can one seriously expect the Army to kill its own creation? Army is the life-line on whose support the terror machine hums in Pakistan. The major powers in the world are not likely to be fooled by this pretension on the part of Pakistan Government.
The Indian Army can surely take on Pakistan. Its recent surgical strike across LoC was successful and so was the major surgery it conducted in 1971 which resulted in the birth of Bangladesh. But what about host of mini Pakistans in our own backyard which several Indian politicians tend and nurse? Any answers