The argument for sending juveniles to jail is based on flawed assumptions.
There are bound to be casualties of innocent people in a pitched fight in darkness.
Most Hindi serials fail to reflect political and social upheavals outside the home.
Dutch passivity after the downing of MH17 underlines it.
Aspirants to the post of national security advisor might be burning the midnight oil to fashion foreign policy and security strategies. They may have many ideas to revamp policy, reshape institutions and open new chapters in relations with other countries. But once the initial euphoria is over and the new government settles down to business, there is likely to be continuity rather than change.
No government makes foreign policy in solitary splendour. The broad strategy outlined by any government will not be different from the traditional foreign policy that has enjoyed general consensus. The insight, judgement and instinct of professional diplomats will prevail, as has been seen in times of change in the past.
The Morarji Desai government’s policy of “genuine” non-alignment and the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government’s nuclear tests are cited as instances of fundamental change brought about by new governments in their initial stages. But neither of these was fundamental or unanticipated. “Genuine” non-alignment simply meant distancing India from the Soviet Union. But the government soon discovered the extent of our involvement with the USSR and quietly went about business as usual.
The 1998 nuclear tests were not spontaneous. Since Nehru’s days, successive governments had maintained the nuclear option and invested in explosive technology. The timing of the 1998 tests was determined more by the CTBT than by ideology. India chose to face sanctions for tests rather than for not signing the CTBT. The fact that subsequent governments endorsed the tests is enough proof of continuity in nuclear policy. Talk of a new government possibly reviewing the no first use doctrine provoked widespread reaction. But that proposal seems to have been dropped now.
Practical matters rather than ideology have determined our relations with neighbours, including Pakistan. Changes in policy have only been triggered by negative incidents. No government has advocated war as an option against Pakistan. The Kargil war came after a peace offensive by Vajpayee and, for all its tough talk, the Indian side refrained from crossing the Line of Control. A new government may criticise Manmohan Singh’s “extra mile” policy, but it will not abandon the principle of reciprocity, as war is not an option between two nuclear-armed neighbours.
Changes in the Sri Lanka policy will depend on where the DMK and AIADMK stand after the election. But even if the prime minister is from one of these parties, there will only be a war of words with Sri Lanka.
The case is similar with our other neighbours — the more concessions we give, the more will be asked for. The more we deny them, the more blackmail there will be. Any government in Delhi will face these pressures.
The Vajpayee cabinet had at least one member who characterised China as “enemy number continued…