EDITOR'S NOTE
An interesting but rather long article by Gp Capt AG Bewoor was recently published by MVI in three parts. It was on a topic (Possibility of a Military Coup in India) that has seen many articles in the past besides TV shows and news items. This three-part article drew some readers' interest in this subject and gave a good insight into linked controversies that were mischievously publicised by the media and targeted some of our past generals as potential Coup Masters. This was done to mislead the political masters and nation with false and fictitious narratives against them.
The 3 part article by Gp Capt AG Bewoor
cleared this media created fog and projected a true overview. This also consequently resulted in MVI receiving several responses on this susceptible and controversial topic from veterans of three services of our armed forces. All these responses have collectively thrown much light to reveal the hard facts and full truth about this topic from several angles. Hence, these responses are being published below. It is now up to the readers to draw their conclusions!
Links to the 3 parts of the article and the linked article by Col Rajinder Kushwaha are given below for reference purposes.
Col Vinay Dalvi,
Editor ,MVI
LT GEN HARBHAJAN SINGH
Though normally a Coup is Associated
With violence. The main ingredient is NON-DEMOCRATIC and UNCONSTITUTIONAL take over of power.
In India, a military coup is most unlikely.
However, retention of power by undemocratic and unconstitutional means had already taken place when Indira Gandhi declared the emergency.
Powerful political leaders are more likely to subvert the constitution than the military.
MAJ GEN RAJ MEHTA
Gen HS says it right and succinctly: The C word is irrelevant and out of context in India.
Anyone in doubt can ask Shekhar Gupta and get a resounding confirmation.
The opinions on the C word in Victory India do not need to be commented upon for reasons expressed by this writer. The issue is reprehensible.
COUNTERVIEW
GP CAPT TP SRIVASTAVA
In military operational planning, modalities of withdrawal are never discussed/documented. Likewise, the military should not, must not discuss the professionally morbid topic of COUP in our context.
On purpose, I avoided commenting as the issue unfolded. Any discussion on the problem in the public domain is irrelevant, undesirable, and unprofessional.
But we have axed our foot by discussing it in public. Mark my words; shortly content and excerpts from this write-up will be quoted out of context. stating that you erred this time by publishing COUP's justification on why the judiciary should be kept at arms distance on matters military. This was when the insane proposal of establishing military courts headed by a retired judge. Our three-star officers are not ashamed to work under a high court judge in these tribunals. They merely fleece the taxpayer for five years. It is the military's call.
COL NN BHATIA
I think we should stop discussions on such issues and ensure we always have a vibrant democracy in our country.
MAJ GEN RAJ MEHTA
The easiest thing in the world is to accuse. L' Accuse became a rage after French Capt Dreyfus ended up becoming a little-understood synonym of misplaced accusation... a fad of little substance.
It was anchored in strong feelings of being wiser than thou: assuming superiority when all that was displayed was mindsets... based on assumptions and guesswork...a poor state of understanding...
The blunt fact is that democracy and coup are antonyms. Just that. There is no need whatsoever to talk about antonyms in a democracy. None. C must remain a disgusting word.
Far better to improve your democracy...the rule of...for and by the people.
No democracy is perfect, so its improvement needs to concern us all by using democratic institutions... not using inflammatory syntax.
The role of the judiciary has also for reasons one has not understood been ridiculed. Whatever for?
Are cases of injustice to the military the reason? Should the military officer head tribunals where the focus is on law? Does the military have the competence?
One wonders why such insinuations shouldn't be explained when writers in a democracy arrogate to themselves the right to ridicule all they do not understand or fail to do so perversely.
BRIG SANJAY SANGWAN
Globally democracy has been accepted as the most preferential form of governance and violence needs to be curtailed in international relations, shifting focus to sustainable development in a collaborative and cooperative environment. Yet, conflicts and wars abound and before one ceases, a fresh one begins. With changing nature and expanding the scope of the war, practically everything on earth including our basic food, water and air has been weaponized. Countries especially India are being attacked externally as well as internally employing various fractures and possible dissensions in a country including our democratic institutions and statuary structure and appointments. Religion too has proved a major tool for political objectives. Man's greed has tried to tame and mould nature too but nature is unforgiving and comes back with an increasing fury. In an environment of constant turmoil, conflict, natural disasters and struggle complicated further by corruption, crime and drugs if any organisation has proved to be genuinely secular and patriotic and the last and unfailing bulwark, it is the military. This often makes the military a target of nefarious designs of external and internal agencies. In an environment of this kind, even mentioning the C word is not only irrelevant but an invitation to more trouble for oneself and axing own feet. It is a hot masala for media, opposition and various other agencies with not even remote feasibility or desirability. Even historical references are likely to be misconstrued as a lurking thought.
COL RAJINDER KUSHWAHA
I appreciate the views of those who think “Coup” is a bad word, and should not be talked about. But should we allow the “weaponisation” of this word to continually keep the armed forces at a disadvantage and suffer all the blame when things go wrong? Subordination to civil administration does not mean keeping quiet on “blunders” against the security and integrity of the nation.
How do you strengthen democracy? Is it by keeping quiet?
If I understand properly, democracy demands a continuous review of its “players”, within and outside of ruling outfits. This is why they say that the proper functioning of democracy needs a strong “ opposition”, who can act as a “fault-finder” of “ruling combinations”.
Criticism, healthy criticism, is the key word for a healthy democracy.
Silence is an invitation to disaster. I am reminded of a German pastor, Martin Niemoller, who had said of NAZIS:—
“—First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
I am afraid it is high time to analyse why bureaucracy has been able to maintain an edge over armed forces and disallowed them their rightful place in the “nation-building” efforts. It is the hated word “ military coup” which has been used by bureaucracy to mislead and play upon the fears of politicians.
Indian public/politicians ought to know as to why a military coup was not possible in India. It is a country of 1400 million population, spread over a huge area of 32, 87, 263 sq km, of which 29,73, 190 sq km is land area. Such a huge geography and population can not be controlled by an armed force of merely 1.3 million.
The example of Pakistan is fraught with mistaken calculations. Hussain Haqqani, an ex-Pakistan Ambassador to the USA, blames the flaw in the division of assets between India and Pakistan in 1947. According to him, Pakistan’s 33% share of armed forces against geography share of 19% and population share at 17% was the cause of the army getting control easily, which continues even today. But this is now under review even in Pakistan.
There is, therefore, a definite need to educate not only politicians but also the Indian public that it was virtually next to impossible for the Indian military to stage a coup, even if some funny General thought so. This would also put a stop to the general refrain of the public, who always wanted the army to take over when the public was disappointed with corrupt and dishonest politicians. The public ought to know that these were inherent ills of democracy and they have to be tackled by the “self-correction- mechanism” of democracy.
It is in this context that past review of the performance of democracy was essential. And if in this exercise some “ political Icons” get demolished, so be it. Despite his many great achievements, if JL Nehru had committed “three blunders”, even after Sardar Patel’s warning to him, they have to be pointed out.
I don’t find any reason why, he should not be accused of surrendering Tibet; Goofing up on Kashmir and refusing to accept the UN Security Council permanent berth. His “NON-VIOLENCE” did not stop China from hoisting a disgrace on India in 1962.
His daughter, Indira Gandhi, not only made fun of Fd Marshal Manekshaw, and other Indian Generals, as described by Pakistani Author, Tariq Ali, in his book,” THE DUEL”, but in her biggest Blunder, she let go of 93000 PWs without getting back 54 Indian PWs rotting in Pak Jails. Most of them might have died by now and have unceremonious deaths in Pak Jails. Why should we remain silent on these blunders?
Democracy demands improvement through criticism. The norms and yardsticks of Western world moralities can not be applied in the Indian context.
Why Indian democracy suffers was best described by Nana Palkhiwala in his book,” We, The People”. He says: “ WE WERE SPINELESS WONDERS WHEN ASKED TO BEND, WE CRAWL”. Let us not live in a world of make-believe.
Comments