The basic highlights of the incident were like this:
1. Unidentified gunmen in army's uniform appeared out of no where and started shooting at a bus first, and then at a car, then went to a police station and started firing at the constables and inspector.
2. Pujab police rapidly came into action and surrounded the police station and was involved in fire exchange with the three gunmen(now deserving to be called terrorists) for 12 hours, till none of them was alive.
Story ended.
The government starts saying that the terrorists came from Pakistan's territory from Gurdaspur district in Punjab, crossing the Ravi river.
The statements, even with a substantial proof are not sufficient, as we have seen in Lakhvi case, for Pakistan to accept the accusations pointed by India. Even the trend of faking like army men has been observed in previous two-three terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir. But that is still not a sufficient proof. Without an agreeable proof, an accusation will make the relations sour. This is what is actually happening. In sour mood, there will be more ceasefire violations, more blames and lesser chances of peace.
I believe India had a better chance to get the proof of whee the terrorists had come from, had the three not been killed, but tranquilized, which could have been a very easy task as they were in a compound heavily surrounded by police personnel. In the interrogation, everything could have been extracted from the fake army men.
The government is appreciating the work done single handedly by Punjab Police in neutralising the terrorists, but it is not a great achievement in my view, as the task is only half done, and the rest half will be done in a negative exponential trend, as all the recent issues with Pakistan have been observed to take shape, positive or negative. All that is required is a small infiltration by terrorists or the government raising Kashmir issue as the mandatory condition for any future progress.
I can't imagine that the idea of tranquilizer did not hit the government. There must be some greater reason for neutralizing the terrorists. Chances of having bomb with them was also there. But the risk was equal while aiming for their lives. In my opinion it (tranquilizing) would have been a better way to handle the situation.
1. Unidentified gunmen in army's uniform appeared out of no where and started shooting at a bus first, and then at a car, then went to a police station and started firing at the constables and inspector.
2. Pujab police rapidly came into action and surrounded the police station and was involved in fire exchange with the three gunmen(now deserving to be called terrorists) for 12 hours, till none of them was alive.
Story ended.
The statements, even with a substantial proof are not sufficient, as we have seen in Lakhvi case, for Pakistan to accept the accusations pointed by India. Even the trend of faking like army men has been observed in previous two-three terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir. But that is still not a sufficient proof. Without an agreeable proof, an accusation will make the relations sour. This is what is actually happening. In sour mood, there will be more ceasefire violations, more blames and lesser chances of peace.
I believe India had a better chance to get the proof of whee the terrorists had come from, had the three not been killed, but tranquilized, which could have been a very easy task as they were in a compound heavily surrounded by police personnel. In the interrogation, everything could have been extracted from the fake army men.
The government is appreciating the work done single handedly by Punjab Police in neutralising the terrorists, but it is not a great achievement in my view, as the task is only half done, and the rest half will be done in a negative exponential trend, as all the recent issues with Pakistan have been observed to take shape, positive or negative. All that is required is a small infiltration by terrorists or the government raising Kashmir issue as the mandatory condition for any future progress.
I can't imagine that the idea of tranquilizer did not hit the government. There must be some greater reason for neutralizing the terrorists. Chances of having bomb with them was also there. But the risk was equal while aiming for their lives. In my opinion it (tranquilizing) would have been a better way to handle the situation.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Type your mind