The debate so far is focused on whether Advani was consulted on the decision to release three terrorists in exchange of passengers and plane is not laid out well. This debate is more politicians centric than nation centric.
It seems most people opposed to Advani just want to play the game of " Now I got You!, You cheater!", and benefit from this tactical move.
I think the reluctance of Mr. Advani to participate in this debate is because of the fact that the debate has been laid out to just expose a very narrow truth about whether or not Mr. Advani was aware of the decision. From that point on, people want to jump to conclusion and be judgmental about Mr. Advani and whole situation, without considering all relevant issues involved.
I guess the debate has to include wider issues like whether or not the best decision, given the circumstances, was taken? That is more important from nation's point of view.
I don’t think letting hundreds of Citizens blown by the terrorists, just for the sake of stubbornness would have been wise. Question to be asked is were there other options possible? Were they considered diligently in consultation with security/commando experts? If not, then that is much more serious issue than whether Mr. Advani was aware of Jaswant Singh accompanying terrorists, which is more of a shallow political debate.
I think, the government learnt at least some lessons from the incidence and from then on security and screening of passengers was beefed up before boarding the airplane and inside the planes by deploying Air Marshals in civil dress. Such steps are what I would expect security forces to take.
May be trying to get the terrorists immediately after they were released, either through a swift missile attack, or some other way would have been nice, but letting people die just for the sake of stubbornness would have been plain stupid and disastrous.
The debate must include whether or not such options were discussed by those present in meeting, while deciding on a response to the crisis. We need to know whether or not defence and intelligence experts were even consulted in that decision making process? Who was leading the decision making in that meeting? We got to dissect that meeting in order to understand whether those in command were really equipped to take the best decision possible, and how well they will respond to a crisis in future.
I think the reluctance of Mr. Advani to participate in this debate is because of the fact that the debate has been laid out to just expose a very narrow truth about whether or not Mr. Advani was aware of the decision. From that point on, people want to jump to conclusion and be judgmental about Mr. Advani and whole situation, without considering all relevant issues involved.
I guess the debate has to include wider issues like whether or not the best decision, given the circumstances, was taken? That is more important from nation's point of view.
I don’t think letting hundreds of Citizens blown by the terrorists, just for the sake of stubbornness would have been wise. Question to be asked is were there other options possible? Were they considered diligently in consultation with security/commando experts? If not, then that is much more serious issue than whether Mr. Advani was aware of Jaswant Singh accompanying terrorists, which is more of a shallow political debate.
I think, the government learnt at least some lessons from the incidence and from then on security and screening of passengers was beefed up before boarding the airplane and inside the planes by deploying Air Marshals in civil dress. Such steps are what I would expect security forces to take.
May be trying to get the terrorists immediately after they were released, either through a swift missile attack, or some other way would have been nice, but letting people die just for the sake of stubbornness would have been plain stupid and disastrous.
The debate must include whether or not such options were discussed by those present in meeting, while deciding on a response to the crisis. We need to know whether or not defence and intelligence experts were even consulted in that decision making process? Who was leading the decision making in that meeting? We got to dissect that meeting in order to understand whether those in command were really equipped to take the best decision possible, and how well they will respond to a crisis in future.
It would have been outrageous to allow 166 persons to be killed just to continue to keep 3 persons in jail, who in any case may have been let-off by one court or the other. 166 persons were saved, though 3 got away. The blood of 166 Indians would have been the greatest legacy of the NDA rule if any other decision was taken.
ReplyDeleteAbout having details of the process of how decisions were arrived at, I do not think we would or should ever have it because they are in the realm of internal-security secrets and it is preferable that such ghosts are allowed to lie.