Ajit, fair enough, minus the anger (mock?) that you’ve expressed. However, i would not agree (based on this very article) that Mr. Sahni has produced an objective analysis. I’ve followed his line of thought a fair bit to realise that it’s far from subjective. He’s been an old-timer for Outlook (see http://www.outlookindia.com/peoplehome3.aspx?author=Ajai%20Sahni&pid=4037) and this article follows in the same vein (of hard-line action). What is different is the play of words.
Read the sentence “And while this unending…”. Seemingly neutral, but loaded.
Then the sentence “The shift in profile…”.
Then the sentence “Within this context…”.
Check the use of “paralysis” (what is it suggesting?) somewhere towards the end, the use of “inconsequential foreigners.” (Meaning we should have allowed the Italians to be killed, but Mr. Sahni didn’t say that.)
Read the line “There can be…” to see how Mr. Sahni views the Maoist problem (he’s got every right to do so) – he’s accepted that it is not just a law and order problem, but that acceptance is dismissed with two casual words (broader challenge), before he treks on the old path.
Regards.
p.s.
(1) Noted your point about parsing and comprehension – although i differ on the ‘understanding’ part, i admit that my initial letter ought to have been worded differently.
(2) We could disagree with each other without resorting to print violence.

Morons like 'Anwaar' and Santosh John Samuel clearly need help in reading, parsing and comprehending. No where is Sahni arguing, though Anwaar tries to put words in his mouth by saying:

It is easy to articulate a tough no-hostage-negotiations policy, but no country in the world has been able to actually execute it. Mr. Sahni's diatribe sounds good but is just a lot of hot air.

Santosh John Samuels, clearly another illiterate, AND/OR a Maoist sympathiser, AND/OR someone given to passing comments without reading, just like the other idiot quoted above, tries the same smear tactics:

Mr. Sahni has been at this for a long time; this article follows in the same vein – tough state, no negotiations.

Perhaps they would do well to read the article again, or at least the passages below and related:

Israel and the US, it is asserted, have an uncompromising ‘no-negotiations policy’, and this, it is claimed, has served them well, and is what India needs. The truth is, while both these countries have a declared no-negotiations policy, negotiations— and dramatic concessions to terrorists— have, in fact, been the rule. The Israeli example during the hostage crises at Munich (Germany), Entebbe (Uganda), and at Ma’a lot (Israel)— the last of which involved 105 children, among 115 hostages, at a school— are often cited as exemplars of a successful ‘no-negotiations’ approach. Crucially, and more recently, however, Israel chose to release as many as 1,027 prisoners— including no less than 280 terrorists serving life sentences for various terrorist crimes, and who were collectively responsible, according to Arab reports, for the loss of 569 Israeli civilian lives— in exchange for a single Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit.

Essentially, a no-negotiations position, SOPs, or ‘mechanisms’ of response, makes sense only if there is significant punitive capacity and will. Otherwise, these translate into nothing more than a callous and boastful posture of strength, in the absence of real power, at the expense of the hostages, and offer no strategic or tactical advantage.

Critically, no policy or standardized response pattern or mechanism can secure appropriate responses in all situations.

Sahni actually is pointing out the absurdity of taking positions such as "no negotiations" but the self-appointed spokespersons of all idiots in this world want to live in their own make-believe echo-chamber of a world in which they put words in the mouths of those that they cannot argue with and then keep on repeating it in a Goebbelian way in the hope that it becomes the accepted truth. Whether or not it becomes for others, it certainly ends up convincing these idiots who are a big part of the problem and not of any possible solution.

A correction (in CAPS) in my sentence,
"Compromises will have to be made – it does NOT necessarily indicate a weak state."

Mr. Sahni has been at this for a long time; this article follows in the same vein – tough state, no negotiations. While it might appeal to the ultra-nationalism in many, it is possibly as pig-headed (with apologies to pigs) as any idea driven by an acute sense of misguided patriotism.

A hostage situation always needs to be handled with care. Calm heads are needed, especially dealing with ideologically motivated groups such as the Maoists. Compromises will have to be made – it does necessarily indicate a weak state. The safety of the hostage should be the greatest priority. (And what is a strong state? Notice how the debate is always framed in such a manner to suggest that the use of overwhelming force proves a nation’s strength. Why should compromise even in a dire situation be labelled as a weakness?)

By all means we need to tackle the systemic flaws in our internal security situation and the carry out the necessary reforms, on both the political and administrative fronts. But to expect a government to uphold the head-in-the-sand principle of ‘we are strong’ in a crisis endangering the lives of its citizens is taking the strong-state debate a bit too far.

The case of Maqbool Bhat is given as an example of our strength during Indira Gandhi’s tenure. Granted the point, but it has not exactly stopped kidnappings in Kashmir or brought about a solution, has it? The example would have made sense then. Or imagine a so-called tough policy that had would have left the Sukma DC on his own. Would it necessarily stop future crises? And what of the message that it sends to many idealistic youth about postings to far-flung areas? For Mr. Sahni and his team sitting in safety and churning out their visions these questions do not matter.

With due respect Anwaar, I disagree. The author points out himself that Indian sacrificed Mr. Mhatre to hold to the no negotiation policy. The rot set in with the Rubaiya Sayeed kidnapping and has continued all the way to now. All governments including BJP have been guilty. The US by and large holds to this policy. So it is possible to hold to such a policy. Despite Indira Gandi's many faults, and she had many, you have to acknowledge her steely resolve.

BTW, the interesting thing is that while the Indian state paid for Rubaiya's release by releasing some pretty notorious terrorists, who must have killed many soldiers and civilians after they were released, the Indian state got no gratitude. Rubaiya's sister now runs a semi-separatist party in Kashmir! Such is human nature - you often loathe those who you are beholden to.

Here's a creative idea - anytime an organization resorts to kidnapping, any of their captured leaders's court cases should be sharply accelerated by law. And maximum punishment should me meted out. Such kidpappings should be a legitimate reason to hang Kobad Gandhi (legally of course). You will soon see the attractiveness of this terrorist weapon go down considerably.

It is easy to articulate a tough no-hostage-negotiations policy, but no country in the world has been able to actually execute it. Mr. Sahni's diatribe sounds good but is just a lot of hot air.

It is easy to articulate a tough no-hostage-negotiations policy, but no country in the world has been able to actually execute it. Mr. Sahni's diatribe sounds good but is just a lot of hot air.

With due respect Anwaar, I disagree. The author points out himself that Indian sacrificed Mr. Mhatre to hold to the no negotiation policy. The rot set in with the Rubaiya Sayeed kidnapping and has continued all the way to now. All governments including BJP have been guilty. The US by and large holds to this policy. So it is possible to hold to such a policy. Despite Indira Gandi's many faults, and she had many, you have to acknowledge her steely resolve.

BTW, the interesting thing is that while the Indian state paid for Rubaiya's release by releasing some pretty notorious terrorists, who must have killed many soldiers and civilians after they were released, the Indian state got no gratitude. Rubaiya's sister now runs a semi-separatist party in Kashmir! Such is human nature - you often loathe those who you are beholden to.

Here's a creative idea - anytime an organization resorts to kidnapping, any of their captured leaders's court cases should be sharply accelerated by law. And maximum punishment should me meted out. Such kidpappings should be a legitimate reason to hang Kobad Gandhi (legally of course). You will soon see the attractiveness of this terrorist weapon go down considerably.

Mr. Sahni has been at this for a long time; this article follows in the same vein – tough state, no negotiations. While it might appeal to the ultra-nationalism in many, it is possibly as pig-headed (with apologies to pigs) as any idea driven by an acute sense of misguided patriotism.

A hostage situation always needs to be handled with care. Calm heads are needed, especially dealing with ideologically motivated groups such as the Maoists. Compromises will have to be made – it does necessarily indicate a weak state. The safety of the hostage should be the greatest priority. (And what is a strong state? Notice how the debate is always framed in such a manner to suggest that the use of overwhelming force proves a nation’s strength. Why should compromise even in a dire situation be labelled as a weakness?)

By all means we need to tackle the systemic flaws in our internal security situation and the carry out the necessary reforms, on both the political and administrative fronts. But to expect a government to uphold the head-in-the-sand principle of ‘we are strong’ in a crisis endangering the lives of its citizens is taking the strong-state debate a bit too far.

The case of Maqbool Bhat is given as an example of our strength during Indira Gandhi’s tenure. Granted the point, but it has not exactly stopped kidnappings in Kashmir or brought about a solution, has it? The example would have made sense then. Or imagine a so-called tough policy that had would have left the Sukma DC on his own. Would it necessarily stop future crises? And what of the message that it sends to many idealistic youth about postings to far-flung areas? For Mr. Sahni and his team sitting in safety and churning out their visions these questions do not matter.

A correction (in CAPS) in my sentence,
"Compromises will have to be made – it does NOT necessarily indicate a weak state."

Morons like 'Anwaar' and Santosh John Samuel clearly need help in reading, parsing and comprehending. No where is Sahni arguing, though Anwaar tries to put words in his mouth by saying:

It is easy to articulate a tough no-hostage-negotiations policy, but no country in the world has been able to actually execute it. Mr. Sahni's diatribe sounds good but is just a lot of hot air.

Santosh John Samuels, clearly another illiterate, AND/OR a Maoist sympathiser, AND/OR someone given to passing comments without reading, just like the other idiot quoted above, tries the same smear tactics:

Mr. Sahni has been at this for a long time; this article follows in the same vein – tough state, no negotiations.

Perhaps they would do well to read the article again, or at least the passages below and related:

Israel and the US, it is asserted, have an uncompromising ‘no-negotiations policy’, and this, it is claimed, has served them well, and is what India needs. The truth is, while both these countries have a declared no-negotiations policy, negotiations— and dramatic concessions to terrorists— have, in fact, been the rule. The Israeli example during the hostage crises at Munich (Germany), Entebbe (Uganda), and at Ma’a lot (Israel)— the last of which involved 105 children, among 115 hostages, at a school— are often cited as exemplars of a successful ‘no-negotiations’ approach. Crucially, and more recently, however, Israel chose to release as many as 1,027 prisoners— including no less than 280 terrorists serving life sentences for various terrorist crimes, and who were collectively responsible, according to Arab reports, for the loss of 569 Israeli civilian lives— in exchange for a single Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit.

Essentially, a no-negotiations position, SOPs, or ‘mechanisms’ of response, makes sense only if there is significant punitive capacity and will. Otherwise, these translate into nothing more than a callous and boastful posture of strength, in the absence of real power, at the expense of the hostages, and offer no strategic or tactical advantage.

Critically, no policy or standardized response pattern or mechanism can secure appropriate responses in all situations.

Sahni actually is pointing out the absurdity of taking positions such as "no negotiations" but the self-appointed spokespersons of all idiots in this world want to live in their own make-believe echo-chamber of a world in which they put words in the mouths of those that they cannot argue with and then keep on repeating it in a Goebbelian way in the hope that it becomes the accepted truth. Whether or not it becomes for others, it certainly ends up convincing these idiots who are a big part of the problem and not of any possible solution.

Ajit, fair enough, minus the anger (mock?) that you’ve expressed. However, i would not agree (based on this very article) that Mr. Sahni has produced an objective analysis. I’ve followed his line of thought a fair bit to realise that it’s far from subjective. He’s been an old-timer for Outlook (see http://www.outlookindia.com/peoplehome3.aspx?author=Ajai%20Sahni&pid=4037) and this article follows in the same vein (of hard-line action). What is different is the play of words.
Read the sentence “And while this unending…”. Seemingly neutral, but loaded.
Then the sentence “The shift in profile…”.
Then the sentence “Within this context…”.
Check the use of “paralysis” (what is it suggesting?) somewhere towards the end, the use of “inconsequential foreigners.” (Meaning we should have allowed the Italians to be killed, but Mr. Sahni didn’t say that.)
Read the line “There can be…” to see how Mr. Sahni views the Maoist problem (he’s got every right to do so) – he’s accepted that it is not just a law and order problem, but that acceptance is dismissed with two casual words (broader challenge), before he treks on the old path.
Regards.
p.s.
(1) Noted your point about parsing and comprehension – although i differ on the ‘understanding’ part, i admit that my initial letter ought to have been worded differently.
(2) We could disagree with each other without resorting to print violence.