It's a common saying these days that 'war does not solve any problem'. It's a politically correct thing to say.
However, history is witness to Mahabharat, World War I, World War II and many other battles and wars that did solve problems. If dialog, not war is supposed to solve all problems, then why did UK, US, France not insist on having a dialog with Hitler?
Dialog can succeed only when both sides are reasonable. If one side refuses to listen to reason and wants to change the other side's views by force or terror, then war is the only last option. And there is a good possibility that it may solve the problem.
Dialog is preferred, but one can't make a sweeping statement that war does not solve any problem. Because it does, many a times.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Will 180 Days Custody Help In Prevention of Mumbai Like Terror Attacks?
I am not sure that such laws can PREVENT such terrors. To me it seems like a knee jerk reaction of politicians to pacify us, average Indian citizen. They know we are angry that such an attack could take place and these politicians are trying to show us that they are taking action as result.
If the concerned authorities had acted on observations made by fishermen (about dubious characters coming ashore), in all likelihood such carnage would not have taken place at all. And this would have happened without a law where you can be locked up for 180 days without being produced in front of a magistrate because you are a suspect!
Ours is unfortunately quite a corrupt society and it is just a matter of months before we see the authorities misusing this dangerous tool in their hands. History is witness to it.
I think before such a law is passed in the Parliament, the law makers should tell us - the average Indian citizen - why such a law is necessary. They should come out with some very solid reasons, not some flimsy excuses as eyewash.
The average Indian would like to know why such a law would have prevented the Mumbai carnage. At this point of time the average Indian thinks that such laws do not prevent terror attacks. What prevents such terror attacks is non-interference of politicians in police and security matters; and following the rule of law.
If a constable fines a wrongly parked car belonging to a minister he should not be suspended!
If an honest officer becomes a problem link in the chain of passing bribes from
bottom to top, he should not be transferred to a remote area to 'teach him a lesson'.
If some men notice and report 'funny movements' on Kargil hill, such reports are investigated properly.
The municipality sweepers should clean the roads daily and improve the chances of detecting bombs kept in public areas.
It is such mundane, routine things that all in public and private life should be doing that will reduce terror incidents.
In other words, in my opinion, we need better governance and discharging of our duties faithfully rather than draconian laws. Laws don't change mindset.
If the concerned authorities had acted on observations made by fishermen (about dubious characters coming ashore), in all likelihood such carnage would not have taken place at all. And this would have happened without a law where you can be locked up for 180 days without being produced in front of a magistrate because you are a suspect!
Ours is unfortunately quite a corrupt society and it is just a matter of months before we see the authorities misusing this dangerous tool in their hands. History is witness to it.
I think before such a law is passed in the Parliament, the law makers should tell us - the average Indian citizen - why such a law is necessary. They should come out with some very solid reasons, not some flimsy excuses as eyewash.
The average Indian would like to know why such a law would have prevented the Mumbai carnage. At this point of time the average Indian thinks that such laws do not prevent terror attacks. What prevents such terror attacks is non-interference of politicians in police and security matters; and following the rule of law.
If a constable fines a wrongly parked car belonging to a minister he should not be suspended!
If an honest officer becomes a problem link in the chain of passing bribes from
bottom to top, he should not be transferred to a remote area to 'teach him a lesson'.
If some men notice and report 'funny movements' on Kargil hill, such reports are investigated properly.
The municipality sweepers should clean the roads daily and improve the chances of detecting bombs kept in public areas.
It is such mundane, routine things that all in public and private life should be doing that will reduce terror incidents.
In other words, in my opinion, we need better governance and discharging of our duties faithfully rather than draconian laws. Laws don't change mindset.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Insult To Indian Constitution Should Not Be Tolerated
People who are threatening lawyers who are bound by Indian constitution to represent the Pakistani terrorist should also be tried in the court of law for insulting Indian constitution because Indian Constitution is above all.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Indian Cricket, Miandad And Dawood Ibrahim
Indian government has again and again claimed that Dawood Ibrahim is a prime suspect in Bombay blasts. He is also known to be living on Pakistan.
Now Javed Miandad has gone ahead and established a relationship with Dawood Ibrahim.
So far, as an Indian's perspective, one can perceive it as a private issue between a proclaimed absconder (I am assuming Indian government has declared Dawood Ibrahim as one) and a cricketer who does not mind having links with a foreigner who is wanted for links to bombing in his own country.
However now that Pakistan has made Javed Miandad part of it's cricketing establishment, should the government of India allow the two countries to play cricket together?
Also, should BCCI not refuse to play with a country which has a board official which is pro-actively creating family relationship with a person who India claims to be responsible for death of hundreds of it's citizens?
Now Javed Miandad has gone ahead and established a relationship with Dawood Ibrahim.
So far, as an Indian's perspective, one can perceive it as a private issue between a proclaimed absconder (I am assuming Indian government has declared Dawood Ibrahim as one) and a cricketer who does not mind having links with a foreigner who is wanted for links to bombing in his own country.
However now that Pakistan has made Javed Miandad part of it's cricketing establishment, should the government of India allow the two countries to play cricket together?
Also, should BCCI not refuse to play with a country which has a board official which is pro-actively creating family relationship with a person who India claims to be responsible for death of hundreds of it's citizens?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
