Is war the only solution?

As a layman, unknown to the world of politics, war, terrorism, and security, here are my thoughts, questions and comments regarding the goings on in India, a week after the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai:

1) By now, it's amply clear that the terrorists who had laid seige on Mumbai were LeT operatives. LeT is an outfit named amongst the terrorist outfits in both India and the US, and is banned even in Pakistan.

2) It is not clear though whether the Pakistan government had any role to play in this. And it is wrong to assume that they had, inspite of the LeT indeed operating from Pakistan.

3) Immediately after the lone captive terrorist confessed that he is from Pakistan, India had put up a demand with the Pakistani government to hand over 20 of its most wanted criminals who are residing in Pakistani soil now. This list includes Dawood Ibrahim, the mastermind behind the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai, and the chief of the LeT group as well. It is not the first time that India had made this demand, it has been made many times before, but India upped the ante this time.

4) Pakistan has refused to hand over the 20 most wanted guys to India saying that they have no extradition treaty with India, and if India provides sufficient proof, they will be tried in Pakistan itself based on the laws of the Pakistani land. This despite Pakistan promising full support to India during the investigation and complete transparency.

5) India has got back to Pakistan saying that most of the guys in the list are actually Indian citizens who have just escaped from India to avoid being prosecuted. Indeed the list includes Indians like Dawood, Tiger Memon and some 6 Sikhs. But now this brings an interesting counterpoint, which India will need to answer if we keep pressing with the demand. The Dalai Lama is Tibetan (now Chinese) and is seeking refuge in India right now. The Chinese claim that the Dalai Lama is a splittist, someone actually looking to split Tibet from China, and has asked India to hand over him to China many times. This was even one of the reasons for the Indo-China war in the 60s. During those days, the then Prime Minister of India refused to hand over the Lama to China saying that India has a special emotional connection with Tibet. Today, although India is still smarting from the wounds inflicted during the Indo-China war, we yet refuse to toe the Chinese line. We do not actively support the Tibetan protest for a separate state, in fact, there were special provisions made and Tibetan protesters arrested when the Olympic torch was making its way through Delhi. This is because we know better than to engage in another war with the Chinese. But if India presses for the 20 guys from Pakistan (which I am pretty sure Pakistan will not follow), we can expect a Chinese call someday pretty soon with a similar demand. Are we ready to then hand over the Lama? Have we thought of the consequences? Off the top of my head, if yes we do hand over the Lama, there will be wide spread Buddhist and Dalit protests all over the country. Note that the Buddhists form the 5th major religious group in the country. If no we don't hand over the Lama, the Chinese response could be ranging from anywhere as minimal as a diplomatic tiff to something as severe as strikes along the North Eastern border or who knows, another Indo-China war?

6) So with Pakistan refusing to hand over the 20 most wanteds to India, what options does India have? A war?

7) The media sure seems to think so. One point which I really want to make here is against media sensationalism. Against the media's arm twisting tactics, of putting words into the mouths of ministers and public servants and misinterpreting and broadcasting them later. It's great that the media has considerable freedom in India, that is one of the few privileges that an Indian is used to and takes for granted. The media here is not a mouthpiece of the Government and is considerably free and fair. But in the wake of an issue of tremendous national importance as this, the media definitely goes overboard and does not know where to pull the reins. Just yesterday I was watching on TV the interview of the external affairs minister of India, Mr Pranab Mukherjee by a journalist from NDTV. Couple of times during the interview, the journalist asked whether Mr Mukherjee thinks a war is the solution to this type of a terror strike, to which Mr Mukherjee replied saying that it was not ruled out, but the Indian course of action depended on the Pakistani response. The immediate next headline all over the channel said "India does not rule out a war if need be". Seriously guys, temper down the tone a bit. Today when Mr Mukherjee appeared again in front of the media saying "We will take all steps possible to protect India's territorial integrity", all news channels have gotten into a frenzy decoding and dissecting the message and interpreting that only a war is the solution to tame these rogue terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan.

8) The media seems to forget that a large section of common populace like me, have no idea of what would entail in a war. Never has a war affected me in my lifetime. The only war which India had gotten into since I gained consciousness was the Kargil war. And that was in response to the Pakistani attacks, and that too was limited primarily to the area in and around Kargil in Kashmir. The vast majority of India remained unaffected by the war. But as a person with reasonably decent common sense, I can only imagine the rigors of a life during war. And seriously, what problems in the world have been solved with wars? The palpable anger in the minds of common man is given fuel to by this kind of views echoed by a section of the media, and like I mentioned in my yesterday's and day before yesterday's posts, the internet is rife with gullible young Indians declaring that this is the time for a war. I do not agree, but then I also do not know better as to what the alternative to war is.

9) In the middle of all this, US Secretary of State, Ms Condoleeza Rice came to India today and after prolonged meetings with the Indian contingent of ministers she appeared in front of the media and said that even if non-state actors were involved in the terror strikes, it was the responsibility of the Pakistani state to rein in the terror growing in their backyard. It is really commendable that the US sent its representative to India to guide and advise us, but if this is the only thing that Ms Rice had to say, then I have my doubts whether this was the only thing discussed between Ms Rice and Mr Mukherjee, the Indian external affairs minister. Behind closed doors with the Indian ministers, she might have condoned the idea of a war. The US knows it best when it comes to the ill effects of long-drawn and futile wars. True, there has been no terror strike on US since 9/11, and in many ways, the war probably did act as a deterrent. But not just the war, it was also a better security system, less corruption, a well stocked and well armed police force, modern ammunitions to fight the war and above all a very transparent and accountable political body at the top of the system. Maybe behind closed doors, that's the message she relayed to the Indians - War is not the only solution, strengthen yourself first and then bully Pakistan. And God knows, Pakistan has its own share of problems with these terrorists. But this is just my speculation, and I am just speculating based on all that I am seeing and hearing and reading.

10) Even if war is a good solution to such strikes, I feel that the present government might not engage with Pakistan in a war. For simple reasons, the first and foremost being the tenure of the present government is limited to just another 6 months. India goes to vote in another 6 months, and the present government might decide against a war, just because if the gamble backfires, then whatever little chances remain of it winning the election, even that will get flushed away. As it is, the common sentiment is very much against the present Congress Government and it is highly likely that the next election might see them losing the election battle bitterly. Along with the already sour mood, they don't want to be in a pickle with a war situation.

11) And seriously, if we go to a war with a democratically elected government, aren't we fulfilling the very purpose of the terrorist strikes by the non-state rogue groups? These groups are intent on seeing democracy taking a brow beating in Pakistan. Since the government was sworn in, there have been numerous terrorist strikes in Pakistan itself with the latest one being as debilitating as the bomb blast in front of the Mariott hotel in Islamabad. And really as little as I know about Pakistan and world politics and foreign affairs, it seems kind of likely to me that the State Government is genuinely not able to control the terrorist groups operating from their soil. It does not seem like a case of Pakistan discreetly supporting the terrorist groups, rather it looks like a case of Pakistan unable to contain the terrorist groups in their backyard. With Indians getting into a war with them, we are just forwarding the cause of the terrorists. If India does succeed in the war, democracy goes down the drain in Pakistan, and then we can forget any future peace making attempts with Pakistan.

So like I mentioned many times during this piece, for sure, I think war is not the solution to these terrorist strikes. It is a befitting answer, and a strong one, but will it solve the problem? I don't think so. And if not a war, I do not even know what the possible alternative is. Only the next few days will reveal how things develop, I hope for the better.