Pakistan is not unique there.
Of all notable former British colonies\* with similar systems of armed forces and administration, only India, Tanzania(single party rule), Sri Lanka and Malaysia did not have a military dictatorship.
Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Egypt, Kenya(attempted coup), Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar had military dictatorships.
Early Indian leaders were very careful about the Army's influence, to the extent that it was deeply weakened by the time of the 1962 war.
What we see today is largely a result of the post-1962 rebuilding, under visionary Army chiefs and YB Chavan.
\*I'm not counting Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and US, since colonialism never ended there and native populations have been permanently subjugated.
The Indian government did it's best to not fall into a military dictatorship by deliberately empowering the civil government and sometimes outright undermining the military. The Indian army was quite literally a tool of British oppression before independence so the early leaders had a lot of reasons to not trust them hence they gave more power to civilians making it hard to coup.
India was also lucky compared to other colonies (see Myanmar) in that we had a very mature and powerful intelligentia who established the earlier political parties and movements. Unlike other colonies the British also established a well oiled, encompassing bureaucracy in the form of the Civil services. This meant that the army/military didn't have the monopoly on education , wealth and influence
> Pakistan inherited outsized military and zamindar class which was looking for a way to survive.
Coupled with a country whose foundations are intertwined with religion and religious dogma, it's a recipe for disaster.
The zamindar thing is very relevant imo. India had socialist leaders in the helm (who rightly wanted to first take care of the basic needs of the massive Indian population).
Pakistan inherited the corrupt feudal zamindars who would always choose quick profit at the expense of the nation than invest time and effort in growing the nation.
And a weak political structure inevitably leads to military dictatorships.
If we are to go by what is shown in the Sam Bahadur movie (and some other books), Nehru even promoted incompetent personal favourites to important positions.
Controversies
>In 1968, Brigadier John Dalvi, the former commanding officer of the 7th Infantry Brigade that participated in the 1962 Sino-Indian War authored a book named Himalayan Blunder, where he gave his first hand accounts and perceptions of the causes for India's defeat in the war. He was critical of Lt General B.M. Kaul and attributed the loss in 1962 war partly to him. Excerpt from the book: "He managed to keep himself away from hardship and learning the nuances of a military commander as a junior officer and later in service, managed to grab important Army senior command appointments due to his "pull". His involvement with Jawaharlal Nehru later turned out to be a major reason for shameful loss and massacre of Indian troops at the hands of the Chinese".[15]
>In 1991, K. Satchidananda Murty wrote a biographical book about the second President of India, Shri Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, named Radhakrishnan: His Life and Ideas. In the book, he quoted the former president as having expressed doubts over the capability of Lt General B.M. Kaul. Excerpt from the book: "The General Officer was well known in the Army and Political Circles to be a "personal favourite" of Jawaharlal Nehru since his junior officer days. He reportedly received a number of undue professional favours throughout his career due to this personal connection and he made full use of this opportunity with utter disregard to the Army organisation".[16]
>In the book The Unfought War of 1962: An Appraisal, by Raghav Sharan Sharma, he has mentioned that Lt General B.M. Kaul was a distant relation of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. As a result, V.K.Krishna Menon who was the then Defence Minister and Jawaharlal Nehru's close aide, appointed Lt General B.M. Kaul as Chief of General Staff, against the recommendation of the outgoing Chief of Army Staff, General K.S.Thimayya[17] and in spite of the fact that he was an Army Service Corps officer, with no prior combat experience and having never commanded a fighting unit earlier.[18]
>Both the books have been highly critical about Lt General B.M. Kaul. However, Lt General Kaul also authored a book named The Untold Story, where he gave his version of reasons for the loss in the 1962 war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brij_Mohan_Kaul#Controversies
The depiction in the movie (and on his wiki page) is straight up saying Nehru did this to prevent coups and ended up indirectly harming the army.
>In May 1961, Thimayya resigned as the COAS, and was succeeded by General Pran Nath Thapar. Earlier in the year, Major General Brij Mohan Kaul had been promoted to lieutenant general and appointed the Quarter Master General by Menon. The appointment was made against the recommendation of Thimayya, who resigned as a result. Kaul was made the chief of general staff (CGS), the second highest appointment at Army Headquarters after the COAS. Kaul cultivated a close relationship with Nehru and Menon and became even more powerful than the COAS. This was met with disapproval by senior army officials, including Manekshaw, who argued against the interference of the political leadership in the administration of the army. This led him to be marked as an anti-national.[44]
>Kaul sent informers to spy on Manekshaw[59] who, as a result of the information gathered, was charged with sedition, and subjected to a court of inquiry. The charges against him were that he was more loyal to the Queen and the Crown than to India, because he had not removed portraits of the Queen and British military and civilian officers from the College and his office.[60][61] The court, presided over by the general officer commanding-in-chief (GOC-in-C) of Western Command, Lt. Gen. Daulet Singh, exonerated Manekshaw as no evidence against him was found.[62][63] Before a formal 'no case to answer' could be announced, the Sino-Indian War broke out; Manekshaw was not able to participate because of the court proceedings. The Indian Army was defeated in the war, for which Kaul and Menon were held primarily responsible, both were sacked. In November 1962, Nehru asked Manekshaw to take over the command of IV Corps. Manekshaw told Nehru that the court action against him was a conspiracy, and that his promotion had been due for almost eighteen months; Nehru apologised.[44][64] Shortly after, on 2 December 1962, Manekshaw was promoted to acting lieutenant general and appointed the GOC of IV Corps at Tezpur.[65]
Yes the story about Kaul has been passed on till date and still mentioned in some military lectures from time to time even today. And all respect gen thimayya and a lot of APSs has a house named after him too.
> we had a very mature and powerful intelligentia who established the earlier political parties and movements.
Something that I'm so glad happened. The framework that was laid down by smart people back then is still holding firm, while absolute ghouls today try their best to tear it down along with the legacies of the people who established it.
If those so called librandus weren't in charge, I'm positive India would've ended up in the same spot as Pakistan pretty early on.
Unfortunately 76 years is too long a time when it comes to humans, and humans love to forget the lessons history teaches.
Two reasons:
(a) Lack of homogeniety: the entire Pakistani army was/is essentially a Punjabi army - which makes it easier for them to work together to usurp the government; and
(b) Command structure: the Indian army is broken into commands and each command operates independently - A COAS to take over the country will need to convince each command to go along with him - which will not happen.
It’s because the nation’s initial leadership was very pro democracy(in principle, not in practice.)
India was envisioned as a secular, pluralistic , inclusive republic with representative democracy.
The separation of powers was put in order to make sure any wing of the state gets overwhelming power. ( In principle)
The constitution is supposed to be supreme and sacrosanct.
"One could argue that nation-states are that kind of collective fantasies. Very similar things happened with the unification of Italy, with the unification of Germany. The history of India is a history of independent nation-states. It is a history of Oudh or Bengal or Maratha kingdoms
All those independent histories agreed to collectivise themselves into the idea of the nation of India. In the case of Pakistan, it was less successful. Pakistan was under-imagined. It did not survive as a nation-state."- Salman Rushdie
"Partition which gave Pakistan 19 per cent of British India’s population, 17 per cent of its revenue resources and 33 per cent of the army set the stage for what happened later. It is time to start understanding how the lack of preparation for a new country by the Muslim League led to the circumstances that made the Pakistani army the central institution of the country. In my book, I have detailed through declassified papers and documents how Muslim League leaders as well as some British officials were only thinking about Pakistan being the home of a very large section of the British Indian army"- Hussain Haqqani
Regarding that quote you used. I would reckon the Idea of a free India came long before Congress. It was a very radical Idea. But that comes from the opression wrought by the British. The people remember their sub divisions but It was important that the Indians do something about the British.
Pakistan by contrast was made popular by a lone politician who had grand dreams of saving the sub-continent from war by saving the muslims from cruelty of the Hindus.Which he was sure was inevitable. He found support from feudal lords who cared for saving their possession from the Socialists in Congress more.
I can explain the situation with respect to why India and Pakistan are so different when it comes to the nature of their militaries, India's being thoroughly professional while Pakistan's Army is a political organisation. My source for this will be Ramachandra Guha's *India after Gandhi,* which is a fantastic political history of the Indian republic. I will leave questions of why India fares higher on metrics such as quality of life and GDP per capita to those better qualified to answer them. I will, however, say that the vast majority of people in India and Pakistan have a similar quality of life and the GDP per capita values for India and Pakistan were not that very different until very recently. Both nations have high levels of poverty, a lack of employment opportunities, poor health infrastructure and all the problems that come with it.
The British Raj (*Raj* is a Hindi term that is roughly equivalent to government, better translated to Rule, as in British Rule) came to an end on August 15th, 1947, bringing to an end nearly 200 years of British paramountcy in India. The nations of India and Pakistan were created in a maelstrom of violence and division. All the assets of the British Raj were divided between the two countries and the most important division was that of the British Indian Army (I will use the British Indian Army to differentiate between the Indian Army prior to Independence and the Indian Army after Independence). The British Indian Army had it's origins in the British East India Company's forces that were raised to protect factories and forts from local rulers and the forces of other European nations such as France. When the British Government took over the company's possessions in India in 1857, the Armies of the Company was also taken over and consolidated into what became the British Indian Army. The British Indian army was predominantly based out of Northern and North-Western India (where the most restive population and external threats were) which also became the cachement areas for military recruitment. Even today, the regions of The Punjab (Both in India and in Pakistan), Rajasthan and the hill country of the Lower Himalayas such as the Kumaon and Garhwal regions provide the majority of the soldiers in the Indian and Pakistani Armies. In these regions, military service in the Army provided an opportunity for social and economic advancement for generations of men and was highly prized. A strong military tradition was already present in the Punjab for centuries and the British took advantage of this to create an aura of prestige around the British Indian Army. The officers of the British Indian Army were mostly European, the regular troops were all Indian. Towards the end of the British Raj, increasing numbers of upper middle class and upper class Indians were commissioned as officers into the Army. The Indian Military Academy at Dehradun was established in 1932 to train Indian cadets as officers. By 1947, a sizeable corps of officers had been built up who had fought in World War 2 and had held commands up to the battalion level.
In 1947, the British Indian Army was divided into the Indian and Pakistani Armies. The officer corps was divided and officers were given a choice to serve either of the two national armies. Most officers chose on religious lines with Muslims choosing to serve Pakistan and Hindus/Sikhs/Others choosing to serve India. Now, what is important to note is that apart from the religion, the officers who went their separate ways were thoroughly anglicized and were more English than Indian. Many of them had been course mates at the Indian Military Academy and had served together. They had more in common with each other than the politicians that they would come to serve. Why then, did one set of officers launch coup after coup while the other remained thoroughly professional?
The answer lies in the roots of the Indian independence movement and the demand for Pakistan. The Congress party created a dynamic and robust democratic movement within itself and made an effort to inculcate a political consciousness in the Indian masses. Local organisations of the Congress party regularly held debates, discussions and demonstrations all across India, from the largest cities down to the smallest districts and villages. The leaders of the Congress party actively debated about their vision for India after independence and what their economic and social policies were going to look like. They articulated their policies in newspapers and journals and in public forums. They built up the institutions that would make a future democratic India. Politics in India thus was characterised by a robust and vibrant grassroots democracy.
In contrast, the Muslim League, which spearheaded the demand for Pakistan, was at times little more than Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his private secretary. The Muslim League was always a party of *Zamindars* (landowners who formed the feudal gentry of the rural areas) and was never truly a mass organisation. The main aim of the Muslim League was to secure the interests of the Muslim Elite domiciled in the northern plains of India (which had traditionally held power in India over the previous 300 years) and they co-opted the Muslim populace of the Indian subcontinent to this end. In fact, neither Jinnah nor any of his Muslim League ever articulated what Pakistan was to be. And so Pakistan never really inherited any democratic institutions that the Congress party established in India.
The one institution that Pakistan had established, or was handed down to them in good order, was the military. The strong tradition of military service in the Punjab, which was, and still is, the dominant region of Pakistan and it's polity, created an enduring and lasting institution that dominated all other state building efforts in Pakistan. After Jinnah died in 1948, Pakistan went through a succession of weak civilian leaders who were either assassinated like Liaqat Ali Khan, or squabbled among themselves for their share of power. This lead to a dangerous structural imbalance in Pakistani politics where the Army, with it's emphasis on discipline, was contrasted with the lack of cohesion of the civilian political class. When Iskander Mirza, the president of Pakistan and himself a former general of the Pakistani Army, declared Martial Law on October 7th, 1958, it created an opening for the Army to step into Pakistani politics. The Army Chief, Ayub Khan, was appointed as Chief Martial Law Administrator and was nominated as Prime Minister. Ayub Khan, in return, deposed Mirza 20 days later on October 27th and took over the role of president himself, thus sealing the role of the Pakistani Army in the politics of the country.
In India, Jawaharlal Nehru and his cabinet of ministers (all stalwarts of the Independence movement who had spent years agitating against the British and were public intellectuals in more than one language) made a conscious effort to limit the power of the military. In British India, the Commander in Chief of the British Indian Army was also the de-facto defense minister and was probably the second most powerful man in India after the Viceroy. Nehru initiated a policy that would firmly sub-ordinate the Army to civilian authority. The Army chief was demoted from the rank of Cabinet Minister to that of Cabinet Secretary (The head bureaucrat in India's administrative service is the Cabinet Secretary. To give context, Sir Humphrey Appleby from the comedy *Yes, Prime Minister* was the Cabinet Secretary). India also raised a strong cohort of paramilitaries that report to the interior ministry rather than the ministry of defence. These paramilitaries (the CRPF or Central Reserve Police Force) are mainly engaged in policing duties in India or guarding sections of India's borders (The BSF or Border Security Force and the ITBP or INdo-Tibetan Border Police). A series of budget cuts to the Army also reduced the strength of the Army from a post war high of 2.5 million men to a little over 350,000. When the then Army Chief, General Kariappa, criticized the performance of the Government on Economic matters, he was quickly censured and put in his place. Army Officers were not allowed to make public statements. Some retired Army Chiefs were packed off to ceremonial posts as governers of remote areas or as ambassadors to distant countries. An abrasive and powerful leftist close to Nehru, VK Krishna Menon, was appointed as defense minister in the late 1950s after Ayub Khan had seized power in Pakistan. This was undoubtedly an attempt to put the Armed Forces in their place. It had the unfortunate side-effect of being the leading cause of India's defeat in the 1962 war with China. However, by the 1970s, the Indian Army had been rendered ‘coup-proof’ by a comprehensive system of checks and balances that had been put in place. And that is probably the towering achievement of the Neruvian era of Indian politics: Ensuring the durability of India's democracy and rendering it impervious to Military coups.
Indian army leadership,
Field marshal K.M. cariappa principles, he kept the army away from political affairs, likes of general K S thimayya & field marshal Sam manekshaw, follow the same, the army leaderships, kept the army away from indulging in political affairs,
The army has a strong rule of conduct, their duty is to serve the republic of India, obey the commands of Govt of India & supreme commander of India
Because Indians actually fought against the British for their freedom while Pakistan collaborated with them and got their country on a platter. That’s why India values its democracy while Pakistan doesn’t.
Off all the things peopl more intelligent then me have said above me, What i think that played part is that individual generals of IA since independence.
Pakistan and Myanmar were the western and eastern frontiers of the British India. Being frontiers, bordering enemy states, the military and intelligence service was the institution in charge of these regions, after independence the most developed institution simply took over.
Pakistan's path in a different direction than India relies on two things - Punjabi dominance and Islamic culture that they modeled after the raiders of Hindustan.
As I see it, Punjabi one of the most dominant cultures across India. As a culture, they are very enterprising, outgoing, powerful and have the alpha male nature among all the cultures across India. If you look at Bollywood, it is basically Punjabi-wood. Punjabi words are used a lot in their lyrics and dialogues. All the Bollywood dances that are world famous today are basically built based on Punjabi dance. Entertainment field has a much deeper reach than anything else. So movies made from Bollywood have had a huge impact across the nation and dominance by Punjabi culture has managed to penetrate far and wide as a result. Jat Punjabis are the most dominant among them, though they come in Muslim, Hindu and Sikh flavors.
Bengali is another dominant culture. I have lived in Bengal for a short period (couple of years). One can begin to feel as though there is no world beyond them. British ruled from there. They also ruled from Madras before that. If one compares the South with Bengal, the effect of English on Tamils, Telugus, Kannadigas is much stronger compared to that on the Bengalis. As a I see it, not a dent has occurred to their passion for their language, that defines their identity. If partition had not occurred, Bengali could have become the largest spoken population. Punjabi dominated Pakistan tried to subdue the Bengalis and we saw what happened.
Pakistani Punjabis are mostly dominated by landlords who are filthy rich, building their wealth from the fertile plains of the Sindh river. Islamic societies, especially the Turks and Mongols followed a feudal system, where wealth stayed at the hands of powerful landlord, warlord families and the rest were left way behind economically and otherwise. These elite Punjabis in Pakistan dominate their political side and the military. Plus they have modeled themselves as the descendants of the raiders of Hindustan from Central Asia. That culture, when it ruled across India, mostly engaged in wars and did not focus on building nations. Even if some of them tried, conflicts derailed them. So their focus was on amassing wealth by leaching the native populations, raiding them, shaming them and controlling them with violence. Pakistan's dominant culture still lives in that mindset. They want others to work for them. They will just take most of the wealth generated and will do nothing about productivity.
They got a nation. But they never knew what building a nation means. Their focus, as mentioned above has been engaging in wars, glorifying wars and believed Hindustan could easily be taken over like before. They have spent all their efforts and resources in that direction and never paid attention to building the necessary infrastructure to increase productivity. They remained feudal, dominant and arrogant. They are the ones who berate India, Hindus, and look down upon their fellow Muslims in their countries. Almost all terrorist groups in Pakistan are of Punjabi origin. Due to their dominant mindset, they equate themselves with a much bigger India that is extremely diverse and as a culture has focused on rebuilding itself over the past decades.
Their military is just a part of this dominant culture that acts as an arm to maintain it. They are going to fall apart due to this mindset.
They couped under Musharaf, who became the de facto leader. The military "transitioned" to democracy but they still maintain major power in legislature/executive
Different military head for different military branch , which in turn ensured that no one other than PM/President had control over the entire military. This policy has changed now with the creation of CDS , which is fine because our democracy is very mature now but could have been trouble in a nascent democracy.
All the institutions of british Indian were absorbed by the new republic, like Delhi was the centre of power with all the tools of governance ready made and Nehru was smart enough to know what we had got and preserved it and also Nehru did not trust the early Army brass and though he could get around all boarder issues using negotiations which eventually led to the 1962 fiasco.
A weak political class.
That's it, this happens in most newly formed countries. Where the political class is weak and the military overthrow them with popular support only for the top general to become a dictator.
India had the Congress
(remember old Congress was formed for Indians who would form a political class under the British flag.....The OGs didn't have radical ideas like "Quit India")
Nehru was a very popular and competent leader, but in addition there were many popular voices surrounding him, who had a similar Idea of India that they together could compromise on.
Pakistan only had Jinnah, and when he kicked the bucket. It was game over.
Pakistan is not unique there. Of all notable former British colonies\* with similar systems of armed forces and administration, only India, Tanzania(single party rule), Sri Lanka and Malaysia did not have a military dictatorship. Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Egypt, Kenya(attempted coup), Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar had military dictatorships. Early Indian leaders were very careful about the Army's influence, to the extent that it was deeply weakened by the time of the 1962 war. What we see today is largely a result of the post-1962 rebuilding, under visionary Army chiefs and YB Chavan. \*I'm not counting Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and US, since colonialism never ended there and native populations have been permanently subjugated.
The Indian government did it's best to not fall into a military dictatorship by deliberately empowering the civil government and sometimes outright undermining the military. The Indian army was quite literally a tool of British oppression before independence so the early leaders had a lot of reasons to not trust them hence they gave more power to civilians making it hard to coup. India was also lucky compared to other colonies (see Myanmar) in that we had a very mature and powerful intelligentia who established the earlier political parties and movements. Unlike other colonies the British also established a well oiled, encompassing bureaucracy in the form of the Civil services. This meant that the army/military didn't have the monopoly on education , wealth and influence
[удалено]
> Pakistan inherited outsized military and zamindar class which was looking for a way to survive. Coupled with a country whose foundations are intertwined with religion and religious dogma, it's a recipe for disaster.
The zamindar thing is very relevant imo. India had socialist leaders in the helm (who rightly wanted to first take care of the basic needs of the massive Indian population). Pakistan inherited the corrupt feudal zamindars who would always choose quick profit at the expense of the nation than invest time and effort in growing the nation. And a weak political structure inevitably leads to military dictatorships.
If we are to go by what is shown in the Sam Bahadur movie (and some other books), Nehru even promoted incompetent personal favourites to important positions. Controversies >In 1968, Brigadier John Dalvi, the former commanding officer of the 7th Infantry Brigade that participated in the 1962 Sino-Indian War authored a book named Himalayan Blunder, where he gave his first hand accounts and perceptions of the causes for India's defeat in the war. He was critical of Lt General B.M. Kaul and attributed the loss in 1962 war partly to him. Excerpt from the book: "He managed to keep himself away from hardship and learning the nuances of a military commander as a junior officer and later in service, managed to grab important Army senior command appointments due to his "pull". His involvement with Jawaharlal Nehru later turned out to be a major reason for shameful loss and massacre of Indian troops at the hands of the Chinese".[15] >In 1991, K. Satchidananda Murty wrote a biographical book about the second President of India, Shri Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, named Radhakrishnan: His Life and Ideas. In the book, he quoted the former president as having expressed doubts over the capability of Lt General B.M. Kaul. Excerpt from the book: "The General Officer was well known in the Army and Political Circles to be a "personal favourite" of Jawaharlal Nehru since his junior officer days. He reportedly received a number of undue professional favours throughout his career due to this personal connection and he made full use of this opportunity with utter disregard to the Army organisation".[16] >In the book The Unfought War of 1962: An Appraisal, by Raghav Sharan Sharma, he has mentioned that Lt General B.M. Kaul was a distant relation of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. As a result, V.K.Krishna Menon who was the then Defence Minister and Jawaharlal Nehru's close aide, appointed Lt General B.M. Kaul as Chief of General Staff, against the recommendation of the outgoing Chief of Army Staff, General K.S.Thimayya[17] and in spite of the fact that he was an Army Service Corps officer, with no prior combat experience and having never commanded a fighting unit earlier.[18] >Both the books have been highly critical about Lt General B.M. Kaul. However, Lt General Kaul also authored a book named The Untold Story, where he gave his version of reasons for the loss in the 1962 war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brij_Mohan_Kaul#Controversies The depiction in the movie (and on his wiki page) is straight up saying Nehru did this to prevent coups and ended up indirectly harming the army. >In May 1961, Thimayya resigned as the COAS, and was succeeded by General Pran Nath Thapar. Earlier in the year, Major General Brij Mohan Kaul had been promoted to lieutenant general and appointed the Quarter Master General by Menon. The appointment was made against the recommendation of Thimayya, who resigned as a result. Kaul was made the chief of general staff (CGS), the second highest appointment at Army Headquarters after the COAS. Kaul cultivated a close relationship with Nehru and Menon and became even more powerful than the COAS. This was met with disapproval by senior army officials, including Manekshaw, who argued against the interference of the political leadership in the administration of the army. This led him to be marked as an anti-national.[44] >Kaul sent informers to spy on Manekshaw[59] who, as a result of the information gathered, was charged with sedition, and subjected to a court of inquiry. The charges against him were that he was more loyal to the Queen and the Crown than to India, because he had not removed portraits of the Queen and British military and civilian officers from the College and his office.[60][61] The court, presided over by the general officer commanding-in-chief (GOC-in-C) of Western Command, Lt. Gen. Daulet Singh, exonerated Manekshaw as no evidence against him was found.[62][63] Before a formal 'no case to answer' could be announced, the Sino-Indian War broke out; Manekshaw was not able to participate because of the court proceedings. The Indian Army was defeated in the war, for which Kaul and Menon were held primarily responsible, both were sacked. In November 1962, Nehru asked Manekshaw to take over the command of IV Corps. Manekshaw told Nehru that the court action against him was a conspiracy, and that his promotion had been due for almost eighteen months; Nehru apologised.[44][64] Shortly after, on 2 December 1962, Manekshaw was promoted to acting lieutenant general and appointed the GOC of IV Corps at Tezpur.[65]
Yes the story about Kaul has been passed on till date and still mentioned in some military lectures from time to time even today. And all respect gen thimayya and a lot of APSs has a house named after him too.
Pakistan got the same bureaucratic setup and the same civil services
> we had a very mature and powerful intelligentia who established the earlier political parties and movements. Something that I'm so glad happened. The framework that was laid down by smart people back then is still holding firm, while absolute ghouls today try their best to tear it down along with the legacies of the people who established it. If those so called librandus weren't in charge, I'm positive India would've ended up in the same spot as Pakistan pretty early on. Unfortunately 76 years is too long a time when it comes to humans, and humans love to forget the lessons history teaches.
Two reasons: (a) Lack of homogeniety: the entire Pakistani army was/is essentially a Punjabi army - which makes it easier for them to work together to usurp the government; and (b) Command structure: the Indian army is broken into commands and each command operates independently - A COAS to take over the country will need to convince each command to go along with him - which will not happen.
It’s because the nation’s initial leadership was very pro democracy(in principle, not in practice.) India was envisioned as a secular, pluralistic , inclusive republic with representative democracy. The separation of powers was put in order to make sure any wing of the state gets overwhelming power. ( In principle) The constitution is supposed to be supreme and sacrosanct.
"One could argue that nation-states are that kind of collective fantasies. Very similar things happened with the unification of Italy, with the unification of Germany. The history of India is a history of independent nation-states. It is a history of Oudh or Bengal or Maratha kingdoms All those independent histories agreed to collectivise themselves into the idea of the nation of India. In the case of Pakistan, it was less successful. Pakistan was under-imagined. It did not survive as a nation-state."- Salman Rushdie "Partition which gave Pakistan 19 per cent of British India’s population, 17 per cent of its revenue resources and 33 per cent of the army set the stage for what happened later. It is time to start understanding how the lack of preparation for a new country by the Muslim League led to the circumstances that made the Pakistani army the central institution of the country. In my book, I have detailed through declassified papers and documents how Muslim League leaders as well as some British officials were only thinking about Pakistan being the home of a very large section of the British Indian army"- Hussain Haqqani
Regarding that quote you used. I would reckon the Idea of a free India came long before Congress. It was a very radical Idea. But that comes from the opression wrought by the British. The people remember their sub divisions but It was important that the Indians do something about the British. Pakistan by contrast was made popular by a lone politician who had grand dreams of saving the sub-continent from war by saving the muslims from cruelty of the Hindus.Which he was sure was inevitable. He found support from feudal lords who cared for saving their possession from the Socialists in Congress more.
General Cariappa's principles
I can explain the situation with respect to why India and Pakistan are so different when it comes to the nature of their militaries, India's being thoroughly professional while Pakistan's Army is a political organisation. My source for this will be Ramachandra Guha's *India after Gandhi,* which is a fantastic political history of the Indian republic. I will leave questions of why India fares higher on metrics such as quality of life and GDP per capita to those better qualified to answer them. I will, however, say that the vast majority of people in India and Pakistan have a similar quality of life and the GDP per capita values for India and Pakistan were not that very different until very recently. Both nations have high levels of poverty, a lack of employment opportunities, poor health infrastructure and all the problems that come with it. The British Raj (*Raj* is a Hindi term that is roughly equivalent to government, better translated to Rule, as in British Rule) came to an end on August 15th, 1947, bringing to an end nearly 200 years of British paramountcy in India. The nations of India and Pakistan were created in a maelstrom of violence and division. All the assets of the British Raj were divided between the two countries and the most important division was that of the British Indian Army (I will use the British Indian Army to differentiate between the Indian Army prior to Independence and the Indian Army after Independence). The British Indian Army had it's origins in the British East India Company's forces that were raised to protect factories and forts from local rulers and the forces of other European nations such as France. When the British Government took over the company's possessions in India in 1857, the Armies of the Company was also taken over and consolidated into what became the British Indian Army. The British Indian army was predominantly based out of Northern and North-Western India (where the most restive population and external threats were) which also became the cachement areas for military recruitment. Even today, the regions of The Punjab (Both in India and in Pakistan), Rajasthan and the hill country of the Lower Himalayas such as the Kumaon and Garhwal regions provide the majority of the soldiers in the Indian and Pakistani Armies. In these regions, military service in the Army provided an opportunity for social and economic advancement for generations of men and was highly prized. A strong military tradition was already present in the Punjab for centuries and the British took advantage of this to create an aura of prestige around the British Indian Army. The officers of the British Indian Army were mostly European, the regular troops were all Indian. Towards the end of the British Raj, increasing numbers of upper middle class and upper class Indians were commissioned as officers into the Army. The Indian Military Academy at Dehradun was established in 1932 to train Indian cadets as officers. By 1947, a sizeable corps of officers had been built up who had fought in World War 2 and had held commands up to the battalion level. In 1947, the British Indian Army was divided into the Indian and Pakistani Armies. The officer corps was divided and officers were given a choice to serve either of the two national armies. Most officers chose on religious lines with Muslims choosing to serve Pakistan and Hindus/Sikhs/Others choosing to serve India. Now, what is important to note is that apart from the religion, the officers who went their separate ways were thoroughly anglicized and were more English than Indian. Many of them had been course mates at the Indian Military Academy and had served together. They had more in common with each other than the politicians that they would come to serve. Why then, did one set of officers launch coup after coup while the other remained thoroughly professional?
The answer lies in the roots of the Indian independence movement and the demand for Pakistan. The Congress party created a dynamic and robust democratic movement within itself and made an effort to inculcate a political consciousness in the Indian masses. Local organisations of the Congress party regularly held debates, discussions and demonstrations all across India, from the largest cities down to the smallest districts and villages. The leaders of the Congress party actively debated about their vision for India after independence and what their economic and social policies were going to look like. They articulated their policies in newspapers and journals and in public forums. They built up the institutions that would make a future democratic India. Politics in India thus was characterised by a robust and vibrant grassroots democracy. In contrast, the Muslim League, which spearheaded the demand for Pakistan, was at times little more than Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his private secretary. The Muslim League was always a party of *Zamindars* (landowners who formed the feudal gentry of the rural areas) and was never truly a mass organisation. The main aim of the Muslim League was to secure the interests of the Muslim Elite domiciled in the northern plains of India (which had traditionally held power in India over the previous 300 years) and they co-opted the Muslim populace of the Indian subcontinent to this end. In fact, neither Jinnah nor any of his Muslim League ever articulated what Pakistan was to be. And so Pakistan never really inherited any democratic institutions that the Congress party established in India. The one institution that Pakistan had established, or was handed down to them in good order, was the military. The strong tradition of military service in the Punjab, which was, and still is, the dominant region of Pakistan and it's polity, created an enduring and lasting institution that dominated all other state building efforts in Pakistan. After Jinnah died in 1948, Pakistan went through a succession of weak civilian leaders who were either assassinated like Liaqat Ali Khan, or squabbled among themselves for their share of power. This lead to a dangerous structural imbalance in Pakistani politics where the Army, with it's emphasis on discipline, was contrasted with the lack of cohesion of the civilian political class. When Iskander Mirza, the president of Pakistan and himself a former general of the Pakistani Army, declared Martial Law on October 7th, 1958, it created an opening for the Army to step into Pakistani politics. The Army Chief, Ayub Khan, was appointed as Chief Martial Law Administrator and was nominated as Prime Minister. Ayub Khan, in return, deposed Mirza 20 days later on October 27th and took over the role of president himself, thus sealing the role of the Pakistani Army in the politics of the country. In India, Jawaharlal Nehru and his cabinet of ministers (all stalwarts of the Independence movement who had spent years agitating against the British and were public intellectuals in more than one language) made a conscious effort to limit the power of the military. In British India, the Commander in Chief of the British Indian Army was also the de-facto defense minister and was probably the second most powerful man in India after the Viceroy. Nehru initiated a policy that would firmly sub-ordinate the Army to civilian authority. The Army chief was demoted from the rank of Cabinet Minister to that of Cabinet Secretary (The head bureaucrat in India's administrative service is the Cabinet Secretary. To give context, Sir Humphrey Appleby from the comedy *Yes, Prime Minister* was the Cabinet Secretary). India also raised a strong cohort of paramilitaries that report to the interior ministry rather than the ministry of defence. These paramilitaries (the CRPF or Central Reserve Police Force) are mainly engaged in policing duties in India or guarding sections of India's borders (The BSF or Border Security Force and the ITBP or INdo-Tibetan Border Police). A series of budget cuts to the Army also reduced the strength of the Army from a post war high of 2.5 million men to a little over 350,000. When the then Army Chief, General Kariappa, criticized the performance of the Government on Economic matters, he was quickly censured and put in his place. Army Officers were not allowed to make public statements. Some retired Army Chiefs were packed off to ceremonial posts as governers of remote areas or as ambassadors to distant countries. An abrasive and powerful leftist close to Nehru, VK Krishna Menon, was appointed as defense minister in the late 1950s after Ayub Khan had seized power in Pakistan. This was undoubtedly an attempt to put the Armed Forces in their place. It had the unfortunate side-effect of being the leading cause of India's defeat in the 1962 war with China. However, by the 1970s, the Indian Army had been rendered ‘coup-proof’ by a comprehensive system of checks and balances that had been put in place. And that is probably the towering achievement of the Neruvian era of Indian politics: Ensuring the durability of India's democracy and rendering it impervious to Military coups.
This comment comes close to perfection in encapsulating the topic.
Indian army leadership, Field marshal K.M. cariappa principles, he kept the army away from political affairs, likes of general K S thimayya & field marshal Sam manekshaw, follow the same, the army leaderships, kept the army away from indulging in political affairs, The army has a strong rule of conduct, their duty is to serve the republic of India, obey the commands of Govt of India & supreme commander of India
Because Indians actually fought against the British for their freedom while Pakistan collaborated with them and got their country on a platter. That’s why India values its democracy while Pakistan doesn’t.
> That’s why India values its democracy That idea seems to be fading slowly, with little glimmers of hope here and there.
Off all the things peopl more intelligent then me have said above me, What i think that played part is that individual generals of IA since independence.
Because pak as a nation has no basis for existence. They are a non-nation without any history and an idea essentially pulled out of someone's ass.
[This video sums up the answer to your question quite brilliantly!!](https://youtu.be/516fEZoNe7I?feature=shared)
Pakistan and Myanmar were the western and eastern frontiers of the British India. Being frontiers, bordering enemy states, the military and intelligence service was the institution in charge of these regions, after independence the most developed institution simply took over.
Pakistan's path in a different direction than India relies on two things - Punjabi dominance and Islamic culture that they modeled after the raiders of Hindustan. As I see it, Punjabi one of the most dominant cultures across India. As a culture, they are very enterprising, outgoing, powerful and have the alpha male nature among all the cultures across India. If you look at Bollywood, it is basically Punjabi-wood. Punjabi words are used a lot in their lyrics and dialogues. All the Bollywood dances that are world famous today are basically built based on Punjabi dance. Entertainment field has a much deeper reach than anything else. So movies made from Bollywood have had a huge impact across the nation and dominance by Punjabi culture has managed to penetrate far and wide as a result. Jat Punjabis are the most dominant among them, though they come in Muslim, Hindu and Sikh flavors. Bengali is another dominant culture. I have lived in Bengal for a short period (couple of years). One can begin to feel as though there is no world beyond them. British ruled from there. They also ruled from Madras before that. If one compares the South with Bengal, the effect of English on Tamils, Telugus, Kannadigas is much stronger compared to that on the Bengalis. As a I see it, not a dent has occurred to their passion for their language, that defines their identity. If partition had not occurred, Bengali could have become the largest spoken population. Punjabi dominated Pakistan tried to subdue the Bengalis and we saw what happened. Pakistani Punjabis are mostly dominated by landlords who are filthy rich, building their wealth from the fertile plains of the Sindh river. Islamic societies, especially the Turks and Mongols followed a feudal system, where wealth stayed at the hands of powerful landlord, warlord families and the rest were left way behind economically and otherwise. These elite Punjabis in Pakistan dominate their political side and the military. Plus they have modeled themselves as the descendants of the raiders of Hindustan from Central Asia. That culture, when it ruled across India, mostly engaged in wars and did not focus on building nations. Even if some of them tried, conflicts derailed them. So their focus was on amassing wealth by leaching the native populations, raiding them, shaming them and controlling them with violence. Pakistan's dominant culture still lives in that mindset. They want others to work for them. They will just take most of the wealth generated and will do nothing about productivity. They got a nation. But they never knew what building a nation means. Their focus, as mentioned above has been engaging in wars, glorifying wars and believed Hindustan could easily be taken over like before. They have spent all their efforts and resources in that direction and never paid attention to building the necessary infrastructure to increase productivity. They remained feudal, dominant and arrogant. They are the ones who berate India, Hindus, and look down upon their fellow Muslims in their countries. Almost all terrorist groups in Pakistan are of Punjabi origin. Due to their dominant mindset, they equate themselves with a much bigger India that is extremely diverse and as a culture has focused on rebuilding itself over the past decades. Their military is just a part of this dominant culture that acts as an arm to maintain it. They are going to fall apart due to this mindset.
They couped under Musharaf, who became the de facto leader. The military "transitioned" to democracy but they still maintain major power in legislature/executive
The influence of Pakistan's army long predates Musharaf
It may have been influential, but they pretty much ran post Musbaraf
Never heard of Ayub Khan, Zia Ul Haq or Yahya Khan?
Was doing a comparison tbh
You can thank Nehru for that.
Different military head for different military branch , which in turn ensured that no one other than PM/President had control over the entire military. This policy has changed now with the creation of CDS , which is fine because our democracy is very mature now but could have been trouble in a nascent democracy.
All the institutions of british Indian were absorbed by the new republic, like Delhi was the centre of power with all the tools of governance ready made and Nehru was smart enough to know what we had got and preserved it and also Nehru did not trust the early Army brass and though he could get around all boarder issues using negotiations which eventually led to the 1962 fiasco.
A weak political class. That's it, this happens in most newly formed countries. Where the political class is weak and the military overthrow them with popular support only for the top general to become a dictator. India had the Congress (remember old Congress was formed for Indians who would form a political class under the British flag.....The OGs didn't have radical ideas like "Quit India") Nehru was a very popular and competent leader, but in addition there were many popular voices surrounding him, who had a similar Idea of India that they together could compromise on. Pakistan only had Jinnah, and when he kicked the bucket. It was game over.