Systemic Failure of Indian Polity: In Defence, Diplomatic and Internal-Insurgency Fields

Jinnah while in Congress was susceptible to compromise but GandhiNehru Duo missed the bus. Jinnah left Congress, became chief of All India Muslim League and the British conceded a separate Homeland for South East Asian Muslims where only a microscopic minority of Indian Muslims went over to live despite more than 96 percent having voted for Partition. Why did the Congress not ask Jinnah to take his flock with him?, , During 194748 Indian troops under Brigadier Sen had decisively eliminated all raiders from the soil of Kashmir Valley. Major General Akbar Khan, Chief of Pak operations in Kashmir says: ?.There were no 'Qabailis' (or Pak Army troops) between Uri and Muzaffarabad to stop the Indians. But the Indians managed to hald themselves!? However, the ignorant Mr. Nehru ordered the Birgade not to move beyond Uri thus ensuring survival of POK., , During Bangladesh War 1971 the ?Iron Lady? Indira Gandhi led the country to a glorious victory. But during Simla Conference she, like her revered Father, spurned repeated sane advice not to sign on a Peace Agreement but to insist on a comprehensive Peace Treaty. Ultimately, she did what she wanted to. Indira lost the Nation's onceinalifetime golden opportunity to resolve all outstanding problems with Pakistan., , The young, inexperienced Indian Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi set where cross the table was the crafty old experienced politician President JR Jayawardane who wanted Indians to fight ethnic Indian Tamils on Sri Lanka soil, while his own Lankan troops were to be confined to safety of their barracksa brilliant plan of matured politician! The Accord signed on July 28, 1988 involved immediate deployment of IPKF to enforce a Ceasefire, all within 24 hours. One gets an impression that Rajeev was playing wargames across a chessboard! Rajeev followed footprints of his grandfather Nehru and his mother Indira for not heeding military advice. Entire operation was a fiasco., , Our political leaders generally failed the country across the conference tables, whereas the rank and file had placed them at substantially advantageous positions.