05
Dec
08

Security, America and the way ahead for India

There seems to be a general consensus that what America did in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks made Americans safer, and whether you agree with George Bush’s handling of the situation and his broader policies, his actions have ushered in a period of relative peace in America and Americans.

I disagree with this view. Lets look at some facts:

(i) America has never been faced with terrorism on the same scale that Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Nepal have had to deal with. The last foreign attack on American soil before the 9/11 attacks were the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center which killed 6 people. So the argument that America has been a safer becuase of policies enacted by the Bush Government are not true. It was and is relatively much safer than India and Pakistan.

(ii) America shares its borders with Canada and Mexico – 2 friendly neighbours, whereas India shares it borders with China – with whom India went to war with in 1962 and Pakistan – with whom India went to war with in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999 – clearly not friendly neighbours. Furthermore, America’s borders are secured by 2 large oceans – the Atlantic and the Pacific, whereas India shares a large part of its borders with Pakistan and China. A terrorist cannot use a small fishing vessel and decide to attack America. Thus, due to geography and neighbours, as opposed to Bush’s policies, America is a lot more isolated than India, hence safer.

(iii) America might be safer, but Americans across the world are clearly not. After 9/11, America might not have been attacked, but Americans across the world have been. Below is a list of attacks on Americans on foreign soil after 9/11:

  1. 2002 – Attack outside the American embassy in Karachi, Pakistan which left 12 people dead.
  2. 2003 – Suicide attack on housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia which killed 8 Americans
  3. 2004 – Attack on  the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
  4. 2004 – Terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
  5. 2004 – Terrorists storm the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 5 consulate employees.
  6. 2005 – Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57.
  7. 2006 – Attack by four gunman on the American embassy foiled in Damascus, Syria.
  8. 2007 – The U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no deaths in Athens, Greece
  9. 2007 – Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria’s Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices killing more than 60 people, including 11 United Nations staff members in Algeria
  10. 2007 – A car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians in Yemen.
  11. 2008 – The recent terror attacks in Mumbai, India resulting in 5 American deaths.

(iv) India has the issue of Kashmir to deal with. There is nothing territorially comparable to Kashmir that America has to deal with. The fact that America does not have significant land disputes to contend with automatically makes it a safer place.

For all of the reasons listed above, I do not believe that Bush’s actions post 9/11 are the reasons that America has not had to deal with a national terrorist tragedy with the same frequency that India has had to deal with. In FY 2009, America is slated to spend $515.4 billion on its defence budget, whereas India in FY 2009 plans to spend $26.4 billion. The disparity in resources is plainly evident.

The rhetoric in India which says that Indian foreign policy should mirror that of America’s in terms of how to deal with terrorism is completely baseless. People who argue along these lines must please consider the various differences between the 2 countries outlined above and realize that following America’s anti-terror policy is not the solution – it might have played a small role in stopping terrorism in America, but has definitely increased anti-American sentiment across the world hence making Americans the targets of an increasing number of terror attacks.

Do we in India really want to make India safer and at the same time making Indians more prone to terror?


5 Responses to “Security, America and the way ahead for India”


  1. 1 deepm27
    December 5, 2008 at 12:36 am

    well i concur with bucky on most of the things like we definitely dont have the friendliest neighbors Pakistan i dont think i need to say more……China taking a few 100 meters of arunachal pradesh everyday(every 2 days the Premier is heard “India should understand its ours”)……but there are a few things i would like to disagree or differ from….
    1) u say almost justify that India is more prone to attack n that’s that….u stated the disparity in the defense budget so how is it justified…..?
    2) u said that Us has larger oceans n how its safer comparatively but since we have a smaller oceans we should be better prepared…our navy is top notch.how does something like this slip by.? even after warning by the okha fisherman board 4 months in advance……..everyday we catch Pakistani fishermen n put them in the jails for 20 years for accidentally slipping into our territory…..
    so i think that the argument is partly justified but the shear lack of slothfulness in our system n the incompetence of our politicians to defend us aganst 20 20 year old who held us at random is not…….

  2. 2 dontjusttalk
    December 5, 2008 at 12:44 am

    What i hope to point out by illustrating the difference in the budget estimates of America and India is the fact that the people who say that India’s anti-terror policy should be like that of America should know that it simply is not possible due to the fact that America has a lot more resources than India. Thus crying out for a similar foreign policy is futile – it simply will not work.

  3. 3 DJ
    December 5, 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Well RJP like deepm said i agree wid u on most of the things apart from the fact that you are also including the budget for the war. Currently india is not at war with any of the states. Thus it is something to wonder that the $26.14 billion are used for what since the arms used by us are still far off from being decent enough… the armour given to us is below grade. So u reckon that India spends 26.14Bn only for salaries and below average weapons and protection?

    While deep i would also like to bring to ure notice that U.S. might have larger oceans but it has no surrounding nations with whom they are at war which could come by the sea route while India does have to worry about the sea as well as land.. not to forget that the western province of india specially the kutch and rajasthan area there are places from which infiltration is pretty possible and is used as well due to the desert area and natural obstructions it’s very tough to have an army base out there in such testing conditions for.

  4. 4 deepm27
    December 5, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    well dj there are a few things that have completly puzzled me since the time i have been trying to follow politics since the kargil war in 1999…….and these are a few facts that have made me ask these questions…..
    1) during the kargil war i clearly remember the army sayin that our equipment was way inferior to the infiltrators….. we were carrying 6 kgs on our backs n walking n these guys had snow mobiles..and better russian made rifles….
    2)Indian force the army navy n air force are the archetype of armed forces that’s wat the world concurs to….but still there are so many infiltrations and attacks…..
    3) intelligence bureau never has “any information” tats wat they claim n then then someone from the government or forces says we told u so…the famous cliche…….
    4) after bofors one after the other there are always fraud cases…….
    5) DRDO HAS SUCCESFULLY MANUFACTURED A ROBOT TO DIFFUSE BOMBS…..
    so my point for illustrating these points is how come if so much is pumped in the forces there is still infiltration……? area n its difficulties u say….but that’s not a valid excuse is it…..?
    our budget is high its completely justified that our forces need to be at the top of their game to counter such infiltration….and deserve the best facilities one can get…….i have the highest regard for the forces but this leads me to my next question…..
    amongst the highest money pumped in….best planes etc but not the basic things like snow mobiles n bulletproof jackets..n soldiers always asking for reforms in their pay package which has only been recently tackled……
    next is that why the sisterly treatment to out policemen who like in the simplest thing get i think 3 eggs where as the army people get 24……
    why isnt the world famous drdo comin up with high tech equipment to solve crime why do we need to “import”…..?

  5. 5 A
    December 10, 2008 at 1:05 am

    The Great Wall of India

    How long is the land border with Pakistan anyway? How many infiltrators cross the porous Thar desert or scale the mountain passes surrounding Kargill? More importantly, at what cost?

    Seal the border. Erect a wall if that’s what it takes. Agreed – it isn’t a firm border – but do we really intend to engage Pakistan to get PoK back? Do we really run the risk of alienating those we leave on the other side – consider the dissent and bitterness the Indian forces have instilled in those people over the last 30 years in Kashmir. While we propose to placate these people in later, more prosperous times, so we will for the whole of Kashmir.

    Allocate one billion dollars from the federal budget at the next parliament session. Even ISI shields posing as dissidents couldn’t hold a candle to this proposal if tabled today


Leave a comment


Blog Stats

  • 1,530 hits