Dodging Pakistani Sleuths to Cover a War and a Coup

http://www.staff.brad.ac.uk/akundu/books/book1.htm
Reviews of book 'Militarism in India:The Army and Civil Society in Consensus'

Apurba Kundu


"Lieut. General 10 reports that on more than one occasion [during Indira Gandhi's period of Emergency rule] he had to repulse Congress officials seeking military support and/or materials for party functions. Lieut. General 56 adds that 'attempts were made to involve my command in politics (quite subtly); these attempts were repulsed by me (not so subtly)'…The widespread belief that a conversation occurred between (COAS) T.N. Raina and Gandhi before the imposition of Emergency can now be confirmed by (then) Adjutant-General Lieut. General 17 who reveals that although the PM 'called him in just before declaring Emergency to put him in the picture, Raina took no steps to warn anybody. I think he had just a damn good night's sleep.' Vice-Admiral 2 goes further when recalling how Raina told Gandhi 'very bluntly ' that the army would not be used to 'further her ends' but obey only those orders of a 'legally construed government.' This was the most crucial factor in keeping the military out of politics during his time. The (just) technical legality of the imposition of Emergency and subsequent actions taken in its name gave Gandhi's 1975-77 regime a legitimacy which allowed the military leadership to continue their apolitical tradition."
A.G. Noornai in Frontline, 7 January 2000

Indira feared Manekshaw would stage a coup (http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990802/ige02088.html)

NE W DELHI, AUG 1: In 1970, then prime minister Indira Gandhi's worst fear was that Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw would stage a coup and take over the reins of the country from her. This startling revelation was made by the 85-year-old former Army chief on Karan Thapar's programme Face-to-Face on BBC Television. In 1970, Mrs Gandhi's stock politically, was very low, Manekshaw explained, and he couldn't go anywhere without being asked whether he would actually take over. Even a US Diplomat had asked him at a party ``when are you taking over'', he remembered. Then one day, a worried Mrs Gandhi asked him to come to Parliament House and ``looked me straight into my eyes and said you are my problem,'' he said. Shaken up, Manekshaw, the hero of the 1971 Indo-Pak conflict, said ``I put my nose next to hers and said what do you think ?'' ``She said you can't. Do you think I am so incompetent (Manekshaw replied). I didn't mean that Sam. You wouldn't,'' he recalled Mrs Gandhi as having argued.

The former army chief said he related a ``little jingle'' to the prime minister, ``you mind your own business and I'll mind mine. You kiss your own sweetheart and I'll kiss mine. I don't interfere politically as long as nobody interferes with me in the army''.

Admittedly, Roedad Khan is among the least credible pro-democracy voices, but here I am only quoting him on Morarji Desai:

http://www.dawn.com/2002/06/03/op.htm#5

"A year later, I was relocated and posted to Peshawar where I met Morarji Desai, finance minister of India. He was visiting Pakistan as a guest of the government. On arrival in Peshawar, Morarji expressed a desire to pay a courtesy call on Abdul Ghaffar Khan. I was asked to make necessary arrangements and escort him to Utmanzai.

On the way to Utmanzai, Morarji asked me how the freedom-loving Pukhtuns had reacted to the imposition of Martial Law. This triggered a lively discussion. “Was it for this”, Morarji asked, “that your people fought so tenaciously? You thought you had found freedom on August 14, 1947. But hasn’t it turned out to be another kind of slavery? Were all Mr. Jinnah’s brave words and deeds to end in this? Don’t you feel cheated and betrayed? I feel sorry for you. Your future looks very grim to me”.

“Until recently, we were all Indians”, I replied. “We are as good and as bad as Indians are. We all share the same weaknesses. You are not much better than us. We have martial law today. You will have it tomorrow”?

Morarji reacted sharply: “No general dare impose martial law in India”, he retorted. “And if he does, Morarji will be the first to face the Indian bullet”. On this grim note, the conversation ended. We had reached Utmanzai.
"

"She used to write (years ago when we saw more of her here) that Indian secularism was/is no big deal since otherwise there would be/will be no peace in India."

Not sure of she actually said this or not but Punjab disproves the thesis.

#164 by dost_mittar

However, the Hindu generals in the army did not have the guts to do what the Pakistani generals did in Pakistan.

Conversely, it can also be said that Paki politicians didn't have the guts to resist Army intervention the way Indian politicians did, which perhaps put off the Indian Army from intervening in the first place. This doesn't prove your point one way or the other.

OTOH, you can say that both the generals and politicians in India knew what their respective roles were and stuck to that meticulously. How is that a bad thing?

Something surely can be said about NRIs and their double standards. On the one hand, you berate India for being a land of lawless people and praise the west for being so very orderly and efficient. OTOH, you do not hesitate to advocate lawlessness in India when something that happened in a different country catches your fancy, as you seem to be doing here.

When Indira Gandhi did impose her dictatorship under highly charged circumstances, the transition was almost smooth. While Ayub's dictatorship was ended by Pakistanis coming out on the streets, as they are doing now, dictatorship in India ended in 1977 only because the dictator decided to terminate it and not because people coming out on the streets against her.

Do you seriously think Indira Gandhi voluntarily decided to end the Emergency? People spilling onto the streets in almost a repeat of the freedom struggle had nothing to do with her decision? You're almost beginning to sound as deluded as some of the Pakis here.

dost-mittar #164
It might make your Pakistani friends feel better but it does Pakistanis in general no favors to compare apples and oranges and pronounce them equal.

While Ayub Khan reduced all provinces in the West to a single province to enforce parity with the East(giving rising to regional separatist movements), India was meanwhile linguistically re-organising its states. Not only that it was by and large allowing these states to elect their own governments, not all of which were Congress governments.

The Nehru report had said in the 1920s:
"The Motilal Nehru Committee noted that everyone knew that the distribution of provinces in India had no rational basis. Raising the question, what principles should govern the redistribution of provinces, it suggested the following factors:

Partly geographical and partly economic and financial, but the main considerations must necessarily be the wishes of the people and the linguistic unity of the area concerned. It is well recognized that rapid progress in education as well as in general culture and in most departments of life depends on language. If a foreign language is the medium of instruction, business and affairs and the life of the country must necessarily be stunted. No democracy can exist where a foreign language is used for these purposes. A democracy must be well informed and must be able to understand and follow public affairs in order to take an effective part in them. It is inconceivable that a democracy can do this if a foreign language is largely used. It becomes essential therefore to conduct the business and politics of a country in a language, which is understood by the masses. So far as the provinces are concerned, this must be the provincial language. We are certainly not against the use of English. [Note the difference in approach to English between Gandhi and Motilal Nehru Committee - Thirumalai.] Indeed from the necessities of the situation we feel that English must, as at present, continue for some time to come to be the most convenient medium for debate in the central legislature. We also believe that a foreign language, and this is likely to be English, is essential for us to develop contacts with the thought and science and life of other countries. We are, however, strongly of the opinion that every effort should be made to make Hindustani the common language of the whole of India, as it is today of half of it. But, granting all this, provincial languages will have to be encouraged and, if we wish the province to make rapid progress, we shall have to get it to do its work in its own language.

If a province has to educate itself and do its daily work through the medium of its own language, it must necessarily be a linguistic area. If it happens to be a polyglot area difficulties will continually arise and the media of instruction and work will be two or even more languages. Hence, it becomes most desirable for provinces to be regrouped on a linguistic basis. Language, as a rule corresponds with a variety of culture, of traditions, and literature. In a linguistic area all these factors will help in the general progress of the province.

The National Congress recognized this linguistic principle 8 years ago and since then, so far as the Congress machinery is concerned, India has been divided into linguistic provinces.

Another principle, which must govern a redistribution of provinces, is the wishes of the people concerned. We, who talk of self-determination on a larger scale cannot, in reason, deny it to a smaller area, provided of course this does not conflict with any other important principle or vital question. The mere fact that the people living in a particular area feel that they are a unit and desire to develop their culture is an important consideration even though there may be no sufficient or cultural justification for their demand. Sentiment in such matters is often more important than fact.

Thus, we see that the two most important considerations in re-arranging provinces are the linguistic principle and the wishes of the majority of the people. A third consideration, though not of the same importance, is administrative convenience, which would include the geographical position, the economic resources and the financial stability of the area concerned. But administrative convenience is often a matter of arrangement and must as a rule bow to the wishes of the people."


Inspite of Article 356 and highly centralized decisionmaking, India did much better for regional aspirations and regional self-administration in the same period that you are saying Hindu generals were too cowardly to take over. You have a false definition of courage - it takes more courage to keep faith and build up such a system than to grab all power by force and deny any to regional aspirations.

swarrier#157:

Here is my opinion for what it is worth - and it may not be worth much.[this is only the elaboration of the pusillanimously factor]

Indians during the 1950s were as badly governed at the people's level as Pakistanis. I remember a popular limirick in Punjabi at the time of the 1957 election, which went as follows:
ik balakie mainooN milya
meray val oh aunda si
tay gogad uttay hath phair kay eekkan haal sunaunda si
rishwat baajo gorment day saaray ee kaaiday tut gaye
lai kay rishwat kaid ho gaye, day ke rishwat chhut gaye

Tr;
I came across a black marketeer on the street
When asked how come he was out on the street, he replied
O'people, new rules of governance are in place now
for taking bribe, I was sent to jail
and by giving bribe, I got out.

Corruption was the one topic which agitated Indians and Pakistanis then, more than it does even now. Ayub's dictatorship was said to have ended corruption in Pakistan and many Indians were yearning for an Ayub Khan to appear in India. When he imposed his fundamental democracy in Pakistan, the wags in India said that India too needs a "dundamental" democracy. However, the Hindu generals in the army did not have the guts to do what the Pakistani generals did in Pakistan.

India remained a democracy because nobody challenged it. When Indira Gandhi did impose her dictatorship under highly charged circumstances, the transition was almost smooth. While Ayub's dictatorship was ended by Pakistanis coming out on the streets, as they are doing now, dictatorship in India ended in 1977 only because the dictator decided to terminate it and not because people coming out on the streets against her.

kaal#154:

I have a different take than sadna and anil. Muslims after the Partition were in no position to force anything on Indian leadership. They were thoroughly demoralised, were afraid that what happened in East Punjab will be repeated elsewhere in India as there was no dearth of Hindus and Sikhs both within and outside the Congress Party who thought that Muslims, having gotten their homeland, had no place in India. Even Ambedkar had earlier said that population transfer along the lines of Turkey and Greece should be the logical consequence of the Partition. Muslims were well aware of the role that they had played in the Partition of the country and all they wanted at that time was to save their lives and properties.

So, why did Nehru agree to a sharia based code for Muslims? First of all, from what I had read, the Uniform Civil Code was opposed also by some Hindu representatives on the Constituent Assembly; on the other hand, some Muslims, such as Tajamul Husain, an ex-Muslim Leaguer, supported a Uniform Civil Code. In the end, a compromise was made whereby a UCC was considered to be part of the Directive Principles but not of enforceable constitution. Surprisingly, Maulana Azad remained silent through most of such discussions. The question arises why Hindu civil law was reformed while Muslim Law was left unchanged? Here, I think the main reason was that the Congress support base was Jamiat-ul-ulema type Muslims (and not progressive league types) and it listened to their voice. Moreover, Nehru's friendship with Azad, a Muslim scholar, might have played a role. As is well known, Nehru sometimes let personal factors influence policy decisions, as is evident from the recent revelations by Pamela Mountbatten.

kaalchakra #161
I agree with anil too.

"But that view exists. It distorts people's appreciation of what India has to offer. Instead, it promotes a smug, irrational, and outdated sense of entitlement, natural and enternal victimhood, and keeps its victims from gracefully participating in national life as cooperative citizens."

Well said, you put it much better than I ever could. And precisely. The above is exactly why it is so important to examine and verify for ourselves every bit of 'received wisdom' concocted and propagated about our pre-independence history.

anil ji, I agree fully. My own perception is that the roots of Indian political structure lay in the real beliefs of Gandhi-Nehru, independent of any fear of Muslims going on a killing spree and completing the tasks that Muslim League had pre -independence - been threatening to undertake.

But that view exists. It distorts people's appreciation of what India has to offer. Instead, it promotes a smug, irrational, and outdated sense of entitlement, natural and enternal victimhood, and keeps its victims from gracefully participating in national life as cooperative citizens.

Re: # 159

Kaal:

Congress was not driven by fear of anything, let alone of Muslims. Prominentlikeminded muslims joined it.

Congress had a single goal - independence from the brits, and an equally clear game plan - non-violence against the brits as the weapon.

Post independence, Congress had shady side too, it alone was responsible for the demise of the right of center, Swatantra Party which was founded by C. Rajgopalachari.

Do we have a consensus that it was the fear of Muslims (put in different words) that made Gandhi-Nehru choose whatever political structure they did?

That has also been Farzana Versey's thesis. She used to write (years ago when we saw more of her here) that Indian secularism was/is no big deal since otherwise there would be/will be no peace in India.

Which is just another way of saying: Hindus were/are secular because they were/are scared of Muslims. So were Hindus to choose a Pakistan-like structure, Muslims will supposedly get violent and riot, and beat up on a lot of Hindus.

Let's forget the normative (good/bad) part. At least, let's understand if that is true or not. Did we have appeasement built into our very DNA, just Pakistan has its own DNA?

#157

"There are many reasons why India is still a democracy, the pusillanimous nature of the Hindu society being one of many, but I would leave that topic for another day"


timidity is not a bad quality .They live to see the day as survivours .As the reason for democracy , imho the most democratic countries now britain USA and in fact many european countries have been agressive colonisers and ae now democratic .....or it (democracy)is where every one ends up ...timid and agressive

RE:#153 Posted by dost_mittar on August 28, 2007 7:29:35 pm
[[There are many reasons why India is still a democracy, the pusillanimous nature of the Hindu society being one of many, but I would leave that topic for another day.]]

Care to elaborate?? A day is as good as any other.

Re: # 155

Sadna:

Very true. In this process, there were not just Gandhi-Nehru as leaders. Their chapter closed, and India got leaders who made the difference. These include - Indira Gandhi, her acts in 1971 made India safer; Narsimharao - he opened economy; Vajpayee - he helped establish market economy, and now Manmohan Singh.

There has been a very interesting leader - Jyoti Basu. He chose to remain regional. He brought devolution of power toward states. Other regional leaders that come to my mind - the ex CM of Andhra, and now Mayawati. This building process has been very interesting. On the economy side - middle class entreprenuership also blossomed, beyond IT.

kaalchakra
The India you take for granted today didnot exist in 1947, it was yet to be constructed part by part. Previous to 1947, the Pakistan movement had for 7 years (and Muslim League for at least 10 years and other Muslims for even longer)propagated the notion that Muslims would not be allowed to be practising Muslims by majority Hindus and that in refusing to surrender the Hindu majority to the Muslim minority, the Congress actually intended to wipe out Islam from India.

By denying the then current personal law to Muslims(the 1937 Sharia law), was Nehru supposed to hand over an inflammable political issue and eternal propaganda tool to Pakistan to continue to interfere in India's affairs(already beset by the pernicious two nation theory of remote control of one state's citizens by a neighbouring state)?

And no Indian berating Nehru will tell you this but denial of Sharia is considered one of the bases for jihad. The Indian state was not in a position to fight a jihad against its Muslims in its early days.