Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

When the danger is imminent, loud and clear, our voice must be insistent, loud and clear

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Walter Lipmann put the matter succinctly: “A nation has security when it does not have to sacrifice its legitimate interests to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by war.” [1]

    Consider Aksai Chin: Are we prepared to go to war to recover it? Or, is it more likely that we will rationalize not going to war by giving credence to doubts: “Do we have an interest in the place? Is such interest as we have in it, vital? Is it legitimate?” What about Arunachal? Are we confident that, when challenged over it by China, we will be able to hold it by war? Is China clear on that? Building up capacities to defend them apart, bearing sacrifices for them apart, are we one even in what we regard as our vital, legitimate national interests?

    A host of factors are liable to affect the security of our country – some here and now, others in the middle distance. And some will affect us twenty/thirty years from now But this last lot are no less important for that reason: their effects could be absolutely devastating, as we shall see, and preparing for them will take all of twenty/thirty years.

    Ads by Google

    STATES IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD
    Pakistan: Among the factors that bear upon our security here and now, is the course events are taking in Pakistan. After all, the respite that we have had in the last one and half years in Kashmir has been due primarily to the fact that Pakistan has been preoccupied with problems of its own: there is a lesson in that, of course, if only we would heed it – we should do what little we can to keep Pakistan busy in its problems.

    ... contd.

    Next1234
    When the danger is imminent. . Reply to Mr. Rohit LalBy: Kaushik | 30-May-2009 Reply | Forward Dear Mr. Rohit Lal, Mr. Shourie's opposition to the indo-US nuclear agreement was due to his opinion that India would have to accept a very intrusive inspection regime by the IAEA. It was also due to the game of football the pro-Pakistan US politicians were playing with regard to non-proliferation and exceptions granted to our 'military' reactors. His and his party's opposition helped convince the US congress not to push us on these points if they wanted access to our future nuclear contracts. So,as you can see there was a payback for India from their opposition
    Very well writtenBy: Rohit Lal | 30-May-2009 Reply | Forward Very well written article, Mr. Shourie. Here's a confession - you confuse me sometimes. Your opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal was perplexing. That you seem to have such a deep insight on matters pertaining to India's national interests, how is it you went so wrong on this one?
    when the danger is imminent. .By: Kaushik | 27-May-2009 Reply | Forward the US President who instigated that invasion and annexation of half of Mexico as also the annexation of the Republic of Texas which had then seceded from Mexico was James Polk of the Democrat party. We should never take for granted who our friends are. Enemies can also be turned with sound strategy without which we will be soundly beaten up. We should be vigilant about the negative sound bytes on India in the world rather than get carried away by 'praise' which is just flattery to soften us up. .
    when the danger is imminent. .By: Kaushik | 27-May-2009 Reply | Forward in 1848,before the Mexican war,its borders extended to Oregon in the US Northwest down to the Louisiana border.Mexico then had a corrupt regime. Sounds familiar. The result will also be same if we fail to act now. In 20 years India could be just south from the Deccan plateau if that. The choice is ours.
    sanghi-taliban bhagao, India-Pakistan bachaoBy: DR.PETROL PUMP CHOR | 26-May-2009 Reply | Forward There is no doubt that outside powers are in the proccess to destroy India. The recent attacks on our embassy in Kabul etc. are facts. But the problem, which Arun Shourie fails to understand is that his own people whom he represented were also behaving like these taliban likes in India. Their ideas and claims stating that they represent all of us Hindu's clearly gave us the view, that sangis are a photo copy of the taliban and al-qaida. And that is perhaps the reason as to why Think Tanks like Terrorism Research Centre, RAND etc. also dubbed RSS as a Al-Qaida like network.The BJP itself is the political wing of the RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal etc.
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.