Pakistan is a South Asian country and western neighbour of India. It was created in 1947 after being partitioned from India during independence. It has longstanding border disputes with India and is currently reeling under economic and political issues.
Nothing else to write and create unwanted controversy. Indian Defence knows very well to what extend they can utilise this freedom and responsibility. Chamchhas of trogen horses can never think positively and see only negative things. One more term for Modi will teach them proper lesson.
The PM largely implies freedom of action to retaliate at place of own choosing, form that is generally well understood by all – limited retaliatory but effective. If a thinker conceives nuc action – the thinker forfeits being called strategic thinker!
In any case, no military leader will go ahead without sounding peer chiefs and CCS of impending action. Please bear in mind need to assuage public anger and hence such statements are much in order.
One would have thought that offensive actions are initiated at a time and location suitable for the initiator of the offense, in any case. That choice and recommendation will have to be made by the armed forces. But giving clearance for the action, and considering the political fallout/ consequences, will be the Govt’s responsibility. The buck has to stop there. One hopes, as mentioned in the responses, that PM meant just that.
Absolutely true, free hand to armed forces. ? Our Political Masters lack that “Will” becoz there is only ONE Strategy for them – Elections and How to grab the Power with little National Interest and No Strategy at all.
Not taking any action as in the past shall send a wrong signal to the ISI/Pakistan Army led government. Both diplomatic pressures and military actions are requied to keep Pakistan in its place. How long shall China keep feeding the bankrupt government, CPEC has brought disaster to the Pakistani people. China has started ruling in some parts of Pakistan. It shall eventually hurst the Pakistanis under their belt. TheDefence Forces should be given a free hand to retaliate.
Dear Friends, PM’s statement only means that the Defence forces can take ,”ON THE SPOT DECISION”. This has many strings attached automatically. There is nothing much to discuss further.
Col Shivraj
When did he lead he always misled giving freehand means army’s victory and then he will take credit to encash in election.
Yes, it is.
The author has not understood what is meant by free hand. When you are given a free hand the responsibility and result is entirely yours. You have to discuss the situation with all concerned stakeholders, think thoroughly about the consequences and then take the final decision. The decision will be yours, but the Government will back you fully.
1. Any action against Pakistan has to factor it’s retaliatory response(s) and how does Indian poiltical leadership propose to manage the escalatory response laddering?
2. Any Indian action against Pakistan also needs to consider: would it change or modify Pakistan’s behaviour? Alternatively, would it impact Pakistan’s politico-economic coherence to compel it to accept normative inter-state behaviour?
Both PMs have used the typical language that any PM would have used. Nothing wrong there. It’s more for public consum – ption.Both can’t afford to get into a war.Lack of edu/jobs is not the reason for taking up weapons as most made to believe. OBL was a prince with huge finances, similarly lot of 2ndGen immigrants/ highly educated youth are joining Trsts. Its hy radicalisation.Its high time they have to be told that whether they want to go back 800 yrs or keep pace with rest of the country.
As I understand, the message to the Country is that Forces have been given a fee hand. It appeals to a nonmilitary mind. The maximum the government can allow is to retaliate and indulge in a little more than a border skirmish. It is not meant to escalation to war. Anything beyond is the Government’s baby.
At the moment, what is required is a visible riposte that slakes the thirst for revenge. In that sense, the objectives will be political, not military. 2. What next ? That makes it imperative that the civilian leadership signs off on any retaliatory action, for how Pakistan will respond and how any escalation will have to be dealt with are not entirely in the military domain. 3. Take the issue of loss of life. What if there are military – or even very large civilian – casualties. Recall the image of the burnt out helicopters in the desert when the United States tried to use a military option to rescue the hostages in Iran. That sealed Jimmy Carter’s reelection fate. Conversely, killing OBL in that magnificent mission to Abbottabad locked in President Obama’s second term. 4. The simple fact is that dealing with Pakistan – China fortunately is more like a lethal SSBN which seldom surfaces – is not the raw material for an election campaign. These are thoughtful issues, where the muscle most required to be used is the Cerebrum.
I think it’s better to give them freedom than staying back . Because they know what they are to do . They are trained to fight only . So they are more acquainted with this type of situation than us . So it’s a right move .
Fully agree. Giving a free hand to Army would mean that we are converting into a military state.. which currently we are not.