livingdead
ELITE MEMBER
Indian mobilization was aimed as much as at US and as at pakistan. Even then some of the results of coercive diplomacy are not so quite evident.The Indian cost for the buildup was 21,600 crore (US$4.82 billion), while the Pakistani cost was $1.4 billion. Also it took India months to mobilize and lost 789 men in the process... around 200 in the initial phase of laying mines.
After remaining paralysed on the border for almost a year, the Indian forces withdraw was unilateral and seen as both humiliating and soul destroying.
1. Musharraf suddenly 'understood' Indian position.
2. US tilt towards India, and at least the congress
3. Nobody seems to utter K word now a days, not to hurt indian 'feelings', as if pakistanis have no 'feelings'
4. The world in general(US, the primary defence supplier of pakistan in particular) is more open to unilateral war/strike from India than ever before.
5. Managed opinion in India
I would argue not going to war was the right thing to do. What would it have achieved that we did not achieve. Was stopping the terror in Kashmir a coincidence? Or was it bargained? Would we have achieved that with a war?


I rest my case here
Indians knew that if they went to war it will result in Mutually Assured Destruction ... The whole mobilization was just aimed at Indians to tell them " Hey we are doing something "
.....the culprits must have sussed it out....any wonder then they followed up with an attack on Mumbai.
. That goes for all, both from us and them. Sometimes heat of a debate makes people forget the loss,the tragical nature of the event.
- all they can do is bluff and gather their forces along the border for mass general public consumption-