Bengalis are hurt over a statement by the Delhi police calling Bangla a ‘Bangladeshi language’ and the lines Azad sang have unwittingly become protest music in Kolkata now.
Centre for Science and Environment in new report makes case for rationalising GST on waste material, saying most informal operators can’t afford high tax & it also hinders recycling.
Standing up to America is usually not a personal risk for a leader in India. Any suggestions of foreign pressure unites India behind who they see as leading them in that fight.
Yes. It should not because it would be end of Nehru’s cherished dream. But it would be good for world. Root of Islamic fanaticism & terrorism started in India long before Independence. in 1830s Ranjit Singh, Maharaja of Lahore, had to put down a fundamentalist uprising led by Syed Ahmed of Rai Bareli.
Syed Ahmed is considered hero in Pakistan So naturally fanaticism spread in South Asia. it is only after 9/ 11 7 especially after ISIS world saw true form of Islamic fanaticism that it ignored for so long as Islamic Fanaticism was fighting against Communism.
India needs to look at China and Pak- China as adversaries against whom pricipally we need to have nuclear doctrine. While all lofty ideals and principles remain well couched in the document, India needs to demonstrate its will backed by adequate resources to hit upfront in anticipation of potential threat or as a defence of it. We need to ensure that Pak is not able to bully us with its nuclear stockpile and our doctrine now should have enough flexibility of action depending on circumstances. While UN Security Council seat and NSG membership are all desirable, what is not expendable now is bullying by Pak or China. Both of them have no NFU doctrine in any case.. and hence, we need to address this asymmetric immediately. If necessary, we should also develop tactical nuclear weapons. Ayoob has put all these issues in cogent manner. In particular, his suggestion of linking nuclear doctrine to the terror threats is a novel idea worth implemening. Once this is assured, then of course, we are never going to use these weapons, we work for total nuclear disarmament, we hate war, nuclear weapons are a curse to humanity etc etc.
There is a sanctity to nuclear weapons not being used. They are qualitatively different from the ravages of war the world has seen all through recorded history. Perhaps the Americans ought to have waited a few days after Hiroshima; Nagasaki could almost certainly have been avoided. While the US does not formally profess NFU, no one really expects them to use a nuclear weapon, least of all against a non nuclear state. 2. It would be worse than reckless for India to introduce uncertainty over use of its nuclear weapons. We have a problem with Pakistan. Put another way, there is a long festering problem in Kashmir, with both an internal and an external dimension. For the last few years, neither is being addressed, politically or diplomatically. Let us not start moving up an escalator ladder. First Dokalam, then Balakot represented initiatives that ought to have been more deeply thought through. 3. Domestic politics and national security, like oil and water, do not mix well. A delay of a few days in the return of a captured pilot who was being served “ excellent tea “ is something we should be able to handle without going ballistic. 4. The short point is : cover India’s nukes with cotton wool and phenyl balls. They are not meant for actual use.
India does not have to publicly declare a “Nuclear Doctrine”. Why should it? Except to continue its Nehruvian Gandhistry to appease the world?.
Yes. It should not because it would be end of Nehru’s cherished dream. But it would be good for world. Root of Islamic fanaticism & terrorism started in India long before Independence. in 1830s Ranjit Singh, Maharaja of Lahore, had to put down a fundamentalist uprising led by Syed Ahmed of Rai Bareli.
Syed Ahmed is considered hero in Pakistan So naturally fanaticism spread in South Asia. it is only after 9/ 11 7 especially after ISIS world saw true form of Islamic fanaticism that it ignored for so long as Islamic Fanaticism was fighting against Communism.
India needs to look at China and Pak- China as adversaries against whom pricipally we need to have nuclear doctrine. While all lofty ideals and principles remain well couched in the document, India needs to demonstrate its will backed by adequate resources to hit upfront in anticipation of potential threat or as a defence of it. We need to ensure that Pak is not able to bully us with its nuclear stockpile and our doctrine now should have enough flexibility of action depending on circumstances. While UN Security Council seat and NSG membership are all desirable, what is not expendable now is bullying by Pak or China. Both of them have no NFU doctrine in any case.. and hence, we need to address this asymmetric immediately. If necessary, we should also develop tactical nuclear weapons. Ayoob has put all these issues in cogent manner. In particular, his suggestion of linking nuclear doctrine to the terror threats is a novel idea worth implemening. Once this is assured, then of course, we are never going to use these weapons, we work for total nuclear disarmament, we hate war, nuclear weapons are a curse to humanity etc etc.
There is a sanctity to nuclear weapons not being used. They are qualitatively different from the ravages of war the world has seen all through recorded history. Perhaps the Americans ought to have waited a few days after Hiroshima; Nagasaki could almost certainly have been avoided. While the US does not formally profess NFU, no one really expects them to use a nuclear weapon, least of all against a non nuclear state. 2. It would be worse than reckless for India to introduce uncertainty over use of its nuclear weapons. We have a problem with Pakistan. Put another way, there is a long festering problem in Kashmir, with both an internal and an external dimension. For the last few years, neither is being addressed, politically or diplomatically. Let us not start moving up an escalator ladder. First Dokalam, then Balakot represented initiatives that ought to have been more deeply thought through. 3. Domestic politics and national security, like oil and water, do not mix well. A delay of a few days in the return of a captured pilot who was being served “ excellent tea “ is something we should be able to handle without going ballistic. 4. The short point is : cover India’s nukes with cotton wool and phenyl balls. They are not meant for actual use.