Discussion on possibilities in military taking over civil governance is an age old topic. Recently there is spurt in discussion regarding 'Coup', it's applicability, acceptability, relevance and rejection to the present context. Some are of the view that discussion on coup is a taboo. But I personally feel that open discussion on any controversial issue, including coup, is a healthy sign. It exposes the prevalent situation and may help in mending the way, if there is an abberation. Presently it's an academic discussion. It is also a point to note as to what makes present situation relevant to such a discussion?
The cause of coup is not the army but the dissatisfaction mode in the citizens who are bitter with the functioning of the present government, who seems to have drifted away from fulfilling the citizen's aspirations. Coup doesn't happen in a day. It goes through different stages with progressive violence and citizen's involvement. Like a human body gives prior indication of comming illness, society also gives prolonged indication that all is not well. Coup is the ultimate expression should running government fails to register changes in present situation.
A government is run by two parallel agencies, civil and military. While civil looks after the internal matters, military protects the border giving the civil administration an uninterrupted condition to look into the internal matters. Both ideally shall be non interfering to each other unless situation so created. The difference is that while army, if required, can take over the civil administration too along with its primary task, the civil part doesn't have the capability to take over military duties.
The system of governance broadly has two distinct types: totalitarian and utilitarian. Totalitarian is a single handed rule and utilitarian is the rule of all. Till around eighteenth century, in India's context till the end of the British era, governance was predominately controlled by few types of governments, like Dictatorship, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism. Out of all these Kingship was most prevalent . And thereafter, with gradual rise of political awareness amongst the citizens and conceptualization of public rule, started citizen rising in taking the administration of the country in their hands through their representatives.
ill the advent of 'real politic', in medieval times, the extent of king's direct involvement in commanding his army could vary depending on the specific circumstances and capabilities of the king himself, which dictated the situation. In important battles king himself used to lead. But system of administration remained the same having two parallel agencies civil and military functioning conjointly. In most of the cases the King himself was the supreme commander controlling the army. He was an experienced soldier himself. So the control of the army was unitary.
With increasing awareness of intellectual or cognitive engagement with public affairs, exchange of political information between various agencies, forming their own views, political participation by the citizens increased. People understood it as an important asset, which determined people's participation in active citizenship. This included taking interest in various policies like equality, freedom, mutual respect, tolerance, overall development of the mass, education etc. This resulted in creating a different brands of national leadership and its followers, eagerly waiting for taking over the country with an idiology of its own coming out of common citizens but who were not well aware of the military knowledge and it's correct application. This political change gradually, started replacing Kingship or other political systems which were generally led by few influential families, with new found Democracy which is"Government of the people, for the people, by the people.
New ideological era started with new concept of Democracy. Citizens started taking over. Now there came a major changes. Instead of being parallel power, army was relegated under bureaucrats headed by the civil government.
Since the politicians have had no Military knowledge it started creating a gap in direct command between civili and military. Political awareness of the common citizen and demand for better and honourable living started taking more time of the government coupled with lesser military knowledge, created distance between the two, resulting in gradual transition towards more isolation and may be mistrust between the two and that might have been the cause why from the very first day Nehru Government wasn't comfortable with army causing increasing distance between civil administration and military. Most of the civil hierarchy did not have a clue of military science. So they were busy in keeping their trusted people, not competent, around military thereby insulating them from directly and freely communicating with the army making it more and more professionaly isolated and making army not part of the higher direction.
The change of the governance system and isolation of army created a different situation. One of th most profound developments in late twentieth century politics was the emergence of the military as the most important political elites and critical political actors. This has signified a trend towards increasingly authoritarian and restricted government, part of the movement in the Third World as a whole away from both pluralistic party politics and military nationalistic regime.
While there are academic debates and disputes regarding the nature of military rule and it's effect on the society, there is, however, a general consensus that weak and ineffective civilian political institutions have directly contributed to military involvement in politics. When civilian leaders fail to legitimise their governmental authority in sustainable manner through the creation and development of political institutions capable of aggregating the interest of the masses, fragmantaton takes place within the society. What emerges is a society where because of the absence of unifying orientation, there is no consensus regarding who should be the legitimate authority to allocate the resources, as well as concerning the method of resolving conflicts within the society. In such a situation, a strong government may appear to the people as more attractive as it provides a welcome relief from social and political chaos. Thus when military intervenes, "it intervenes in lieu of other social forces or as a substitute for social forces which do not exist".
This creates absence of unifying orientation. But it is not that simple too. In any democratic country there are other parties, with their related agendas trying to takeover from the erring party by convincing the public about their efficacy in running the goverment and delivering the result. A strong government may appear to the people as a better option as it appears to the people as more desirable who can provide a welcome relief from social and political chaos. Thus, when military intervenes, it intervenes in lieu of other social forces as a substitute that does not exist. The other reason is the fact that military is the only organised group which is not fragmanted socially and politically, completely organised and which also in possession of the means of violence and arbitrary force.
But it is not the fact the military breaks into violence on its own. In most of the cases military intervention generates from failure in civil administration. It creats upheaval within the civil community of the country which may wash away the entire present system and starts anew with new group coming in. In most of the cases military intervention is succeeded by the growth of factionalism within the political parties and complete breakdown of civilian political structure.
If we relate the same situation with that of India there are certain inherent values that we are bestowed with. First and foremost, it's a vast country with multicultural population with different demand and largely with a federal system of governance. The entire governance system is cooperative and generally accepted the system. Military personnel are also taken from various parts of country with different backgrounds and political understanding. Therefore, it's militarisation needs extensive unhappiness amongst the citizens from all corners of the country. It being mostly following a federal system of the government, governing system of centre and that of states are different. Since states are being governed by their respective state representatives, chosen from the same state itself, which should be feeling pulse of the people before it bursts.
But everything has a cause and effect. Nothing can be taken for granted. History is not written in a day. We have seen mutiny in India under British rule, popular uprising against bad governance, people unitedly expressing their minds. Fall of Indira Gandhi's rule in 1977 at the hand of Janata government and result of 2024 election are glaring example of political awareness of the Indian citizens which has kept the situation under control.
So it shows of that the best way to keep military away to provide good governance and maintaining citizen's awareness.
.
Comments