Indian armed forces losing the punch

It is my view that Indian armed forces are fast becoming unacceptably inefficient. They are losing their fighting capabilities at a dangerous rate. The latest is the way an IAF crew of 6, armed with LMG and more, shamefully abandoned a critically wounded CRPF soldier to howling Naxals. Just a fortnight back, an area domination patrol of an illustrious regiment, allowed the enemy to behead their patrol member while the rest of the patrol came back to narrate the story. Bungling at the patrol/battalion level, forced an unnecessary diplomatic crises on the country. Some years before that, about 400 elite NSG commandos ( army guys, though not under army for this operation) grappled for a few days to neutralize four ill-armed rogue adolescents from Pak. What they did in those days was a classic infantry company action of clearing a BUA (Built Up Area)and not what India's top anti-terrorist commandos are expected to do. Before that, Indian infantry fought in Kargil with practically all attacks being led by young Lts and followed by young soldiers. The oldies simply did not fight. With such a casualty rate of young officers and soldiers, we can not sustain a war for more than 6 months. By then, all our young would have died. In Kargil, IAF aircrafts dropped from the skies with no help from the enemy. Technical incompetence did them in. Prior to that, the mighty Indian army was nicely dented by ill-armed, ill clad civilian boys of the LTTE during the IPKF operations. Regiments with 200 years of history were neatly pummeled by wiry black boys of the LTTE. This is not an armed forces problem but a national problem. Pakistan has made several attempts to bite us. In all of them, he nearly succeeded in the initial operations. Finally, our superior numbers won us the day. What happens if he succeeds before our numbers can be brought to bear on him?

Indian Independence - An unfortunate event

I occasionally feel and publicly state that gaining independence from the British was an unfortunate event for the Indians. We would have been far happier under them than we are under the present rulers.
Whether we actually would have been happier under them is a matter of opinion. It is also a matter intellectual honesty. Many people agree with me that our lives would have been happier under the Brits but find it difficult to accept it, at least openly. They do not really disagree with me but feel that it they owe it to their sense of nationalism, to disagree.
I think, people have a right to find happiness for themselves, wherever they find it. That is why people go abroad and seek greener pastures.
Do you know how many Indians, all sensible and industrious ones, have consciously decided to leave the noble Indian rulers and settle down in other countries ( under other rulers ) and remain
happy thereafter'. 25 Million. Yes.  'India has the second largest diaspora in the world after overseas Chinese. The overseas Indian community estimated at over 25 million is spread across every major region in the world'. 
These people had the option to stay in their homeland and enjoy homegrown freedom, but they didn't.
I courageously maintain that those of us who have not followed suit is purely because we will not be able to make it abroad. Love of self-rule! My foot.
In any case, no one is truly independent; we all work under one ruler or the other. Whether they are Brit officers or Indian MPs/MLAs/Bureaucrats, matters only to the extent as to who is providing your more happiness.The colour of the skin does not matter.
In any case,I feel more pain in getting kicked by a person of my own community than someone from outside. In getting kicked by my own, there is the additional pain of having made a wrong decision by placing that guy in that position. I become party to inflicting that pain on myself- an abettor in the crime.
I would much rather be murdered than commit suicide.