He had recently been to Burma, now called Myanmar. One fact that stood out was that the Burmese army had a constitutional role in the government of the state. I came to know that 30% of the seats in Parliament are reserved for the army and only the remaining 70% is up for grabs. This means that the Army controls Burma. In addition to defense, border relations and internal affairs remain under the control of the Army. I am deliberately giving the example of Burma, which is a Buddhist country and not Pakistan. The matter does not end with Burma and also in Thailand, which is again a Buddhist country, the Army is in the driver’s seat.
indian neighbors
Thus, in Southeast Asia, two of India’s immediate neighbors are controlled by the military. It is safe to say that if the military were not in power in these two states, there is every chance that there would be very little progress and the country could have degenerated into a violent place. This fact cannot be denied. Pakistan is the twin of India and the roots of both nations can be said to be the same as they both inherited a British Indian Army but in Pakistan after 1957 when General Ayub Khan took over as president the army of Pakistan has a constitutional role in the Governance of Pakistan. As things stand now, Pakistan is beset by the war of extremist jihadis supported by the Pakistani Taliban and ISIS. I can safely say that if the army had not acted against them, the state of Pakistan would have fallen long ago and become a totally theoretical state.
Many people have asked me about India? Here too the fissiparous tendencies rear their heads and the country, despite its enormous size, is unable to exert itself even against Pakistan, which is a fifth of the size of India. Even a small country like Sri Lanka catches Indian fishermen from Tamil Nadu with impunity and the Indian government continues to sit on its hind legs.
what the story says
A look at history will give us some insights into the role of the army in India. During British times, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Indian Army was the second most important person in India after the Viceroy. The Indian Army literally perpetuated the Raj that is the reason why the Commander in Chief used to stay in the Teen Murti house which was later occupied by Pandit Nehru simply because there is a direct route from the Teen Murti to the Vice Regal Lodge and the commander in chief. -the chief could easily meet with the governor general for any political decision. Without being explicitly stated, the Army was part of the governing process in India during the days of the Raj.
After independence in 1947, the group of leaders who took power at the helm in India were men with very little strategic horizon and, in any case, they knew nothing about power politics or heard the name of Clausewitz. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who became prime minister, was highly suspicious of the army and began taking steps to dismantle the army’s control over the country. In this endeavor, unfortunately, it should be noted that successive Army chiefs led by General Cariappa played ball with Nehru. Cariappa set things in motion when, along with General Rajinder Singhji, they agreed to have the C-in-C position abolished. Cariappa was indebted to Nehru, as he had been appointed head of the army when he was not the senior general. Nehru at that time replaced Lieutenant General Kulwant Singh to make Cariappa head of the army. Obviously, he was in no position to oppose Nehru. This state of affairs began from then on and successive generals, including the infamous General Bewoor, agreed to a 30% deduction from Indian soldiers’ pensions without murmuring.
marginalizing the army
Nehru and the Congress Party also put in place a series of checks and balances whereby generals who were outspoken or strong never stood up. There are many examples of generals like Bhagat and Sinha being replaced. The Indian Army literally became a shadow of its former self during the days of the Raj. The government also made sure that anyone rising to the rank of colonel would be a man who would be pliant to the political leadership. There is nothing wrong with that, but the fact is that the political leadership had ulterior motives to keep the Army toothless. This had disastrous effects as India lost a war against China in 1962 and lost nearly 40,000 square miles of Indian territory to the Dragon. India also lost Tibet as a buffer state and due to vacillations of political leaders, India also lost 40% of Kashmir. Unable to realize the seriousness of a Maoist revolution, the political leadership allowed internal insurrection to flourish and even now this continues with nearly 30% of the land in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand under Maoist control. The political leadership has made a complete mess in central India. This is not all, as there is an insurrection in Nagaland and the northeast since 1955 and it is still simmering.
Toothless Army Leadership
All of this could have been avoided if the army leadership had asserted itself and worked out a method by which it would have a say in running the government. But most of the high hierarchy of the Army was not interested and their only interest was to rise with the result, the Army never pressured the government for anything. To give a small example, a benefit such as free rations for officers was suspended and the Army’s Chief General, Rawat, has been unable to do anything about it. If an army general cannot exert himself in such a case, one can well imagine what he will have to say in matters of policy. The political leadership has made sure that although India may become second fiddle to China, they will not allow the Army to have a say in shaping India’s politics. Since 1947, despite words, the political leadership of the Nehru era has been suspicious of the Army.
Much of this sorry state of affairs rests with the higher-ups of the army officer corps. Now it’s quite amusing to read some of the retired generals and admirals saying that the constitution is sacred and the army should be happy with whatever they get. They are also opposed to a good commotion started by General Satbir Singh for a rank one pension. So far RFMO is not sanctioned by the government and most of these retired dignitaries still insist that there should be no anti-government agitation. The reason is that these men, when in service, never exerted themselves like their own feathers and now feel ashamed of their record and oppose a good cause that Satbir Singh is leading.
future
If India has to advance, there is no choice but for the army to assert itself. Old generals and admirals to talk about the constitution being sacred would mean that there should never be a revolution. These are the men who would even like something like the French Revolution or the Chinese Revolution to never happen. This is a great danger for India, we cannot accept the status quo that speaks of caste and class divisions of society and divisions on the basis of language and religion. The army must assert itself and be part of a constitutional process like that of Pakistan, Burma and Thailand.
I do not see this happening in my life, but I am an optimist and I am sure that the hour finds the man. Chances are high that in the next few decades, a revolution will happen in India, it may not be with a gun, but if India is going to move forward and be a nation, there is no choice but for the army to take over and participate in the government of this great nation.