India vs Pakistan: A Contrast of their Armies and Democracies

[Yusuf]

I had attended this speech which was given by my schoolmate a prominent lawyer and a PhD in army relations.

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBM-ImyjSD0&sns=tw [/video]

 

[arnabmit]

@Ray Sir, Interesting thought here...

The Sir Philip Chetwood motto of IMA, "The Safety, Honour and wellfare of your country comes first, always and every time"

Does it mean Your Country or Your Government?

Is Army supposed to protect the country by always being loyal to the government OR protect the country in spite of the government?

 

[tramp]

@Ray Sir, Interesting thought here...

The Sir Philip Chetwood motto of IMA, "The Safety, Honour and wellfare of your country comes first, always and every time"

Does it mean Your Country or Your Government?

Is Army supposed to protect the country by always being loyal to the government OR protect the country in spite of the government?

That is a classic debate. Ideally, the army should protect the country. Who are the country? The people. How do people govern the country? Through a democratically elected government answerable to the people. Ideally, in a democracy you cannot separate the government from the people. And democracies need to work towards eliminating the mismatch between aspirations of the people and actions of the government.

 

[Ray]

@Ray Sir, Interesting thought here...

The Sir Philip Chetwood motto of IMA, "The Safety, Honour and wellfare of your country comes first, always and every time"

Does it mean Your Country or Your Government?

Is Army supposed to protect the country by always being loyal to the government OR protect the country in spite of the government?

The answer is simple - the Country as represented by the Govt.

Govt is formed by the will of the people and the people are what is the country!

 

[DivineHeretic]

The answer is simple - the Country as represented by the Govt.

Govt is formed by the will of the people and the people are what is the country!

If I may add to that.
The Army and its personnel are sworn to be subservient to the constitution, and by extension, to the govt. ruling under its mandate. This clearly defines what the army means by protecting the country.
It will be interesting if a fringe group takes over the govt. in a unconstitutional move. The army would not then be bound by constitution to act at the behest of the govt.
As in the case of emergency by Indira Gandhi, when the Services Chiefs of Staff asked Indira to mind the govt.

 

[arnabmit]

I agree with you sir.

Hypothetical Situation: If an elected government during it's tenure starts working against the citizens and the interest of the nation, but still stays in power maybe due to some shady vote-bank deals, will the armed forces still follow the government?

The answer is simple - the Country as represented by the Govt.

Govt is formed by the will of the people and the people are what is the country!

 

[Ray]

Hypothetical Situation: If an elected government during it's tenure starts working against the citizens and the interest of the nation, but still stays in power maybe due to some shady vote-bank deals, will the armed forces still follow the government?

Who will decide what is in the interest and what is not in the interest.

Take the issue of the Siachen.

The Army informed the Govt of the folly and that if Siachen was taken by the Pakistanis in a Kargil like deceit, then it would be impossible to recapture it given the environment etc etc.

No Govt is totally foolish or unpatriotic!

 

[Yusuf]

There was a debate on this question (govt or country) long back. It was a thread itself on its own.

 

[Virendra]

Who will decide what is in the interest and what is not in the interest.

Take the issue of the Siachen.

The Army informed the Govt of the folly and that if Siachen was taken by the Pakistanis in a Kargil like deceit, then it would be impossible to recapture it given the environment etc etc.

No Govt is totally foolish or unpatriotic!

a) It would be the mistake of the people to have trsuted such politicians.
b) It would also be a failure of democracy in not having any mechanism to protect the country against 'fence eating the farm'.
c) Yet the Army can not step in unless there's a critical situation emerging at the border at the same time. If something doesn't work it need not be thrown out, fix has to be worked upon.
d) Which is exactly why things like Lokpal have to keep on augmenting the existing democratic system of institutions.
Times change and with them the model of democracy should evolve as well.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Yusuf]

@Ray, the question raised here I think was covered by the speaker IIRC as this was about 3-4 months back. Prime example of Army staying out of politics is the emergency days when one lady showed dictatorial streak.

 

[Virendra]

Sometimes I doubt whether Democracy is really the best model for this country full of casto-religious voters who so easily play at the hands of petty politicians and draconians ideologies.
But my faith is not yet shaken, for Democracy is still the one-eyed King among the blind.
It has to be democracy .. just some custom version of it may be.

 

[Bhadra]

The answer is simple - the Country as represented by the Govt.

Govt is formed by the will of the people and the people are what is the country!

Is the Constitution supreme or the Govt ?

Later is within and according to the former?

What if there is a conflict between the two ?

 

[Bhadra]

Who will decide what is in the interest and what is not in the interest.

Take the issue of the Siachen.

The Army informed the Govt of the folly and that if Siachen was taken by the Pakistanis in a Kargil like deceit, then it would be impossible to recapture it given the environment etc etc.

No Govt is totally foolish or unpatriotic!

The Constitution and the fundamentals enshrined in that.

Is soverneity of the country one of the fundamenatls or not?

Can I go to the Spreme Court on the issue against the Govt? Yes, any citizen can go.

Can the govt change the basic structure of the constitution?

No, the SC has clearly ruled on the issu in Menaka Gandhi case.

 

[tramp]

a) It would be the mistake of the people to have trsuted such politicians.
b) It would also be a failure of democracy in not having any mechanism to protect the country against 'fence eating the farm'.
c) Yet the Army can not step in unless there's a critical situation emerging at the border at the same time. If something doesn't work it need not be thrown out, fix has to be worked upon.
d) Which is exactly why things like Lokpal have to keep on augmenting the existing democratic system of institutions.
Times change and with them the model of democracy should evolve as well.

Regards,
Virendra

Under the Constitution, the armed forces are not allowed take over civilian administration in any circumstance. Period. This Constitution has prevented a Pakistan-like situation in India all these years. We know how the governments across the border are toppled at the drop of a hat.

 

[Bhadra]

Under the Constitution, the armed forces are not allowed take over civilian administration in any circumstance. Period. This Constitution has prevented a Pakistan-like situation in India all these years. We know how the governments across the border are toppled at the drop of a hat.

Who says so ??

Read provisions conatained in the constitution and IPC with respect to Martial Law ??

It has never been talked about leave aside invoked, may be reason you would not even heard of it !!

 

[Bhadra]

Article 34 in The Constitution Of India 1949

34. Restriction on rights conferred by this Part while martial law is in force in any area Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, Parliament may by law indemnify any person in the service of the Union or of a State or any other person in respect of any act done by him in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area within the territory of India where martial law was in force or validate any sentence passed, punishment inflicted, forfeiture ordered or other act done under martial law in such area

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Is the Constitution supreme or the Govt ?

Later is within and according to the former?

What if there is a conflict between the two ?

The US Constitution has Amendment II which addresses a conflict between the government and the constitution.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Ray]

@Ray, the question raised here I think was covered by the speaker IIRC as this was about 3-4 months back. Prime example of Army staying out of politics is the emergency days when one lady showed dictatorial streak.

True................

 

[Bhadra]

India
This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
This article has been tagged since June 2007.

Martial law in India is different from rest of the world. According to the Indian Constitution, during peacetime, governmental and the people's interests are under the control of the Prime Minister, Parliament, and the Supreme Court, but all armed forces (except police, which are under the control of the Home Ministry) are under the direct control of the Department of Defense and the President (who also controls the national guards and paramilitary forces). In case of a non-environmental crisis, all armed forces, national guards, and paramilitary forces, along with the Department of Defense, comes under the strict orders of the President; while police, home ministry, justice department, and governments comes under strict control of the Prime Minister (without any intervention by Parliament and the Supreme Court). In such a crisis, solving an issue/problem, stabilizing the nation, and defense are considered higher priority then the people's interest.

In case of an environmental crisis, the Indian government declares states of emergency, in which the emergency relief forces of the Indian Armed Forces, the National Guard, and the police come under the strict control of the President of India.

So far, Indian government declared State of Emergency in the following times:-
1. 1975 - Indira Gandhi declares state of emergency.
2. 1984 December - Gas leak at Union Carbide pesticides plant in Bhopal. Thousands are killed immediately, many more subsequently die or are left disabled.
3. 1999 October - Cyclone devastates eastern state of Orissa, leaving at least 10,000 dead.
4. 2001 January - Massive earthquakes hit the western state of Gujarat, leaving at least 30,000 dead.
5. 2004 December - Thousands are killed when tidal waves, caused by a powerful undersea earthquake off the Indonesian coast, devastate coastal communities in the south and in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
6. 2005 July - More than 1,000 people are killed in floods and landslides caused by monsoon rains in Mumbai (Bombay) and Maharashtra region.
7. 2005 8 October - An earthquake, with its epicenter in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, kills more than 1,000 people in Indian-administered Kashmir.
NOTE:- Indian government declares state of emergency during any crisis that is administered as terrorist activity.
8. 2003 August - At least 50 people are killed in two simultaneous bomb blasts in Bombay. Also, Bombs kill 62 people in Delhi.
9. 2006 14 people are killed by bomb blasts in the Hindu pilgrimage city of Varanasi.
10. 2006 May - Suspected Islamic militants kill 35 Hindus in the worst attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir for several months.
11. 2006 11 July - More than 180 people are killed in bomb attacks on rush-hour trains in Mumbai. Investigators blame Islamic militants based in Pakistan.
12. 2006 8 September - Explosions outside a mosque in the western town of Malegaon kill at least 31 people.
13. 2007 18 February - 68 passengers, most of them Pakistanis, are killed by bomb blasts and a blaze on a train traveling from New Delhi to the Pakistani city of Lahore.

Indian government declared Martial Law:-
1. 1984 - Troops storm Golden Temple - Sikh's most holy shrine - shooting thousands of innocent citizens to death. Indira Gandhi, PM of India assassinated by Sikh bodyguards (to revenge for killings of thousands of innocents at Golden Temple), following which her son, Rajiv, takes over.
2. 1992 - Hindu extremists demolish mosque in Ayodhya, triggering widespread Hindu-Muslim violence, Martial law declared.
3. 2002 February - Inter-religious bloodshed breaks out after 59 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya are killed in a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat. More than 1,000 people, mainly Muslims, die in subsequent riots.

 

[tramp]

Who says so ??

Read provisions conatained in the constitution and IPC with respect to Martial Law ??

It has never been talked about leave aside invoked, may be reason you would not even heard of it !!

Please cite the specific article in the Constitution that allows the military to take over the government in Delhi. As far as I know there is no such provision. Forget IPC... it does not concern imposing martial rule.