Comments on: Live Debate…

By: sherene

sherene — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:58:38 +0000

Papa, I would completely agree with you on the matter of quality of military leadership but to divide up the resources between domestic and foreign territory, the matter goes beyond that of quality and refers to quantity too. Famously enough, the Indian Army is short of some 11,000 Army officers, and given that such military engagement would invite casualty, the Indian Army might need a lot more of the quality military resources it already has.

By: Jose Kurian

Jose Kurian — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:47:02 +0000

On the issue of whether or not to deploy Indian troops in Afghanistan, it is an extremely complex question for one to give an YES or NO reply. But having been part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka in 1987-88, I can definitely say with full conviction that it’s not going to be a cake-walk. As regards certain other issues discussed, pertaining to the quality of Indian military leadership, I can assure you it is second to none. We have proved it in the real acid test of it all for a military- winning wars against our adversaries. In peacetime too, India’s Armed Forces have not let its people down- be it rescuing a 3 year old from a blind well in Haryana or earthquake rescue operations or aid to civil authorities during major riots like in Bombay (1993) or Ahmedabad (2002). As a person who has been in uniform for over three decades, I would say it is unfair to adversely comment on the quality of military leadership. Coming back to the issue of deployment of Army in Afghanistan, as the disciplined Armed Forces of a mature democracy (unlike what we see in our neighbourhood), it is the ultimate decision of the political leadership. I am sure the Armed forces wouldnt shy away from such a duty, in case the political leadreship thinks it is in India’a overall strategic interests to deploy in Afghanistan.

By: sherene

sherene — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:47:25 +0000

Pacifism breaks down fast in the face of persistent terrorist attacks on civilians in public spaces – the state is forced to defend its people, even if it means confronting the nemesis head on. Unfortunately, in India’s case, it has rarely been known to take a confrontational stand in such matters and the defence forces have been used exactly for for that – defence, never offence.

I agree with you on the slippery territory of military partnership with the US!

By: Fly Girl

Fly Girl — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:23:39 +0000

I’m a pacifist so any debate about sending military anywhere is always a negative for me. In this case, I especially think that India shouldn’t send troops. U.S. policies and alligences are slippery as you mentioned and I don’t think India should even waste their rescources on a situation that they didn’t create.