Civil- Military Relations over the time; India and Pakistan
Introduction
Military
has been part of human society even before formation of Nation-State. It has
been looked over as a guardian angel of kingdoms, community or society from the
outside force. Organizing in group itself meant forming an army or the alliance
between states. Larger groups were united in the more solid structure of state,
primarily for defensive and offensive purposes. Though, the military of the
state was under the leadership of the king, it was mainly the interaction
between them that defined the success of the empire. While Kings with little or
no skills of military commander suffered loss due to lack of strategic planning
on the other hand kings like Richard Lionheart of England and Saladin Ayyubi,
who held military position before becoming kings were able to secure and
capture more territories in their short period of time. Over the time there has
been shift in the system of governance after adoption of Nation State structure
of administration. Now with Nation in the picture we were dealing with a
community of people joined by shared identity and by common social practices,
for the first-time communities of various kind become a national concern [1].
This happened during the 18th century with independence of America
followed by France. Nation added an interior life to the early modern state
machinery. System across the world
become more inclusive of its own people and communities found a way to demand
legitimacy of its ruler. Democracy was sought throughout the world and by the
end of 20th century several colonies were free from imperial rule.
It
was the post-independence time that was most volatile for newly formed nations.
Despite the struggle quite a number of newly founded democracy failed to
sustain itself and was overthrown by autocratic form of government or Military
coup. The Global South has been caught
in this perpetual cycle of on and off democratic condition. Recently, Myanmar
witnessed Military coup which had devastating impact on the domestic politics
of the country. To understand reason behind this tedious cycle one needs to
evaluate the Civil- Military relation present within the state. The paper takes
a look at Civil Military relations in Pakistan and India respectively. Both of
the states were ones under British India and shared same cultural values and
yet former failed to remain stable but later is the largest standing democracy
in the world since its independence.
Civil
Military relations
In the most simplified language, it is relation between the Military and Civilian. It is control over the militaries by the highest civilian authorities in the nation state. This relation is defined by interplay of several factors that include the history, political culture, character of the conflict and even the international community to name few. The research on this concept began in USA during the World War II and later the field was split into two different directions. First, was the sociological orientation of the military with focus on the Unites States and later other countries. Second, path was the was study of post-colonial civil- military relations in developing countries [2]. The second approach was attentive to military coup and what arose this situation in any state.
Security especially after the cold war has become a complex area of study with focus being shifted from the traditional security to Non-traditional security. Establishing a robust defense system to combat external threat is the first task undertaken by any state in order to become a strong nation. After liberation from colonial rule more than a few newly founded nation- states were suffering more from internal security issues like poverty, food crises or economic crises yet military remained the primary concern of all. While Military as symbol of strength, the Civilian Authority was given the bridle of this strength in its hand. At the same time with there has been increase in military strength which can be seen in the domestic politics through initiation of coup. This situation can be predicted if one takes a look at the foundation of the civil- military relation in a state which took quite a different path in case of India and Pakistan. At the partition one of the few institutions that remained relatively intact in both successor states was the military and both the states had leadership from the elite class and were secular. Ships, weapons, aircraft and other equipment were allocated to the respective countries.
India
Civil Military relation
Indian
Political Culture:
Political
culture is often seen as reflection of community lifestyle but Indian community
in itself is very diversified. Though there is a shared historical experience
under the British rule the but the people are very identities are very
different. These differences are one of the reasons that Indian Political
Culture has undergone several significant and is always evolving. There are four historical stages in the development if
the culture of Indian politics first under the independence movement. A
second legacy was that provided by the shared experience of those Indians who
participated in or identified with the nationalist movement and its great
leaders. A third was the prevailing social order, the communal structure and
social conflicts which surrounded and influenced political movements, thoughts,
and practices. Finally, there was the great body of traditions and cultural
practices which preceded British rule in a civilisation of great depth,
density, and diversity.[3]
Indian
Army History
India Army existed before independence in 1947 also called the Indian British Army. It defended both the British India and Princely states indirectly ruled by the British. Indian Army was formed after Indian Rebellion of 1857 called the Indian Mutiny. The armies of the East India Company were recruited primarily from Muslims in the Bengal Presidency, which consisted of Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, and high caste Hindus recruited primarily from the rural plains of Oudh. Many of these troops took part in the Indian Mutiny, with the aim of reinstating the Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah II at Delhi, partly as a result of insensitive treatment by their British officers[4]. Later it was named as Army of India (1903–1947) which was the Indian Army itself plus the "British Army in India" (British force sent to India). The partition between Pakistan and India had great influence on Indian Army as it was divided among the two countries. One positive advantage was that Indian Army has representatives from different communities. Indian Army did serve in World War II and size of the army gave some leadership experience to Indian officers. Even post-Independence Indian army continued to integrate several ethnic groups which can now be seen in the form of Sikh Regiment, Naga Regiment, Rajput Regiment etc.
History of Civil -Military relation
India constitution came in power in 1950, before that India followed the Government of India Act 1935 for its administrative work. Though it didn’t have any constitution in 1947, Indian Civilian Authority was quick to establish control over the Military which was done by abolishing the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Military by then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Commander in Chief has the Supreme Authority in the British Indian Army which was shifted to the civilian authority, that was the President of India. There already existed a Military Department which was formed in 1776 within the government of East India Company. The Military Department was abolished in March 1906 and it was replaced by two separate Departments, the Army Department and the Military Supply Department.
In April 1909, the Military Supply Department was abolished, and its functions were taken over by the Army Department. The Army Department was redesignated as the Défense Department in January 1938. The Department of Défense became the Ministry of Défense under a cabinet minister in August 1947[5]. This Civilian Control not only minimized the threat of coup but also remains the main reason of the neutral stance taken by the military on the political Affairs. Military professionalism, founded on secular values, interacted with strong secular elites to create the foundation of civil-military relations in India.
After
Independence India even had upper hand on leadership unlike Pakistan which was
left without a head after demise of Mohmmed Ali Jinnah. This entire lobby of
leader who were also actively involved in Independence struggle gave India
concert Institutions that helped democracies to survive. It was during the
tenure of Indira Gandhi that India showed characteristics of National Security
State (NSS; Use of military to control political landscape) because of her
aggressive posture and often use of military to pose threat to the neighbors
and even using highly kinetic approach towards dealing with the insurgencies in
India[6].
Though, in the initially phases PM Nehru was inclined to pay attention to
socio-economic development and take up a coordinated development budget. In
defense matters, he chose to be guided by bureaucrats and political leaders who
had little or no understanding of strategic and military matters which didn’t
help in creating a strong-armed forces for the newly born sovereign nation [7].
It was the Sino-Indian war that acted like a wake-up call for Nehru to create a
stronger unified arm strategy. Bringing military under the control of civilian
authority created a solid democratic institution. India in the international
community also came out as stable nation with liberal values unlike its
neighbors. India has over time been successful in minimizing war like situation
with other countries, yet the insurgencies continue to be a security threat for
the country.
Present
relation.
There hasn’t been any change in the civil military relation in India and it won’t be wrong to give credit to the strong institutional policies that India formed in the early phase of post colonization under its then leaderships. The structure hasn’t change must but there has been a slight change in the political culture. India has always expected the army to remain politically illiterate. There was news that reported political remark by Army chief which was met by high criticism and later was clarified by the senior leader in the command. The media reports more such of instances but with India, the core value of democracy seems to remain intact because of its robust constitution. The changing political culture cannot easily terminate the current structure but still the shift from political and religious neutrality must be addressed even at small scale.
Pakistan
Civil Military Relation
Pakistan
Political Culture
Political
culture of no country is ever static but with Pakistan it has always been
unpredictable. One of the reasons for this uncertainty can be because of the
delayed establishment of proper democratic institutions or of any strong
institution at all which affected the post-partition policies. While it was
formed on the basis of Religion it was led by elite secular class. When one
looks at the population composition, it is field with cultural diversity with
Hindu Minorities and additional problem of east (now Bangladesh) and west
Pakistan divided by Indian Peninsula. Muslim League which led the freedom movement
weakened after demise of Jinnah and assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan there was
no leadership, civil secretariat, supreme court or central bank [8].
It took nine years for Pakistan to form a constitution (formed in 1956) and in
the meantime population was griped with socio economic problems which its
Modernist leaders failed to tackle. The Pakistan political
discourse is divided between two class of people, one who wanted a nation based
on Modern western values and other based on Islamic Values. Despite, this divided
the political turbulence has over the time led to a demand for good governance
which doesn’t necessarily equates democracy [9].
Pakistani
Army
It
was the British Indian Army that was divided between India and Pakistan in
1947. The Structure of it just like in the case of India was influenced by the
one followed by it under the Great Britain. Pakistan got one third of the Army.
As the leadership of the state Liaquat Ali Khan chose to align with US during
the cold war, the Army got US military aid to protect itself from India, which
Pakistan saw as the biggest threat. During the most unstable 1950s decade in
Pakistan, it was only the Military institution that was strongest.
History of Civil Military relation
In
the early period of independence with chaotic administration of the country
there was no civilian control over the Military established and at the same
time the aid from USA made Military the only strongest institution in the
country. As a newly born state the
Pakistan’s security concern were of priority especially after what happened
with India and still continues to happen for their stand over Kashmir it was
clear that if the internal problems are not addressed the external security
would become even more difficult to tackle. This disorder allowed the only strongest
institution of Military to get involved with the domestic governance. The 1950s saw multiple prime ministers rising
and falling from power which only worsen the situation until Ayub Khan (the
Army Chief of Staff) seized power from President Mirza in 1958. Though he was
fixated on prolonging his rule one of the popular discourses of his era was
economic growth which was the matter of highest urgency for the population but
it was also rooted in income inequality [10].
The inflow of foreign capital was twice the rate of India which gave boost to
industries. This was followed by rule of Military generals like Yahya Khan’s
rule from 1969-1971, Zia-ul-Haqq’s rule from 1977-88, and Nawaz Sharif’s rule
from 1999-2008. This back-and-forth movement between democracy and military
rule never allowed civilian institution to bloom and take control. Even during
the civilian rule there was a strong influence of Military on the leadership.
So, even if during the tenure of the civilian governments it was hard to put
the Military institution under control. Overall, the Pakistan’s Democracy was
followed by shadow of Military.
It
is after a long time that Pakistan now has a stable democratic government
though the upcoming times still hold no guarantee. The ambition of individual
leaders was the first and leading reason that allowed Military to influence
domestic politics. Even with current leadership, it is believed by the
opposition that PTI (ruling party) was backed by the Military in 2018 election.
The future of the Pakistan is still in haze with respect to always having a
civilian government. Also, military rule may not be people’s choice, but it
still needs support to survive because if there are revolts from within the
country, the military will find it difficult to perform its core function of
guarding the borders. Even with the
present civil government the country has a very less chance of looking back at
its civil-military relations dynamics and fix that realm yet alone put a
civilian control over the military.
[1] Erik
Ringman, Student Feature- The Evolution of Nation State (https://www.e-ir.info/2018/01/12/student-feature-the-evolution-of-nation-state/),
E-International Relations, Jan 12, 2018.
[2] Peter
D. Feaver Civil Military Relations: Annual Review of Political Science
(https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.211) vol 2:211-241, June 1999
[3] Indian
Political Culture Notes, https://nisnotes.blogspot.com/2011/04/indian-political-culture.html
[4] World
Heritage Encyclopaedia, British-Indian Army, (self.gutenberg.org)
Project Gutenberg Self- Publishing Press
[5] Historical
highlights of the Indian Army,
(https://nisnotes.blogspot.com/2011/04/indian-political-culture.html)
[6]
South Asian Studies
A Research
Journal of South Asian Studies
Vol. 31, No. 1,
January – June 2016, pp. 69 – 83
[7] BRIG
(Retd) Vinod Anand, Nehru Eras of Defence and Security Policies and their
legacy, Vivekananda International Foundation, March 2014
[8] MAJ Brent Williams, India
and Pakistan Civil-Military Relations, School of Advanced Military Studies
United States Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
2015-01
[9] Farhan Hanif Siddiqi, Democracy and Pakistani Political Culture, South Asian Voices, Nov 21, 2014
[10] Murtaza Haider, what they never tell us about Ayub Khan’s regime, DAWN today’s paper, June 22, 2021
Comments
Post a Comment