12-04-2008, 08:32 AM
Link
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>India to answer Mumbai attacks with talk not troops</b>
By Simon Denyer
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - <b>India will not respond to attacks in Mumbai by sending troops to the border with Pakistan, but will instead mobilise global pressure for its neighbour to act decisively against Islamist militants, analysts say.
The military strategy was tried in 2001 and 2002 after an attack on India's parliament, but achieved little.</b>
The crucial difference this time is that India is dealing with a civilian, democratically elected government in Islamabad -- a reasonably friendly government which does not have full control over a much more hostile, hawkish military establishment.
Military confrontation, however tempting as Indian elections loom ever closer, would only empower the hawks across the border.
<b>"It is simply not on the table," Siddharth Varadarajan, strategic affairs editor of the Hindu newspaper said.</b>
"If India were to take any of the military measures some armchair analysts want, that would almost certainly play into the hands of the military establishment in Pakistan."
It would also have played into the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, by forcing Pakistan to withdraw troops from its tribal areas and western border.
It has even been suggested this was one possible motive behind the attacks. If so, that is not a trap India will fall into, analysts say.Â
...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Immediately after the attacks, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanded the head of the ISI visit India to share information. Pakistan snubbed him by promising to send a lower-ranking official -- an embarrassment, proclaimed the media.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>India to answer Mumbai attacks with talk not troops</b>
By Simon Denyer
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - <b>India will not respond to attacks in Mumbai by sending troops to the border with Pakistan, but will instead mobilise global pressure for its neighbour to act decisively against Islamist militants, analysts say.
The military strategy was tried in 2001 and 2002 after an attack on India's parliament, but achieved little.</b>
The crucial difference this time is that India is dealing with a civilian, democratically elected government in Islamabad -- a reasonably friendly government which does not have full control over a much more hostile, hawkish military establishment.
Military confrontation, however tempting as Indian elections loom ever closer, would only empower the hawks across the border.
<b>"It is simply not on the table," Siddharth Varadarajan, strategic affairs editor of the Hindu newspaper said.</b>
"If India were to take any of the military measures some armchair analysts want, that would almost certainly play into the hands of the military establishment in Pakistan."
It would also have played into the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, by forcing Pakistan to withdraw troops from its tribal areas and western border.
It has even been suggested this was one possible motive behind the attacks. If so, that is not a trap India will fall into, analysts say.Â
...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Immediately after the attacks, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanded the head of the ISI visit India to share information. Pakistan snubbed him by promising to send a lower-ranking official -- an embarrassment, proclaimed the media.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->