Rediff Article Takes On TOI, Hindu.. And Our Fledgling Self Respect.

[blr_p]

If only it had the wisdom to put appeasement politics behind and bust the sleeper cells, we would be talking economy rather than pakistanis luring unsuspected indians muslims into committing crimes. An already tangled mess is made more complex.

Why do you think they are not trying to bust sleeper cells ?

I read they had stopped a plot recently just a week back in [strike]Andhra[/strike] mumbai.

 

[Tech_enthu]

I detest anyone calling TOI a tabloid, which has been serving the nation and its people for so many years and belief in a person who is wanting to get a FOOTHOLD in Indian politics by spreading such malicious messages, I will bet 100% that this person is either sponsered by some fascist party or is going to be very soon and he knows it.

 

[blr_p]

So he does not like TOI, will they go out of business as a result ?

The only section of any value in the TOI is the edit page, now that others have started syndicating from the foreign press I'm quite happy with my local daily. Its articles are of a better quality than TOI for local issues. I rarely find typos or gross errors like i did with TOI.

 

[hatter]

I detest anyone calling TOI a tabloid, which has been serving the nation and its people for so many years and belief in a person who is wanting to get a FOOTHOLD in Indian politics by spreading such malicious messages, I will bet 100% that this person is either sponsered by some fascist party or is going to be very soon and he knows it.

You work for TOI or what

 

[Justinâ„¢]

I detest anyone calling TOI a tabloid, which has been serving the nation and its people for so many years and belief in a person who is wanting to get a FOOTHOLD in Indian politics by spreading such malicious messages, I will bet 100% that this person is either sponsered by some fascist party or is going to be very soon and he knows it.

And I LOL'ed.

And I nervously laugh at everyone who thinks Indian political scenario will improve.

The only change which can improve the political system in this country is a dual party system. Every tom dick and harry goes out and forms a party so the end government is a stack of cards where one card = one party. Somebody pulls out, the government is left hanging. One more pulls out, crash. Although this year was a little better but I don't think that will be same in the next elections.

And I really feel scared for the day when someone like Mayawati goes on to become the PM. Although I respect her for her achievements in Indian politics and her boldness, her self indulgences scare me.

Rahul is a good bet, but sometimes his remarks show him in a really poor light. Some of his remarks come out as seriously kiddish. And I don't trust Congress anyways.

BJP is the best party (or was) but no good leader and their saffron wagon is holding it back.

I wonder if we ever see an Indian government at helm with a backbone.

 

[blr_p]

The only change which can improve the political system in this country is a dual party system. Every tom dick and harry goes out and forms a party so the end government is a stack of cards where one card = one party. Somebody pulls out, the government is left hanging. One more pulls out, crash. Although this year was a little better but I don't think that will be same in the next elections.

So the answer is to have less choice than currently ?

And I ready feel scared for the day when someone like Mayawati goes on to become the PM. Although I respect her for her achievements in Indian politics and her boldness, her self indulgences scare me.

So better if leaders like that were not able to come to power.

Rahul is a good bet, but sometimes his remarks show him in a really poor lite. Some of his remarks come out as seriously kiddish. And I don't trust Congress anyways.

BJP is the best party (or was) but no good leader and their saffron wagon is holding it back.

I wonder if we ever see an Indian government at helm with a backbone.

SO if there is less chaces for others then how does the present situation get fixed.

And I LOL'ed.

And I laugh at everyone who thinks Indian political scenario will improve.

I was thinking maybe i laugh at those that laugh at everyone who thinks Indian political scenario will improve

 

[kunaldua]

How many terror attacks have happened in the UK?

Three letters for you: I R A

 

[Justinâ„¢]

blr_p, I don't get into arguments, so I won't get into one here.

The only clarification I want to give you on your whole post is on the dual party system. Try and research a bit to know why VAT, GST and NIC (National ID Card System) got delayed. Every state trying to make their own cut because of differential party system. And I think you seem intelligent enough to deduce the importance of these systems to be implemented as soon as possible (Except VAT ofcourse, which is implemented, but still fragmented).

See how many different stupid demands were made in the new woman quota bill by different parties?

See why metro had so much trouble getting into Uttar Pradesh?

See why Reliance had problems setting up the Dadri plant even after getting proper approvals?

Tata in Bengal, Farmers in Gujrat?

In all the above cases Center had the right view, but regional parties did not wanted to show any support (except the woman quota bill which I strongly oppose, not because I am a MCP but because it is plain wrong). I can give you a thousand examples.

2 parties, 2 views, 4 problems.

100 parties, 100 views, 10000 problems.

Search a little and you will find even Dr Abdul Kalam and many big leaders agree with the dual party system.

Read this:

Two party system Let’s make India better!

This is just one. Just google and you will find many well written blogs and articles.

And one last thing, you know why regional party are a problem? Because it divides us on cast and creed. People go and vote the person who they think can represent their CAST better, not their city or state better. Holigans fight their way to the top of political system because they get tickets from smaller parties or they make their own. I can go on and on, but I think if you still don't understand my point, there is no point discussing further.

BTW, The "laugh" point was not sarcastic, it was nervous. My bad, I made it look offensive. Edited my previous post.

 

[blr_p]

blr_p, I don't get into arguments, so I won't get into one here.

Too bad because of everything you said not one point addresses the fact that there will be less choice and it will be the govt taking that choice away from us. That ought to get anyone sane enough to understand the consequences upset :no:

You want less parties let the regionals lose in the elections and become irrelevant, not tweak the system about to acheive the same. Let the people decide.

The system gets F*** about enough as it is, how many amendments have we had so far ?

But just so that you know, I am lawyer and MBA academically, a businessman and a part time political consultant. And I am an active part of a political party, doing my part for the nation.

So you know process i'm talking about principle !

The only clarification I want to give you on your whole post is on the dual party system. Try and research a bit to know why VAT, GST and NIC (National ID Card System) got delayed. Every state trying to make their own cut because of differential party system. And I think you seem intelligent enough to deduce the importance of these systems to be implemented as soon as possible (Except VAT ofcourse, which is implemented, but still fragmented).
See how many different stupid demands were made in the new woman quota bill by different parties?
See why metro had so much trouble getting into Uttar Pradesh?
See why Reliance had problems setting up the Dadri plant even after getting proper approvals?
Tata in Bengal, Farmers in Gujrat?

Does not compensate for loss of choice. This country has too much diversity, You cut ppl's voices out and then watch the fun. Ain't going to be pretty. We are a young country, those with dual party systems have had a much longer run than we had. We have to walk before we can run. We were crawling 20 years back.

In all the above cases Center had the right view, but regional parties did not wanted to show any support (except the woman quota bill which I strongly oppose, not because I am MCP but because it is plain wrong). I can give you a thousand examples.

I'm no different on that, started a thread about it even.

2 parties, 2 views, 4 problems.
100 parties, 100 views, 10000 problems..

2 parties when there are 100 views is cutting choice and forcing an unnatural compromise when we're not ready.

Search a little and you will find even Dr Abdul Kalam and many big leaders agree with the dual party system.

I've done the searching you better start with the constituent assembly debates on the topic.

And one last thing, you know why regional party are a problem? Because it divides us on cast and creed. People go and vote the person who they think can represent their CAST better, not their city or state better. Holigans fight their way to the top of political system because they get tickets from smaller parties or they make their own. I can go on and on, but I think if you still don't understand my point, there is no point discussing further.

BTW, The "laugh" point was not sarcastic, it was nervous.

All cutting regional parties out will do is make the bigger parties lazier and you know it !

You take away the competition you get an inferior product.

 

[Justinâ„¢]

Wow brother, you amaze me.

You mean you select one person who is your choice, and then his party forges an alliance, it is OK? For me, it is totally against the mandate of the people. Post-poll alliances just cannot be accepted.

And BTW, "You take away the competition you get an inferior product.", running a government is not a competition. It is just a chosen set of individuals running a country responsibly. The competition is of the economy with the foreign economies.

Your point of "cutting regional parties" and "choice" is quite flawed. I am not in favor of cutting out the parties. What I mean is every regional party should make a mandatory alliance with the two national parties and that alliance should be made clear pre-poll.

I will refrain from posting but I seriously advice you to understand what you are posting. No offense meant.

 

[chiron]

Less views could lead to easier governance but that also means less dissent and I think that is something that can't be ignored. Besides India is never going to become a two-party system so there is no real point in arguing for it.

Besides you are going under the assumption that the post-poll alliances are made purely in self-interest.

 

[bond_212]

Just one query why does our government want to bring headley to India when we are unable to make any headway in Kasab's case ??

 

[Spacescreamer]

^^ Why do dogs chase cars even when they dont have any intent to drive it ??

Just for the sake of it.

 

[blr_p]

You mean you select one person who is your choice, and then his party forges an alliance, it is OK? For me, it is totally against the mandate of the people. Post-poll alliances just cannot be accepted.

You mean to say that if the party enters into an alliance after winning that its diluting the wishes of its voters ?

What i think is more important is that party could win in the first place. It did because its voters purposely chose it over others. The nuke deal is a good example of this. There were those that were against it and the commies almost brought down the govt over that point. But in the end more wanted it than not. Amongst other reasons the commies lost big time in 2009. Thats the way it ought to be. The idea was fought over and the better won, those against it will come to terms in their own time. This is better than not being able to voice that dissent in the first place. For a moment they were in with a chance and lost fair & square. Don't forget that alliances worked here in favour of the deal too

I'm not bothered how much wheeling & dealing or horse trading goes on between the parties as its always quid pro quo.

And BTW, "You take away the competition you get an inferior product.", running a government is not a competition. It is just a chosen set of individuals running a country responsibly. The competition is of the economy with the foreign economies.

Running a govt is not a competition agree, but the competition is in selecting who gets to run a govt by giving ppl the voice

Your point of "cutting regional parties" and "choice" is quite flawed. I am not in favor of cutting out the parties. What I mean is every regional party should make a mandatory alliance with the two national parties and that alliance should be made clear pre-poll.

This is a refinement over the current and in theory sounds good but in practice is flawed. As its still limiting choice by forcing 'fixed' alliances. Politics makes for strange bedfellows all in the parties interest which can change as the wind blows. Why should parties be forced to choose who they will ally with before elections. The idea of introducing alliances cuts down on choice and is less flexible then as the need demands.

I will refrain from posting but I seriously advice you to understand what you are posting. No offense meant.

No offense meant by my part as well. I post with the interest to have my ideas shot down and see how well they can hold up

 

[l33t_5n1p3r_max]

Forget headley, your external affairs minister personally dropped off Masood Azhar (the same dude who started jaish-e-mohammed) outside kandahar airport because the relatives of the citizens on IC 814 sat on a dharna outside parliament.

Lets face it, blaming ToIlet and hindu for failures of the state and its citizens doesn't do. If the citizens are more than happy with IPL or Kareena snogging some dude in a toilet, let them have it.

The only reason our media is after this Headley dude is because he was caught by their Mai-Baap living in New York. Who cares about the frequent renditions from Kathmandu lol, America caught HEADLEY DURR MUST BRING HIM HERE AND PROVE OURSELVES AS AMERICA KA FAITHFUL PUPPY!

 

[blr_p]

Forget headley, your external affairs minister personally dropped off Masood Azhar (the same dude who started jaish-e-mohammed) outside kandahar airport because the relatives of the citizens on IC 814 sat on a dharna outside parliament.

Yeah Jaswant did the deed mainly because there were no diplomatic relations between the countries at the time. Three guys handed over not one. Those relatives must among the luckest in the history of hijackings.

What else could be done ? Could we have pulled off an Entebbe ? doubtful.

We were inexperienced in these affairs and the goal as always is to get away with 100% alive. Not been a similar hijacking since.

The only reason our media is after this Headley dude is because he was caught by their Mai-Baap living in New York.

Expand on this bit.

 

[l33t_5n1p3r_max]

What else could be done ? Could we have pulled off an Entebbe ? doubtful.

It just takes balls to pull stuff off. And not just entebbe, Mossad allegedly destroyed Hungarian airspace last week in what was probably a failed rendition of a Syrian hamas supporter. The dude was shot in the scuffle so the planes never landed, but they damn well circled about the country to whisk away their agents.

Sure, we aren't the Israelis and the capability probably just wasn't there in that time period. But what if the same thing happens now? What if in another hijacking they ask for Kasab and manmohan just hands him over?

Not been a similar hijacking since.

This is true. A bunch of small reasons can lead to something big, for ex the limit Mushy put on the KAshmiri insurgency or the increased activity of our intelligence agencies in Nepal, could all contribute.

But it doesn't change the fact that handing over criminals will in any way change the minds of wannabe hijackers. Hell, it'll probably encourage them to carry out such stuff in the future.

Expand on this bit.

Just a generic rant. Not much substance behind it.

 

[blr_p]

It just takes balls to pull stuff off. And not just entebbe, Mossad allegedly destroyed Hungarian airspace last week in what was probably a failed rendition of a Syrian hamas supporter. The dude was shot in the scuffle so the planes never landed, but they damn well circled about the country to whisk away their agents.

I'm going to retract what i said earlier. Reading through some of the articles on the incident it would appear the biggest slipup was letting the plane depart from Amritsar. Once it left our airspace it was out of our hands and the price inevitably went up. In fact the hijackers wanted to fly the plane direct to Pakistan, they did not want to land here at all, its only when Lahore initially refused that the pilot had to land in Amritsar citing low fuel.
The std op is to shoot the tires and disable the plane's movement, that command was never made. The hijackers might have blown the plane up at that point as they were well armed. The lax security at Kathmandu complicated everything.

We could have stormed the plane after stalling but there would have been some loss of life in the bargain.

ISure, we aren't the Israelis and the capability probably just wasn't there in that time period. But what if the same thing happens now? What if in another hijacking they ask for Kasab and manmohan just hands him over?

By acceding to their demands the price went up in Kashmir. Yes the time period was very short and the hijackers kept it that way, they did not loiter around too much and forced the pilot to leave soon for Lahore who aceded later when the pilot issued them an ultimatum.

The ironic bit is it was that only in Dubai where the Arabs managed to get the women & sick off the plane in exchange for fuel.

This is true. A bunch of small reasons can lead to something big, for ex the limit Mushy put on the KAshmiri insurgency or the increased activity of our intelligence agencies in Nepal, could all contribute.

But it doesn't change the fact that handing over criminals will in any way change the minds of wannabe hijackers. Hell, it'll probably encourage them to carry out such stuff in the future.

Yep, I guess there was a breakdown in the chain of command.

The only plus point in the whole affair was diplomatic, how it was handled.

But overall in terms of self-respect we took a hit

 

[l33t_5n1p3r_max]

We could have stormed the plane after stalling but there would have been some loss of life in the bargain.

Stormed with what man? Punjab police armed with .303's and lathis? The NSG in those days did not have regional hubs, they were based out of Manesar. It would have taken them another couple of hours to get in. The talk of using trucks to block the runway and/or shooting its tires out makes too much sense in a country laced with bureocratic red tapism. The SP of police has to ask the DIGor whoever his superior is, the DIG asks whatever group is co-ordinating it from delhi, that group has to contact the home ministry...

We can't expect hijackers to align themselves up so we can take them out. Instead of making 129033242 different NSG hubs across all major cities what should have been done was to offer the state cops specialised training in hostage rescue and other operations. Something like Force (?) in Mumbai. What these different NSG hubs have done is that they've diluted the potency of the force already suffering from shortage of manpower (simply because the NSG accept only the very best). Who is going to ensure the same levels of training across these hubs as that the NSG originally got at Manesar?

Back there, they had mock hotels, aircraft, infrastructure everything set up. They would practice day and night on hostage crises. The new hubs will obviously reduce reaction times in case of attacks but they will degrade the quality of our soldiers.

But meh, going off-topic here so I'll stop.

 

[blr_p]

Stormed with what man? Punjab police armed with .303's and lathis? The NSG in those days did not have regional hubs, they were based out of Manesar. It would have taken them another couple of hours to get in.

So all that was required was to stall for a cpl of hrs then

Immediately on meeting, the CMG in Delhi contacted the National Security Guard (NSG) at 6.25 p.m. and instructed it to leave for Amritsar, 36 minutes before the hijacked plane landed. So far, the response of the CMG to the crisis seemed adequate.

The NSG Task Force was in position and ready to take off in an IL 76 aircraft -- equipped with special anti-hijacking equipment -- at 7.10 p.m. However, the two negotiators assigned to the team were nowhere on the spot. The NSG team chose to keep waiting for a full 30 minutes before the CMG instructed it to leave without the negotiators. Was this wait necessary? Did the NSG wait on the instructions of the CMG or was it going by what it considered the rules of anti-hijacking operations? These are some of the questions that the inquiry initiated by the Government into the Amritsar fiasco will have to answer. This, despite the fact that the NSG team would have missed the hijackers even if it had not waited for the negotiators.

That quote mentions an enquiry but I cannot trace any report about the results of that enquiry anywhere.

The talk of using trucks to block the runway and/or shooting its tires out makes too much sense in a country laced with bureocratic red tapism.

Back there, they had mock hotels, aircraft, infrastructure everything set up. They would practice day and night on hostage crises. The new hubs will obviously reduce reaction times in case of attacks but they will degrade the quality of our soldiers.

No NSG in place therefore not possible to immobilise the plane as they would have started killing passengers. Can only immobilise the plane when there is a team in place ready to take it. Having said that taking on 5 heavily armed hjackers would be difficult.

When there is only one hijacker, he would generally be in the cockpit. Danger to the passengers from a commando intervention is the least, unless the lone hijacker has explosives.

When there are two hijackers, the danger is more, but still manageable since the second hijacker would generally be near the front door, which reduces the danger of deaths of passengers in cross fire.
If there are three hijackers, one each would be at the front and rear doors, increasing the risk of cross-fire deaths.
The maximum vulnerability of the passengers arises when there are more than three hijackers, with one or more of them stationed in the middle.

This was an opportunity that was lost as the plan was to never land in India in the first place. The Paks did us a favour by initially refusing to allow the plane to land in Lahore, tho their main reason was not to be seen as aiding & abetting.

The Arabs did one better, got the women & kids off, we could not even do that

The SP of police has to ask the DIGor whoever his superior is, the DIG asks whatever group is co-ordinating it from delhi, that group has to contact the home ministry...

Not that complicated as the process is already in place, it did function it just failed to make the decison in time.

Initially everything seemed to be proceeding on the right lines. The Punjab CMG quickly got into action in Chandigarh once Sarabjit Singh knew of the hijacking. He informed the SSP and the dig in Amritsar who were able to reach the airport before the flight landed. The seniormost police officer, IGP (border range) Bakshi Ram, was on leave that day but his predecessor, J.P. Birdi, who had relinquished charge only a few weeks ago, was in Amritsar and was told to take charge and reach the airport.

According to the contingency plan, issued in 1987 and revised in August 1995, while the CMG is to take charge in Delhi, the Aerodrome Committee (AC) -- established at every airport -- is to be activated during any emergency at the affected airport. Comprising the district collector, the SSP, a senior representative from the Intelligence Bureau and the airport manager[/b], the ac is supposed to initiate negotiations to ascertain the demands of the hijackers, their mood and their affiliations. "It is essential,'' says the manual "to ensure as much delay as possible to provide time for officials to evaluate the situation and plan the best possible counter action and to enable the Central team to arrive and take charge of the negotiations."

We can't expect hijackers to align themselves up so we can take them out. Instead of making 129033242 different NSG hubs across all major cities what should have been done was to offer the state cops specialised training in hostage rescue and other operations. Something like Force (?) in Mumbai. What these different NSG hubs have done is that they've diluted the potency of the force already suffering from shortage of manpower (simply because the NSG accept only the very best). Who is going to ensure the same levels of training across these hubs as that the NSG originally got at Manesar?

Then we have to be prepared for bigger loss of civilian life when any of these situations occur in the future. In the IC 814, only one was lost but there was a future cost.

The question always boils down to how many civilians must be sacrificed to retain self-respect ?

Its like either making a lump sum payment or paying back with interest in the future. The lumpsum is always the cheapest tho most painful. We did just that in mumbai tho those ppl had no demands, that was a fight to the end. But in this hijacking the main goal was to secure the release of comrades, not necessarily to die trying. That's why I now feel we could have done better.