What's new

'India's well-timed diversification of Army helped democracy'

Bang Galore

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
10,685
Reaction score
12
Country
India
Location
India
'India's well-timed diversification of Army helped democracy'


New Delhi: India's well-timed decision post independence to control and diversify its Army helped preserve its democracy, or it could have ended up like Pakistan which has seen three Army coups post independence.


Yale University professor Steven I Wilkinson, in his book "Army and Nation: How India's Founders Made its Army Safe for Democracy" - writes that while the Indian Army at the time of independence was dominated by few martial groups, diversification and modifications in its structure helped the country.

"If you inherit an imbalanced Army, chances of a coup are high," Wilkinson said speaking about his book at the India International Center Thursday evening.

The author said in 1929, the Army had overwhelmingly warriors from Sikh and Gorkha communities, both martial groups.

"In 1947, the Army was still dominated by certain martial groups who made 95 percent of the troops. It was still an imbalanced Army, as the British recruited troops from martial roots. These officers were also a closely knit community creating more trouble for politicians," he said.

He however added that India was still in a better position in what it inherited, compared to Pakistan, which had 72 percent of its army from Punjab alone, while there are only 155 officers from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

"The most represented and the least represented (in Army) - Punjab and Bengal - were together in Pakistan," he said.

India on the contrary had 32 percent Sikh soldiers, 18 percent from Uttar Pradesh, and 10 percent from erstwhile Bombay province, which he said was more diversified comparatively, while still imbalanced.

The author said, however, India dealt with the issue better than Pakistan.


"India dealt with it better. Pakistan either did not try or did it too late. They could have done a lot in the 1950s," he said.


"India's political leadership felt the army needed immediate attention. (Jawaharlal) Nehru and (Vallabhbhai) Patel were thinking about it as an issue. In Pakistan there was very little thinking about it," he said.


He highlighted that at the time of independence, both Indian and Pakistani Armies had a similar background, adding that the Indian Army could have reacted in a similar way as happened in Pakistan had there been political instability here.

"They were trained in the same way, and they kept ties even after partition. Had India slipped into political chaos, they (Indian Army) could have acted similar," he said.

The author also pointed out that despite of the fact that Army was dominated by people from Punjab, it was not until 1961 that the army got its first chief from the Punjab regiment - General Pran Nath Thapar.

Pakistan, since partition, has seen three military coups and several unsuccessful attempts.

It began in 1958, when the first Pakistani president, Iskander Mirza, who had retired as a major general, dismissed parliament and prime minister Feroz Khan Noon, appointing the army chief, General Ayub Khan, as the chief martial law administrator. Thirteen days later, Mirza himself was deposed by Ayub Khan, who appointed himself the president and raised himself to field marshal.

In 1977, Pakistani Army chief General Zia-ul-Haq overthrew prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was later hanged.

In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew prime minister Nawaz Sharif and and eventually became the president.

'India's well-timed diversification of Army helped democracy' | Zee News
 
.
This one of the main reasons why we have a "coup proof" army unlike Pakistan. Indian army is just too big and too diverse for a coup!
I must say the credit goes to Nehru and Patel; when Ravi Shankar Prasad proposed provincial regiments, Nehru shoot down the proposal saying this would create a rift in Indian army. Nehru and Patel refused to allow regiments and units which would 've institutionalized in the Indian army same cleavages that were controversial in the country at large.
I must say that we must credit our top officers too,who insulated army from politics.Our army never supported political parties during emergencies. Indian army always maintained a safe distance from the politicians and political interference was always looked upon suspiciously. I'm sure they had a tough time during the peak of sikh militancy.

@Bang Galore
why did you not post this article in Indian defense section?​
 
. .
lolz.. I was called communal when I said same thing few months ago, we need to reduce sikh and gurkha in army by agressively recruiting from other places. People were too quick to defend supersoldiers.. :pop:
 
.
lolz.. I was called communal when I said same thing few months ago, we need to reduce sikh and gurkha in army by agressively recruiting from other places. People were too quick to defend supersoldiers.. :pop:

Dont fix things that are not broke
 
. .
cant think of any proverb that suggests to anticipate and change things before its too late... :pop:

Apply that to the Politicians and Political parties that are ripping the nation apart.
 
.
Apply that to the Politicians and Political parties that are ripping the nation apart.
we are talking about reforming composition of armed forces on this thread.. should everything wait for everything else in India...
here is how desi crowd would have reacted in times of India... then
"Mr Nehru, please mind your business, dont dilute the quality of our armed forces.. you politicians are maggots eating away our country from within... thank god we got an army that will protect us...
bla bla bla.
 
.
we are talking about reforming composition of armed forces on this thread.. should everything wait for everything else in India...

The armed forces are doing just fine.

The win wars for the nation, they respond during national calamities and stay within the law.

Stare too hard in the dark & you will see shadows where there are none.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom