Indian Honour - a selfish notion

On the anniversary of 26/11, I got enlightened by seeing' Targetting Osama Bin Laden' on History channel. Was surprised to see that the US president authorized the hit despite only 40 % assurance level that the guy in the house was Osama. That means they themselves saw a 60% chance of things going horribly wrong. The 60% error rate was exclusively on the possibility of hitting the wrong guy. Other factors that could have led to operational failure were over and above these 60%. I would put the likelihood of failure due to a combination of all factors at 80%. President Obama knew it and still accepted it. Vow! That's some country.
The US raid was made possible not because of their technical superiority but their steely commitment to avenge killing of their people. Period.
At the same time, I also happened to be watching other TV channels where Indian leaders and TV anchors were merrily lambasting Pak and US ( Headley connection ) for the 26/11 in Mumbai. No one was talking of why Indian heads did not roll after the shocking negligence of our people at all levels. No one was talking of the fact that we always had 100 % confirmation of where the Pak handlers were staying for last 3 years, not just 40%! We have been telling the whole world that we know where these guys are. I think we would have done better to say that we do not know where these bums are and hence we are not able to take action against them but then, Indians never consider losing honour as a loss. The only loss we know happens on the Sensex.
Am absolutely ashamed of how my country refuses to stand by its people. If you ask for examples, a book can be written. It will have to start with the way we kept quiet when our BSF men were slaughtered on Bangladesh border and strung up on poles like animals. Years later, Lt Kalia tortured in Kargil and we just sent some letters of protest to Pak. Or did we? Am not too sure whether even that much happened. Those were not the days of Chidambaram's dossier wars, which came much later.
One more thing. Our people themselves do not complain unless something affects them personally. Honour in India only means killing our daughters who marry inside the community. No wonder, we have got the government we deserve.
Forget about avenging those who wee killed on 26/11, how about those who were wounded and expected the government to look after them? Read Indian Express Nov 26 Mumbai Newsline and you find examples of lack of govt support for future surgical operations, lack of follow up services leading to worsening of condition, private hospitals refusing to provide follow up treatment and other difficulties for wounded survivors. One concrete example - After being turned away from several hospitals and despite spending loads of money on travel and treatment, 26/11 victim, Fakir Mohd died of severe infection in his leg.
His only fault? Not having being born an American.

Parliamentarians represent their party or the parliament?

I have been thinking of the actions of the PM in which he clearly sought to be useful to his party at the expense of his country. I am referring to his decision to accept a lot of nonsense from ministers from the UPA alliance parties, only to prevent the UPA coalition from disintegrating and thus being of use to his party i.e. Congress. He is on record to mention 'coalitional dharma/politics'.
Was he right? Why fault him for being of use to his party? After all, he was put on this chair by his party!
No, he was wrong to have done what he did. Once placed on the PMs chair, he no longer represented the party. He only represented the nation.
In this debate, I'd like to quote Right Hon Edmund Berke in his speech to the electors of Bristol. Here goes -
'Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.'
Speech to the Electors of Bristol (1774-11-03); as published in The Works of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke (1834)
What do you say?