India is a peace loving nation?

Well we are as much peace loving as USA..

I always wondered why none of the neighbors on India (except Bhutan) support us in the international community. Digging a bit deep I find:

1) Sri-Lanka: we bred, supported and armed the LTTE and pushed the country into civil war which lasted for decades.

2) Bangladesh: We for them, liberated them from the oppressors in Pakistan (atleast our history books say so) yet when there is a match between India and Pakistan, I see more Bangladeshi support for the green flag. Indira Gandhi actually nurtured and armed MUKTI BAHINI for the liberation of bangadesh

3) Nepal: we are arming and training the dictator army who just recently over-threw an elected democratic parliament.

4) China: we are regularly fighting for the seat in the UN council. Due to opposition for communist governments, the state of Taiwan got the permanent Veto powers rather than the communist china. India is said to be the forefront campaigners who helped China to get back its seat. Yet there is no mention of reciprocating this favor.

5) Afghanistan: We were hand in glove with Russia in establishing and running the unpopular communist regime there and burnt our fingers.

6) Pakistan: no explanation needed.

7) Myanmar: read the papers there. Every other day you hear about Indian’s violating there territorial rights.

8) Sikim: we were supposed to be the protectors of this small hill state. But alas we gobbled her up.

Please correct me if I missed any neighbor.

Haven’t you ever wondered, there is no country who thinks highly of us or whom we have done some good. I wish someone catches the foreign affairs ministry for an explanation.


street, Bengaluru South, Karnataka, India

7 replies on “India is a peace loving nation?”

Just goes to show that meddling in others affairs can have similar effects on you. We are past champions in this sport of training people who eventually turn against us…remember Bindranwale!?!?!?!

If you refer to SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR, and Chanakya’s books you find that there are two ways of fighting the war. One being the Knight in shining armor and the other is that of a stealthy archer.

Openly making your intentions clear, challenging the adversary and then invading him with full force and resources is the characteristic of the Knight. Although knight’s charge is more praised method of fighting, but often backfires and involves considerable expenses. Also there is sometimes a prestige issue which makes you pump all the resources even though your loss is inevitable. (Vietnam being one instance)

The other being slowly and steadily making the enemy weak and hollow. You inspire uprising, revolts, distrust among the subject. You plan assassinations, conspiracy, coups. Destroy its supply lines, do false propaganda and make the enemy so much engrossed in the internal tensions that he forgets all about you and humbly submits yourself. Measure the efficiency of a battle not as a ratio of the losses you inflicted and you suffered, but as that of the loss the enemy faced and the resources you used. An actual battle is the last step in a war and not the first.

Great War gurus really would be amused hearing the repeated use of 100m$ cruise missiles used to demolish some mud houses in Afghanistan.

Anyhow what Silverline correctly pointed out was that we act as stealthy archer (good, Excellent) but we forget to cover our own asses and a dozen of Frankenstein.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *