Why does India always behave like it is impotent ?

India is a nuclear power, and it is the largest and the strongest nation in the region. This might precisely be the reason why it should not be snobbish or big-brotherly with its neighbors, but to look the other way each time they take advantage of us is a little too much to digest.

When India's most powerful man speaks with fear, you really start feeling whether India does need its nuclear arms & its huge armies. It might as well to lay down its arms to terrorists and beg for mercy.

This is what the Prime Minister said in a statement as government's first official reaction to the Diwali-eve blasts in Delhi -

"The news of the serial bomb blasts in the capital New Delhi reached me on my arrival in Kolkata after a day's visit to Tripura. I decided immediately that these acts required my presence in Delhi and I cut short my engagements tomorrow and returned to Delhi.
"I share the shock and distress of all those affected by this blast. My heart grieves for those who have lost their loved ones. I condemn the cynical and premeditated attacks on innocent people. These are dastardly acts of terrorism aimed at the people of India.

"These terrorists wish to spread a sense of fear and suspicion among peace-loving people. These blasts have been timed to create disaffection during the festive season when people of all communities are celebrating our national festivals. "We shall defeat their nefarious designs and will not allow them to succeed. We are resolute in our commitment to fighting terror in all forms. I am confident that the people of India have the will, capacity and resolution to win the war against terrorism.
"I urge the people to remain calm, not to panic or believe rumours and ensure that we all go about our activities normally. The government will take all possible measures to maintain law and order and defeat the forces of terrorism."

The statement didn't actually bother me till I heard from a BBC newsperson noting that though the Prime Minister made the right noises in asking people to remain calm & condemned the attacks, he never actually said anything about punishing those terrorists involved in the heinous crime. The statement shows that the Prime Minister is scared more about religious unrest as a fallout of the blasts rather than hunting down the terrorists, who if left to themselves will almost definitely strike again. He does make weak noises about fighting terrorism & evil designs of terrorists that will not be allowed to succeed, but clearly not enough. Indeed, the first paragraph about him coming back early from West Bengal sounds unnecessary & almost stupid. He doesn't need to tell people that it is a serious enough act for him to come back. That the Prime Minister thinks he should explain his coming back early presumes on his part a serious amount of ignorance among Indian people and lacks sensitivity on his part.

Compare this to what US said about the same acts -

"We condemn these attacks in the strongest possible terms. It is a cowardly act of violence and we hope that the perpetrators are swiftly identified and brought to justice."

The attitudes of the two countries reflects very clearly in the statements made by the two about the same act. Interestingly, the statement is very similar to the one President of USA George Bush made 3 hours after 9/11 attacks -

"We have taken all appropriate security precautions to protect the American people," Mr Bush told reporters. "Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly attacks."

The speeches clearly reflect the attitudes of the two nations. And lest you feel this is about the personal charisma of the two leaders concerned in the way their statements are written and both countries act in similar ways, here is what US Secretary of State Colin Powell said after 9/11 -

A terrible, terrible tragedy has befallen my nation, but it has befallen all those who believe in democracy," Mr Powell told the OAS assembly. "I hope we can move the order of business to the adoption of the charter," he said, "because I very much want to be here to express the United States' commitment to democracy in this hemisphere."
The session opened with a moment of silence before representatives of Venezuela, Colombia, El Salvador and Canada all made statements condemning the attacks. "I will bring to President Bush your expressions of sorrow and your words of support," said Mr Powell. "You can be sure that America will deal with this tragedy in a way that brings those responsible to justice." He added with reference to the region that "terrorism, as is noted, is everyone's problem and there are countries represented here who have been fighting terrorism for years and have seen horrible things happen in your countries. It is something we must all unite behind".

Again, not so much rhetoric, not talking about peace between US muslims & the majority population, all that came much later. What was of paramount importance was that the terrorists, americans & the world had to know that terrorism would be dealt with firmly.

Now about action that followed these comments. US attacked Afghanistan within months & dethroned Taliban. It failed to wipe out Al Qaeeda, or Taliban, and has even failed to capture Osama Bin Laden. But its actions definitely restored a sense of confidence among Americans that their government is taking care of their security. In India, except for an innocent person who was captured to be released later, there has been practically no action even after the group responsible & its origins were known.

There was a lot of controversy a few years ago when Bangladeshi Rifles killed a BSF jawan & infact hung his body on a pole, pretty much like what you would do after hunting a goat. Nothing was done even then, and Bangladesh didn't even apologize publicly. Indeed, India doesn't need to send out its forces each time an Indian is killed overseas. But India has been found wanting in using strong language even as it uses diplomatic channels.

Nepal, a long time Indian ally (remember, Nepal is the only other Hindu majority nation in the world and it is in India's strategic interest to ensure Nepal doesn't disintegrate). By stopping to send arms to Nepal & doing nothing apart from proclaiming 'we support a return to democracy', India has shot itself in the foot twiceover - China now supplies arms to Nepal in truckloads & gets closer to Nepal than India; India by a quick military coup would against the King would have gained the support of Nepal's democratic parties, Maoists and perhapes would have been able to bring them to the negotiating table. There was another nice thing that would have happened for the ruling party domestically - it would have definitely pleased the Indian Hindus no end.

India similarly did not act when Indian-origin Prime Minister in Fiji was deposed & kidnapped a few years back. A quick military action here would have proved decisive. The surprising thing is India did act decisively in the past, during the times of Indira Gandhi (in liberating Bangladesh) & Rajiv Gandhi (in Sri Lanka & Maldives) but surprisingly seems to develop cold feet everytime in recent years. Action in Fiji would have found wide-spread support from the large Indian diaspora worldwide, giving them the confidence that Indian government will take care of them wherever in the world they are. This I am sure would have helped build investment momentum in India by NRIs as well as helping diplomatically with many governments, wherever Indian lobbies are influential.

It is interesting to see how Indian action in Maldives in defeating a coup attempt was seen by its neighbours & the World media as noted in this article.

Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi told the Indian Parliament that he saw the event as having "provided an opportunity for India to assist a friendly country and frustrate an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government." While the big powers, including the United States, endorsed India's intervention, the world media interpreted the action as indicative of "the scale of its ambitions in South Asia", as Time magazine observed, a confirmation of India's growing role as a regional superpower cum policeman.

In Sri Lanka, while the Jayewardene government breathed a sigh of relief that Male's ordeal had ended peacefully, The Island daily observed that "it would be ostrich-like to ignore the fear of small nations of South Asia, about current developments providing opportunities for what has been described as the spread of Indian hegemonism." Time also noted that, there was similar disquiet among India's other neighbours, although the governments of Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal endorsed India's action. Pakistan, however, was critical, even accusing India of having "stage-managed the coup attempt".

Indian diplomats and political analysts find such criticism unfair and point to the fact that it was Male that sought New Delhi's help. A.K. Banarjee, who served as India's High Commissioner in Male during the crucial 1987-1989 period, but was out of station in Delhi the day the coup took place, observes that "to the contrary, despite traditional cordial relations, the importance of the Maldives to India was not fully appreciated in Delhi until the coup, and it is the possibility that the Maldives could have turned elsewhere for help that subsequently established Male in New Delhi's psyche".

India's operations in Sri Lanka were not as successful, as documented in this interview of J N Dixit, India's former National Security Advisor & a leading thinker on national security. Dixit was High Commissioner to Sri Lanka from 1985-89, around the same time India sent its peace keeping force (IPKF) to broker peace between the Sri Lankan government & the LTTE. IPKF ended up fighting LTTE, and losing badly. It all ended in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi a few years later. India's fiasco in Sri Lanka is sometimes linked to US's Vietnam, but reverses in Vietnam never stopped US from trying again.

The inaction & passiveness in recent years has however not resulted in any goodwill for Indians worldwide, as India & Indians continue to be targeted by terrorists. India didn't act even days ago when Maniappan Kutty was killed ruthlessly (whereas an Afghani colleague was let off unharmed) by the Taliban in Afghanistan, in an area where the official government of Afghanistan has little influence.

As Nitin of Acorn says, India should atleast post its forces in Afghanistan as a deterrent to Taliban, this might just prevent another Kutty from happening. And it will suit India's strategic interest as well - I wonder how India wants to be a UNSC permanent member when it is not willing to ensure security to its people. Interestingly, all the other UNSC permanent members have had active military operations outside its shores often enough.