Do Prime Minister's action on Pakistan deserves Support?

I am not for or against what PM said in the LS. It is meant for the galleries. Joint Statement had its traps for both the PMs. And the opponents are making the most of it.

However my point is: we need to keep the talks going and isolate the recalcitrant elements in their establishment and others such as LeT by supporting the elected (albeit weak) governemnt in Pakistan. Pakistan is being held to ransom by these elements though they are a miniscule minority. While it is not our responsibility it definitely is part of our problem.

I am coming from the following premises:

- Wars can not be won and are not solutions - korea, vietnam, afganistan (russian war and US war), Iraq, Iran-Iraq all inconclusive and devasting to all parties. Nor are subversions of any sort.

- India needs to have a stable South asia - Pak, Nepal, Bangladesh and yes, Sri Lanka.

- It is in India's interest that Pakistan has a functioning democracy - if given a chance democracy will take roots in Pak like it did in India.

It is LeT, renegade elements and criminal syndicates which are causing all the troubles to India. Renegades are in various levels and establishments in Pak.

Lastly, India's strength is its maturity in handling crises. We are accused of being a soft-state. Far from it. Pakistan (or LeT or anyone else in Pakistan associated with 26/11) did not get any advantage whatsoever; on the other hand these terrorists are completely de-stabilised.

Hence my vote is for continuing talks with Pakistan - 26/11, Balochistan notwithstanding.

I opine that neither of us here on toostep is qualified to debating the merits of engagement as a strategy for modifying the behavior of unsavory regimes. There is a sharp distinction between engagement and alternative policy approaches, especially appeasement, isolation and containment.

With both the countries in possession of nuclear arms, it is virtually impossible to contain Pakistan which has a declared "First use policy" vis a viz India.

And being a partner in the war against terror, Pakistan can't be isolated either.

In context of the PMs speech the term engagement should be taken to mean "A bilateral POLICY characterized by the broadening of contacts in areas Of mutual interest with a target state: Key to this notion of engagement is the idea that areas of dialogue and fruitful cooperation should be broadened and not be held hostage through linkage to areas of continuing disagreement and friction."

Some scholars have excessively narrowed the definition of engagement by defining it according to the ends sought rather than the means employed. For example, Schweller and Wohlforth assert that if any distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement, "it is that the goal of engagement is not simply tension-reduction and the avoidance of war but also an attempt to socialize [a] dissatisfied power into acceptance of the established order.

Such ends-based definitions hinder the study of engagement in two ways. First, because the act of policymaking consists of selecting from a variety of alternative means in the pursuit of a given end(s), it stands to reason that policy instruments are more effectively conceptualized in terms of means rather than ends. When defined as different means, policies can be more easily compared with one another across a whole spectrum of discrete ends, in order to gauge more accurately the circumstances under which each policy is relatively more or less effective.

Second, scholars who define engagement as the end of peaceful socialization inevitably create a bias for future empirical research on engagement outcomes. This is because it is difficult to imagine a more ambitious foreign policy objective than the peaceable transformation of a revisionist state that rejects the dominant norms and practices of the international system into a status-quo state that embodies those same norms and practices. The equation of engagement with socialization alone forecloses the possibility that engagement could be employed to accomplish more modest goals such as tension-reduction. Therefore, all else being equal, scholars using this loaded definition will be predisposed to conclude from examination only of the hardest cases of attempted socialization that the policy is ineffective. Considering engagement as a set of means would enable analysts to more fairly assess the effectiveness of engagement relative to other policies in achieving an array of ends.

In order to establish a more effective framework for dealing with unsavory regimes, I propose that we define engagement as the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issue-areas (i.e. diplomatic, military, economic, cultural, etc).

our PM is right in handling this sensitive issue.as all are aware, we are not in a position to excercise military option even though we can.at present there is a strong need to both countries to have good bilateral relations for so many reasons.let's not forget the fact that, we will have greater danger from pakistan if there is no democratic government.so trying to resolve through peaceful means is always welcome.

i support......p m is for country..pm have to behave like a PM of a country for which he is responsible in every sense.....not like a emotional normal person,,,he have some bounds ,he have to follow some rules..he cant declare a fight to his bad nighbour..he is behaving  like a mature , n intelligent person...not just like a normal human being and this is good...as a mature person you have to give some chances to your nighbour to accept their nighbour..but finally when he did not acept and proved himself a wrong person infront of world then we india shoud take a hard step...may be this is slow but a right way to tackle a problem like this....except this all we must have some strict rules n security checks for migrants, or visitors from other country..

One sided debate; and missing the wood for the trees.

This is a complex diplomatic issue and cannot be resolved through a debate on toostep or any other social media forum.

In 2001, after the attack on Parliament, we broke off all ties with Pakistan. Yet in 2002, attack on Aksharmdham temple happened. So, if you think that not talking to Pakistan will solve the problem, that there is no need for talks, think again.