Why 'secular' Narendra Modi bashers must be ignored

[Joe Shearer]

So now we have a series of different views, from all quarters. Let us pick our way through, carefully.

Whenever Modi goes out the reality of his "success" would be visible to all. The argument that he is a monster but a benevolent person is an age old justification. Every such criminally insane person manages to keep himself looking economically beneficial till the moment he falls and by then its too late. I think Modi's reality will come to light when he is made PM and thus I hope he does get made PM.[/QUOTE

Thank you very much for your good wishes, but you are welcome, in this present instance, to keep them to yourself. The reason that you adduce for hoping that Modi becomes PM, that it will reveal him in his true colours, and that he will no longer then project himself as 'economically beneficial', to use your phrasing, is a very cruel and distasteful one. In short, you hope that when he becomes PM, his revealing himself in his true colours, and his working of the administration of India in a biased and bigoted manner will show him up. That might happen; his becoming PM is a faint possibility at the moment, although in our turbulent polity, anything can happen, and his elevation to such a position cannot be ruled out entirely.

It is with the reasons why you wish that it should happen that I take exception.

It is rather strange that releasing a genocidal monster on us, in a position of trust and responsibility, seems OK to you, the inevitable damage to lives and to the social fabric notwithstanding, so long as he is seen by Indians and by others to be an evil being. That is roughly on par with wishing that Eichmann were to be released and allowed to join anti-Semitic circles in Argentina, because that would be one way to demonstrate how evil he actually was.

Fair enough, I have sufficient tolerance for this kind of humour; the only charitable explanation can be that you find it irresistibly funny. Strangely, considering the genocidal nature of the attacks, considering his complete lack of remorse or regret, I do not share your feeling about his being funny. He is beyond jokes; perhaps banal, sometimes jarring, never to be considered less than a criminal lunatic.

Thank you once again for your good wishes. I hope your Interior Mininister, Mr. Rahman, becomes (in succession) Prime Minister of Pakistan, and then President, and finally is selected to the greatest position in Pakistan, the Chief of Army Staff.

One Good or Bad decision does not make a person doomed forever.

There are several things wrong with your analysis, and I take leave to bring them to your attention.

This is not about Mr. Modi's personal life; this is not about an error of judgement deciding what colour kurta to wear. This is about his oath of office and how he chose to interpret them. This is about the Godhra incident and the subsequent civil strife in Modi's state. This is about the over-arching approach that he brought to Gujarat state politics, which directly led to a reign of terror in that unhappy state. This is about the encounter in the Ishrat Jahan case, and the second, the tragic and very disquieting Sohrabuddin case.

Further, it is a problem within the administration itself. It declares clearly that process and regulated movement is to be abandoned immediately within the state administration, and that personal and wider qualities will take precedence over the combined counsel of many.

It was not one bad decision, it was a great many, none of them standing up to scrutiny.

Life gives second chances to heveryone and those who learn from their mistakes and try to improve them makes them man of history.

Certainly, life does give such chances, even in the case of Modi. But what did he do with those chances? Did he show regret? Not at all. He sails out in the full conviction of his rightness in ordering people killed, and holds forth on his chosen area of preference for discussions, the comparative economic expansion of Gujarat, and not a word about the horrors for which he was responsible.

He was given chances. He did nothing with them; he almost mocked the opportunity to repent. What do we conclude from this? That he deserved a chance to repent and to show contrition?

NaMo did what his personal choice

Do you even understand what a terrible thing you are suggesting? Are these people kings or dictators? Is there any obligation on them to observe the law? Do they swear to uphold these laws when they take their assignment, at the inauguration during their oath-taking ceremony?

Where is the question of his personal choice? He has no right to act against the constitution and its laws, those are the laws that he was sworn to defend. Do you even understand what you have just said?

was against "those" who "brutally" planned to kill people in a train attack.

Let us assume for a moment that your peculiar understanding of how the state works is considered to be correct for the sake of argument. Let us assume that the Chief Minister of a state has the right to order rioters to inflict punishment on innocent people for a crime which may or may not have been committed. At the time that he took decisions to do what he did, there was absolutely no evidence that there had been a conspiracy, or that the conspiracy was widespread.

At that time, it was not known; he took his decisions not on fact but on supposition. Even today after the trial of the conspirators is over, the facts do not show that there was a widespread conspiracy; the trial court, whatever the quality of its judgement, has found only a handful of people guilty, and has released a vast number of others; at no time was this maniacal decision founded on anything remotely like an established finding.

Is it the Chief Minister's job to order the deaths of many others not even remotely connected to this 'brutal' plan? Were those other 2,000 people all involved in the plan? How did he select them for punishment?

Should he not have ordered the police, totally under his control, totally communalised, totally hostile to the community that was accused, to look into the matter? Considering how prejudiced they were against the entire Musllim community, was there even a shadow of doubt that their findings would have led to a prima facie case against a number of conspirators, whether they were in fact guilty of conspiracy or not is another matter? Was it not his job as Chief Minister to order therir arrest and trial? Is there no law in India? Is it free to individuals like Modi to order innocents to be slaughtered in order to take retribution for an unestablished incident? Is this what you believe is justifiable?

He can be rejected and can never come out of those mode when whole world was poiniting finger towards him.

It is not clear what you mean by the sentence above. What else did you expect the whole world to do?

He made a choice later on and changed Gujrat totally with Social/ Economical culture. If we point a finger for his decisions in 2002 then we should also be open hearted to praise him for what he did in Gujrat.

And why should he enjoy that privilege when he never gave up his ways, and continued to encourage the killing of Muslims in order to build an atmoshpere of siege around his government?

Hitler & Stalin made one bad decision as well.

No, they, like Modi, made several; a career full of them. It is impossible to weigh one life on a scale; even while I sympathise with what lies under your remark, the fact is that they killed millions; this jackal killed hundreds.

I am not justifying his actions, only pointing out that a comparison between him and Hitler and Stalin is a poor comparison.

 

[53fd]

Why do these reports always come outr whenever there is an election? Congress has being trying this underhand trick for 8 years now but it has not been successful and will never be.

I wouldn't believe the Supreme Court appointed, Special Investigation Team (SIT) would have anything to do with the Congress, right? That is, if your Supreme Court is 'free'. Stop believing in conspiracy theories, & admit Modi has been indicted for his huge role in the Gujarati Muslim massacre.

 

[Swati Shukla]

12 yrs ago I first heard of Modi....even then I was amazed by his vision. Today, I am still not surprised that my opinion of this man has not changed. Not in the slightest. In fact, Modi is someone that every Indian regardless of religion has to acknowledge. He is a hindu and rightwing at that. Is that a bad thing? No not if you look at Modi and what it means to India. His religious affiliation and ring wing credentials actually make a very ideal candidate for India's security. If our enemies hate him, there is a reason why and its not for the anti communal tones....remember there is a bigger picture. I am Christian and I have no problems seeing a man like Modi run India properly and effectively. I believe he is the only candidate in India's history post independence who has shown the caliber required to lead our nation to great heights this century. People point out to the reforms and the Gujarati economy but while those indicators are important, I look at something more personal. He wants to see his country rise and be the best. He want to see India progress to high points. More importantly, he being a Hindu actually aids him in a quirky way. I compare it to black man complex in America. This is my personal thoughts so please don't judge me. I feel the average black person in the US really works hard to dispel the stereotypes that come into many ppl.'s minds. They are conscious of that and go thru extraordinary dedication and great length to prove these are misconceptions. Modi as a Hindu does the same in that he wants to prove all the falsehoods about India. He wants the world to see we are not backward and that we can all get along.


Plz if the BJP is smart, do not ever put Advani up for election. I will fast to death.....because unfortunately Advani does not have the worldly vision we so greatly need in order for India to leap ahead others.

i agree with u completely. its great that people like u exist who can dare to think beyond religion. some people here forget that bjp has better muslim leaders than congress. infact the vice president of bjp is a muslim.

 

[Swati Shukla]

Weeks ago, folks on this forum said corruption is inevitable in India and there is nothing we can do about it. Well, recently Anna provided a spark to the powder keg in all our heats and minds. The same folks stated Modi has no chance but mark my words, he will be PM....India's youth are getting tired of incompetent, LACK OF VISION, corrupt politicians....

Well, actually indias educated youth, the youth who is more informed, who is more open minded, who is not blinded by some lies, who can see things other than religion is slowly realising modis importance. and modi will be our pm for the good of this nation, whether some people here like it or not.

 

[SR 71 Blackbird]

BJP & Modi's great.But I don't like Sushma Swaraj she doesn't have the personality to become PM.
I would like to show my middle finger to RSS & VHP.VHP,RSS

 

[desioptimist]

Modi is divisive, no matter how great he is as administrator his past haunts him. Also he is less democratic than others, does not listen to his own people in BJP. A perfect demagogue. He will never be PM of India.
If you see our PMs, all of them are approachable, humble and men of consensus. For a diverse country like India, that is the job description you need to match.

 

[GORKHALI]

I wouldn't believe the Supreme Court appointed, Special Investigation Team (SIT) would have anything to do with the Congress, right? That is, if your Supreme Court is 'free'. Stop believing in conspiracy theories, & admit Modi has been indicted for his huge role in the Gujarati Muslim massacre.

Now you gonna teach ,how to run SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF INDIA .... Thanks for your Input,but no Thanks you must implement on Pakistan SC .....

 

[Pride]

One Good or Bad decision does not make a person doomed forever.

There are several things wrong with your analysis, and I take leave to bring them to your attention.

This is not about Mr. Modi's personal life; this is not about an error of judgement deciding what colour kurta to wear. This is about his oath of office and how he chose to interpret them. This is about the Godhra incident and the subsequent civil strife in Modi's state. This is about the over-arching approach that he brought to Gujarat state politics, which directly led to a reign of terror in that unhappy state. This is about the encounter in the Ishrat Jahan case, and the second, the tragic and very disquieting Sohrabuddin case.

Further, it is a problem within the administration itself. It declares clearly that process and regulated movement is to be abandoned immediately within the state administration, and that personal and wider qualities will take precedence over the combined counsel of many.

It was not one bad decision, it was a great many, none of them standing up to scrutiny.

When I say one decision then I talk about NaMo’s action (or better no action ) during post Godhara riots. Regarding oath of office and Constitutional belief, We have enough seen our Political leader even before 1947. None of them were blamed so badly in History be it Nehru, Indira, Narsimha Rao or others then why only Narend Modi? Its clear cut selective. Isn’t it?

Regarding all cases brought up for scrutiny or not then why being partial over one person lets scrutinize everyone with same stick. Why Narendra Modi so special?

Life gives second chances to everyone and those who learn from their mistakes and try to improve them makes them man of history.

Certainly, life does give such chances, even in the case of Modi. But what did he do with those chances? Did he show regret? Not at all. He sails out in the full conviction of his rightness in ordering people killed, and holds forth on his chosen area of preference for discussions, the comparative economic expansion of Gujarat, and not a word about the horrors for which he was responsible.

He was given chances. He did nothing with them; he almost mocked the opportunity to repent. What do we conclude from this? That he deserved a chance to repent and to show contrition?

He did what he found suitable. A person with vision does not make the things good for a short term. What he did to provide better education/ roads/ industries/ foreign investment and better life to the people of Gujrat which is far better way than regretting in front of Media like other politician. This is not RSS way if you are waiting for the same better expect from Congress and similar other parties.

Did Congress ever repented what he did to Sikhs by throwing Mr tytler or Sajjan kumar out of Congress. Why and again big WHY Modi alone??

NaMo did what his personal choice

Do you even understand what a terrible thing you are suggesting? Are these people kings or dictators? Is there any obligation on them to observe the law? Do they swear to uphold these laws when they take their assignment, at the inauguration during their oath-taking ceremony?

Where is the question of his personal choice? He has no right to act against the constitution and its laws, those are the laws that he was sworn to defend. Do you even understand what you have just said?

was against "those" who "brutally" planned to kill people in a train attack. He can be rejected and can never come out of those mode when whole world was poiniting finger towards him. He made a choice later on and changed Gujrat totally with Social/ Economical culture. If we point a finger for his decisions in 2002 then we should also be open hearted to praise him for what he did in Gujrat.

You are trying to read between the lines, I am not suggesting anything here. The intent of mentioning is the way people like to execute is their choice always and in critical situation it becomes bigger. Let me here note similar cases for explanation. When Mr Rajeev Gandhi opened Ayodhya for Hindus there were 2 cases happened :-

1) During 1990s, Mulayam Singh Yadav (then CM) ordered to open fire against KarSevaks and killed hundreds of Hindus. No mentioned in History books. Mr Yadav is still in good books as he did something “Secular”.

2) in 1992, Kalyan Singh from BJP (then CM) and Narasimha Rao (then PM) did not order the same and hence Babri Masjid was down.

Now in the similar situation, I make responsible Mr Yadav more responsible as he made a ground for others to perform more aggressively next time. Why double standards?? If Mr Yadav does the same he is “Secular” and when some one else does he became Hitler. Could you please let me know which decision above was as per law and constitutional?? I see None.. as both have personal choice to execute the functioning..

Apart fro, such things even Nehrau was reincarnated as PM while most of the state congress parties selected Patel. Isn’t that a personal choice of Gandhi? Aren’t we started our democracy based on personal choice?? Still Gandhi is Father of the Nation.. isn’t it?

PS: Neither I like nor I support NaMo’s action for what he did post-Godhra. What I hate is Congress version of history which is again in making. For past 9 yrs we are hearing Modi this and that but there could not be even single judicial way to put him in the bars. We could not even kill Afzal Guru or Ajmal Kasab. If we cant do anything about our poor leaders lets not raise finger against only one person who did wrong but did a lot of good later on. That’s my only intent.

 

[Wounded-Monk]

Looking at some stupid and elaborate discussions (which can also be broadly categorised and appropriately so as gossiping); I guess I am getting more and more right of centre.....

I mean yeah I am getting tired of politicians who are incompetent and can be called outdated visionary with long failed ideologies....as is the case with few of my fellow colleagues here...

I guess giving modi a minimum of 5 yr term as PM is good bargain.......

I am serious....

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is obvious that to you someone who doesn't support the BJP blindly has to be a Congress supporter. There's news for you; it is possible, as a practising Indian democrat, to be critical of both BJP and Congress. That incidentally is my position; ever since my teens forty years ago, I have been against the Congress and what it represents, so try not to equate criticism of the BJP with support for the Congress; that is not a political argument, only a confession of failure to provide a convincing alternative to arguments pillorying the BJP and its worst ministers, like Modi.

When I say one decision then I talk about NaMo’s action (or better no action ) during post Godhara riots.

The SIT set up by the Supreme Court has clearly shown that Modi not only sat quiet, he encouraged the rioting and he encouraged police non-intervention. It was not 'no action' during the post-Godhra riots; it was action.

Regarding oath of office and Constitutional belief, We have enough seen our Political leader even before 1947. None of them were blamed so badly in History be it Nehru, Indira, Narsimha Rao or others then why only Narend Modi? Its clear cut selective. Isn’t it?

Please explain which of them that you have named, Nehru, Indira, or Narasimha Rao, violated his constitutional oath, and when? I am not aware of a single incident. It is possible that you are imagining things.

As far as their actions before 1947 are concerned, they took office with an oath of loyalty to the Crown, but even then, as far as I know, they maintained it.

Regarding all cases brought up for scrutiny or not then why being partial over one person lets scrutinize everyone with same stick. Why Narendra Modi so special?

What are you referring to? What are the other cases where the Chief Minister of a state hunted down citizens of his state, innocent citizens, including women and children? Why do we need other examples? Why cannot this crime be handled on its own? How does the hypothetical existence of any similar crime justify this? do you justify one murder by another committed elsewhere? Can you conceivably go before a court and argue," I have committed fraud against a bank, but I should be let off, because I am given to understand that there have been similar frauds committed by others, and they have not yet been punished?" Do you see nothing ridiculous in your equation?

He did what he found suitable. A person with vision does not make the things good for a short term. What he did to provide better education/ roads/ industries/ foreign investment and better life to the people of Gujrat which is far better way than regretting in front of Media like other politician. This is not RSS way if you are waiting for the same better expect from Congress and similar other parties.

We are discussing the crimes he committed, not his development activity. And where does the Congress come in? Why should I justify or criticise the Congress when I am discussing the BJP? Where is the connection? And what makes you think I am bound to defend the Congress?

Did Congress ever repented what he did to Sikhs by throwing Mr tytler or Sajjan kumar out of Congress. Why and again big WHY Modi alone??

Who has suggested that it should be Modi alone? Not I. Not a single other person criticial of Modi. Why cannot Modi be punished independently of Tytler or Sajjan Kumar?


You are trying to read between the lines, I am not suggesting anything here.

Your only defence against all that has been said is that the Congress is also guilty of similar riots. Why cannot you understand that we are also calling for exemplary punishment of the Congress criminals?

The intent of mentioning is the way people like to execute is their choice always and in critical situation it becomes bigger. Let me here note similar cases for explanation. When Mr Rajeev Gandhi opened Ayodhya for Hindus there were 2 cases happened :-

1) During 1990s, Mulayam Singh Yadav (then CM) ordered to open fire against KarSevaks and killed hundreds of Hindus. No mentioned in History books. Mr Yadav is still in good books as he did something “Secular”.

2) in 1992, Kalyan Singh from BJP (then CM) and Narasimha Rao (then PM) did not order the same and hence Babri Masjid was down.

Now in the similar situation, I make responsible Mr Yadav more responsible as he made a ground for others to perform more aggressively next time. Why double standards?? If Mr Yadav does the same he is “Secular” and when some one else does he became Hitler. Could you please let me know which decision above was as per law and constitutional?? I see None.. as both have personal choice to execute the functioning..

It's very simple, although apparently a difficult choice for you to make.

Mulayam Singh Yadav upheld the constitution and the law of the land, and shot those who were violating the law. If Modi had done the same, many of the people you find hostile to him would have been rooting for him to be PM.

Regarding Kalyan Singh and Narasimha Rao, apparently you are unaware, since you seem to know nothing about the constitution, even less about the law, that law and order is a state subject. The Central Government CANNOT intervene. Narasimha Rao could not intervene in the affairs of the UP during the destruction of the Babri Masjid. Until the last minute, Kalyan Singh kept assuring him that there would be no violence and that nothing untoward would occur. He lied, deliberately and consciously, and betrayed his own oath to the constitution, and allowed the Babri Masjid to be destroyed.

How can you compare the two, Mulayam Singh, who upheld the law against breakers of the law and rioters, and Kalyan Singh, who lied, broke his oath, and connived at breach of the law? Just because one, Kalyan Singh, supported Hindus, the kar sevaks, the BJP and the other two did not, you uphold one and run down the other two?

This just underlines the fact that the BJP and its supporters, with you as a prime example, have nothing to do with the constitution or with the law under which we live in India. You are only interested in brute force, the force of the majority, and shoving down your prejudices and irrational demands down the throats of everybody else.

And as the example of Yediyurappa and Raman Singh shows, it is not enough that you are anti-constitutional and anti-Indian, you are also corrupt, almost as corrupt as the Congress, just behind them because you have practised less.

Apart fro, such things even Nehrau was reincarnated as PM while most of the state congress parties selected Patel. Isn’t that a personal choice of Gandhi? Aren’t we started our democracy based on personal choice?? Still Gandhi is Father of the Nation.. isn’t it?

It was a personal choice endorsed by the Congress Working Committee, the highest body of the Congress. It was not Gandhi's choice every time; when he wanted someone else, Subhash Bose defied him and ran for President of the Congress and won; when Gandhi threatened him, he left the Congress. If anyone felt strongly about it, why did they not leave?

And what has this to do with upholding the constitution of India? The Congress, as you seem to be totally unaware, runs under its own party constitution; its leaders are free to do whatever its own internal constitution allows it to do. A Chief Minister doesn't take office under his party constitution, in case nobody has told you this yet; he takes office under the constitution of India, which is the only document that keeps India together. A violation of the constitution and its provisions is a direct blow to the integrity of India. What Gandhi did as a personal choice was within the realm of the Congress party and its own constitution; the DMK can do likewise, under its own constitution. None of these party decisions amount to what Kalyan Singh and Narendra Modi did in violation of the national constitution.

PS: Neither I like nor I support NaMo’s action for what he did post-Godhra.

Then your arguments earlier give a completely misleading picture. You have defended him tooth and nail, as much or more than a committed BJP/ Sangh Parivar supporter might have done.

What I hate is Congress version of history which is again in making.

What is the connection between Modi's actions in Gujarat and the Congress version of history? This is as absurd, as silly as saying that you have nothing against Pakistan's actions in Kashmir, but you hate the version that the Chinese have spread about what really happened in 62. What is the connection?

For past 9 yrs we are hearing Modi this and that but there could not be even single judicial way to put him in the bars.

Are you pretending ignorance or is it that you genuinely don't know? I shall assume the best, that you genuinely don't know.

For the past 9 years, for your information, the police in Gujarat, under the guidance of the Chief Minister, has been dragging its feet. It has found that no riots occurred, or riots occurred and were quickly suppressed, or that riots occurred and were put down by force by the dynamic actions of the police force. The same police force, according to the findings of the Supreme Court SIT, which was set up because the police wouldn't do its job, under the instructions of Modi, was involved in destroying evidence. Those officers who testified to the actions of the ministers in encouraging the riots were personally threatened, some of them transferred and generally warned not to speak out of turn. Every obstacle was put in the way of the SIT by the government of Gujarat.

That was with regard to members of the administration, powerful people with permanent government of India jobs deputed to the state. You can imagine what happened to civilians who were victims and wanted to testify. Some vanished; some were bribed into denial, to the extent that the courts expressed loathing for their actions.

There was a systematic destruction of the law and its requirements in Gujarat, far beyond the riots themselves, and it is an ongoing crime. You should be aware of this, as well as of the systematic destruction of the law that has gone on in Delhi under the Congress to suppress the truth about the 1984 riots. Both are equally culpable; equally criminal. But the speed of resolving one should not be, cannot be linked to the speed of resolving the other.

This is why it has been difficult


We could not even kill Afzal Guru or Ajmal Kasab.

What are we, murderers? What are you talking about? Judicial execution does not take place according to your personal feelings of hatred, but in due process. It is a hateful and a horrible thing to take a man's life judicially, and that is why many nations after careful consideration have stopped executing people.

Please try not to use unpleasant terms and phrases like "we could not kill Afzal Guru or Kasab" just because you are not aware of the implications of the importance of a trial under the law.

If we cant do anything about our poor leaders lets not raise finger against only one person who did wrong but did a lot of good later on. That’s my only intent.

You seem to imply that Modi is desirable in spite of the crimes that he committed and the crimes that he aids and abets on a daily basis. If that is your criterion for selection of a political leadership, you might as well march into Tihar Jail and pick out the criminals and put them in charge. Why not? They are effective in what they do, and their crimes shouldn't matter, to use your logic.
.

 

[toxic_pus]

The theme of the thread seems to have turned into 'since Congress is bad, BJP, therefore, has every right to be worse'. Congress did Sikh riot of '84. Therefore Gujrat riot is fine. Congress panders to the minorities. Therefore it is alright for BJP to pander to the majority.

- 'Buddy, your shirt is torn'
- 'Fack off. Your fly is open'

 

[prototype]

Whats irritate me here the most is how people here consider BJP corruption free,just like toxic said operation west end and Barak was f9 just because 2g is bigger in magnitude,or BJP is more patriotic just because after 26/11 congress dont dared to even move a finger,while BJP summoned the entire force to the border after parliament attack only to be called back two days after.

 

[Burnz]

Whats irritate me here the most is how people here consider BJP corruption free,just like toxic said operation west end and Barak was f9 just because 2g is bigger in magnitude,or BJP is more patriotic just because after 26/11 congress dont dared to even move a finger,while BJP summoned the entire force to the border after parliament attack only to be called back two days after.

Who said BJP is not Corrupt?


Parliament Attack, As I said POTA, Operation Parakram,Cold Start Doctrine. Nuclear Doctrine are all the effective steps taken.

I am yet to ascertain who were having tea together in Mohali watching the WC 3 Years after 26/11.
Tell me What has Congress done?

 

[KS]

Coming back to the Topic, since 'Economic Growth' seems to be the buzzword for the Congress fanbois, this article (posted by justanobserver) is sure a must-read for them on how the Congress is just carrying forward the NDA era reforms with no innovation on its own ;

The current government is just piggybacking of the reforms of the NDA era. MMS is not responsible for India's 9% growth

Where are the second-generation reforms?

Whats irritate me here the most is how people here consider BJP corruption free,just like toxic said operation west end and Barak was f9 just because 2g is bigger in magnitude,or BJP is more patriotic just because after 26/11 congress dont dared to even move a finger,while BJP summoned the entire force to the border after parliament attack only to be called back two days after.

It was only because of this mobilisation that caused the US to come down extremely hard on Musharraf and made him close several of the militant camps on the border that were thriving till then. So it is completely wrong and off mark to say that Operation Parakram was a futile exercise. (its no co-incidence that there was a drop in infiltration starting 2002 onwards).

Infact it achieved us a great deal what we wanted without actually going to war !

 

[prototype]

Who said BJP is not Corrupt?


Parliament Attack, As I said POTA, Operation Parakram,Cold Start Doctrine. Nuclear Doctrine are all the effective steps taken.

I am yet to ascertain who were having tea together in Mohali watching the WC 3 Years after 26/11.
Tell me What has Congress done?

U called diplomatic stunts effective action,how effective was that in countering future terror problems for India,do u claim that Pakistan stopped training terrorist inside its territory after Operation Parakram,it was all calculated move.

It was only because of this mobilisation that caused the US to come down extremely hard on Musharraf and made him close several of the militant camps on the border that were thriving till then. So it is completely wrong and off mark to say that Operation Parakram was a futile exercise. (its no co-incidence that there was a drop in infiltration starting 2002 onwards).

Infact it achieved us a great deal what we wanted without actually going to war !

It was nothing more than political stunt,every kid in India at that know that US gona interfere,closing of Pakistani camps for a limited time and withdrawing of forces immediately,nothing more than diplomatic posturing for internal consumption,