Why India has never seen a military dictatorship

A true story: In 1957, the then Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, visiting the office of general Thimayya, the chief of the army staff, saw a steel cabinet behind his desk, and asked the general what it contained.

The general replied that the top drawer contained the nation’s defence plans. And the second drawer contained the confidential files of the nation’s top generals.

And what about the third drawer, enquired Nehru.

Ah, said the general with a straight face, the third drawer contains my secret plans for a military coup against you.

Nehru laughed, but there was apparently a tinge of nervousness to his laughter.

Military dictatorships have been a common phenomenon in the post-colonial states of Asia and Africa, and in the 1950s and 1960s, a dictatorship in India was not an impossibility. In fact, while covering the 1967 general elections, The Times correspondent, Neville Maxwell, prophesied that these might well be the last elections ever in the country. And he was not the only one who believed that sooner or later, India would fall under military rule.

But that eventuality, of course, never happened.

By the 1970s, the Indian armed forces had finally been rendered ‘coup-proof’ by a comprehensive system of checks and balances that had been put in place. And that might be considered to be one of the major achievements of the Nehru era: Ensuring the durability of Indian democracy. It’s an achievement that is not sufficiently recognised; an achievement underscored by the fact that all our South Asian neighbours—Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka—have experienced military coups, actual or attempted.

confuzzled dude wrote:Idiot BJP and its idiot bhakts should STFU.

southindian wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Idiot BJP and its idiot bhakts should STFU.

???????

The article is nice but this above is so disjointed. Doesn't make ANY sense... but I'm not surprised to see in your post.

A highlight—or, rather, lowlight—of that ring-fencing programme was the appointment of Krishna Menon, a powerful, abrasive, leftist intellectual, as defence minister. It was an attempt to put the armed forces unambiguously in their place. Unfortunately, it also had the unintended side effect of leading to the stinging defeat of 1962, but that is a different story.

Hellsangel wrote:

A highlight—or, rather, lowlight—of that ring-fencing programme was the appointment of Krishna Menon, a powerful, abrasive, leftist intellectual, as defence minister. It was an attempt to put the armed forces unambiguously in their place. Unfortunately, it also had the unintended side effect of leading to the stinging defeat of 1962, but that is a different story.

Let's gloss over that.

southindian wrote:Since 1947 Indian democracy was a single party rule for most of Nehru's life as PM. India was multi-party with only a few fringe parties and Nehru's seemingly democratic rule was  autocratic. India knows this.

Do you understand the meaning of word "autocratic"?

Here's some text from your post that will help you understand the term... something that you conveniently missed. This will give you "knowledge", why Nehru is shown is bad light. The last line below shouldn't surprise you.

Next came a series of budget cuts (resulting, among other things, in hefty cuts in army officers’ generous Raj-era salaries). And when India’s first army chief, field marshal Cariappa, publicly criticised the government’s economic performance, he was immediately rapped on the knuckles, and told not to meddle in matters that did not concern him.

Over the years a systematic programme was pursued to ring-fence the armed forces, and their influence in Indian society—a programme that was given fresh urgency in 1958 by the military coup in next-door Pakistan (an occurrence that was worryingly to put the armed forces unambiguously in their place. Unfortunately, praised by field marshal Cariappa, who had recently retired as army chief). A highlight—or, rather, lowlight—of that ring-fencing programme was the appointment of Krishna Menon, a powerful, abrasive, leftist intellectual, as defence minister. It was an attempt it also had the unintended side effect of leading to the stinging defeat of 1962, but that is a different story.

confuzzled dude wrote:

southindian wrote:Since 1947 Indian democracy was a single party rule for most of Nehru's life as PM. India was multi-party with only a few fringe parties and Nehru's seemingly democratic rule was  autocratic. India knows this.

Do you understand the meaning of word "autocratic"?

Here's some text from your post that will help you understand the term... something that you conveniently missed. This will give you "knowledge", why Nehru is shown is bad light. The last line below shouldn't surprise you.

Next came a series of budget cuts (resulting, among other things, in hefty cuts in army officers’ generous Raj-era salaries). And when India’s first army chief, field marshal Cariappa, publicly criticised the government’s economic performance, he was immediately rapped on the knuckles, and told not to meddle in matters that did not concern him.

Over the years a systematic programme was pursued to ring-fence the armed forces, and their influence in Indian society—a programme that was given fresh urgency in 1958 by the military coup in next-door Pakistan (an occurrence that was worryingly to put the armed forces unambiguously in their place. Unfortunately, praised by field marshal Cariappa, who had recently retired as army chief). A highlight—or, rather, lowlight—of that ring-fencing programme was the appointment of Krishna Menon, a powerful, abrasive, leftist intellectual, as defence minister. It was an attempt it also had the unintended side effect of leading to the stinging defeat of 1962, but that is a different story.

I guess you'd have loved military ruled India..

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Nehru was a moron with an inflated ego. He neglected the Indian military. Soldiers fighting in the 1962 war suffered because they didn't have proper equipment or strategy. In fact, Nehru was notorious for disregarding inputs from military commanders.

India of the 21st century is still paying a price for his stupidity. Pakis and Chinese privately cut jokes on how Indian politicians behave like cowards.

If CONmen didn't rule India for 60 years, India would have been ahead of China.

The Mani Shankar Aiyers of India are responsible for India being viewed as a weak country.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

southindian wrote:Since 1947 Indian democracy was a single party rule for most of Nehru's life as PM. India was multi-party with only a few fringe parties and Nehru's seemingly democratic rule was  autocratic. India knows this.

Do you understand the meaning of word "autocratic"?

Here's some text from your post that will help you understand the term... something that you conveniently missed. This will give you "knowledge", why Nehru is shown is bad light. The last line below shouldn't surprise you.

Next came a series of budget cuts (resulting, among other things, in hefty cuts in army officers’ generous Raj-era salaries). And when India’s first army chief, field marshal Cariappa, publicly criticised the government’s economic performance, he was immediately rapped on the knuckles, and told not to meddle in matters that did not concern him.

Over the years a systematic programme was pursued to ring-fence the armed forces, and their influence in Indian society—a programme that was given fresh urgency in 1958 by the military coup in next-door Pakistan (an occurrence that was worryingly to put the armed forces unambiguously in their place. Unfortunately, praised by field marshal Cariappa, who had recently retired as army chief). A highlight—or, rather, lowlight—of that ring-fencing programme was the appointment of Krishna Menon, a powerful, abrasive, leftist intellectual, as defence minister. It was an attempt it also had the unintended side effect of leading to the stinging defeat of 1962, but that is a different story.

I guess you'd have loved military ruled India..

Indulging in your favorite mind-sport of jumping to conclusions, Comrade?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

southindian wrote:Since 1947 Indian democracy was a single party rule for most of Nehru's life as PM. India was multi-party with only a few fringe parties and Nehru's seemingly democratic rule was  autocratic. India knows this.

Do you understand the meaning of word "autocratic"?

Here's some text from your post that will help you understand the term... something that you conveniently missed. This will give you "knowledge", why Nehru is shown is bad light. The last line below shouldn't surprise you.

Next came a series of budget cuts (resulting, among other things, in hefty cuts in army officers’ generous Raj-era salaries). And when India’s first army chief, field marshal Cariappa, publicly criticised the government’s economic performance, he was immediately rapped on the knuckles, and told not to meddle in matters that did not concern him.

Over the years a systematic programme was pursued to ring-fence the armed forces, and their influence in Indian society—a programme that was given fresh urgency in 1958 by the military coup in next-door Pakistan (an occurrence that was worryingly to put the armed forces unambiguously in their place. Unfortunately, praised by field marshal Cariappa, who had recently retired as army chief). A highlight—or, rather, lowlight—of that ring-fencing programme was the appointment of Krishna Menon, a powerful, abrasive, leftist intellectual, as defence minister. It was an attempt it also had the unintended side effect of leading to the stinging defeat of 1962, but that is a different story.

I guess you'd have loved military ruled India..

Indulging in your favorite mind-sport of jumping to conclusions, Comrade?

What do you think was he suggesting? Wasn't this true that during 1st Indo-pak war Indian military was stronger than the executive branch

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

southindian wrote:Since 1947 Indian democracy was a single party rule for most of Nehru's life as PM. India was multi-party with only a few fringe parties and Nehru's seemingly democratic rule was  autocratic. India knows this.

Do you understand the meaning of word "autocratic"?

Here's some text from your post that will help you understand the term... something that you conveniently missed. This will give you "knowledge", why Nehru is shown is bad light. The last line below shouldn't surprise you.

Next came a series of budget cuts (resulting, among other things, in hefty cuts in army officers’ generous Raj-era salaries). And when India’s first army chief, field marshal Cariappa, publicly criticised the government’s economic performance, he was immediately rapped on the knuckles, and told not to meddle in matters that did not concern him.

Over the years a systematic programme was pursued to ring-fence the armed forces, and their influence in Indian society—a programme that was given fresh urgency in 1958 by the military coup in next-door Pakistan (an occurrence that was worryingly to put the armed forces unambiguously in their place. Unfortunately, praised by field marshal Cariappa, who had recently retired as army chief). A highlight—or, rather, lowlight—of that ring-fencing programme was the appointment of Krishna Menon, a powerful, abrasive, leftist intellectual, as defence minister. It was an attempt it also had the unintended side effect of leading to the stinging defeat of 1962, but that is a different story.

I guess you'd have loved military ruled India..

Indulging in your favorite mind-sport of jumping to conclusions, Comrade?

What do you think was he suggesting? Wasn't this true that during 1st Indo-pak war Indian military was stronger than the executive branch

See bolded above. HTH

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

I guess you'd have loved military ruled India..

Indulging in your favorite mind-sport of jumping to conclusions, Comrade?

What do you think was he suggesting? Wasn't this true that during 1st Indo-pak war Indian military was stronger than the executive branch

See bolded above. HTH

And?!?! I read it as military rule would've been better than Nehru's administration and knowing BJP bhakts adoration for anything related to Pakistan & Islam, I'm not surprised with his comments.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

I guess you'd have loved military ruled India..

Indulging in your favorite mind-sport of jumping to conclusions, Comrade?

What do you think was he suggesting? Wasn't this true that during 1st Indo-pak war Indian military was stronger than the executive branch

See bolded above. HTH

And?!?! I read it as military rule would've been better than Nehru's administration and knowing BJP bhakts adoration for anything related to Pakistan & Islam, I'm not surprised with his comments.

southindian wrote:


Assumption! Assumption!! Assumption!!!

CD, the only thing you got right on SuCH... is your ID.

confuzzled dude wrote:

southindian wrote:


Assumption! Assumption!! Assumption!!!

CD, the only thing you got right on SuCH... is your ID.

OKAY but what were you trying to say in your original post where you were lecturing me about autocratic regime.

• Nehru had maximum seats in parliament. No opposition. Nehru could take decisions he wanted and he did.
  
• Nehru and Menon clipped the army due to fear of coup in India. India did not need army rule, since Nehru did what army does after coup. Army reduces civilian power. Nehru did the same with Army. (Read from your link).
  
• Nehru was short tempered and his shoving of personal decisions/choices on India affected India's security.
  
• Nehru/Menon's decisions weekend Indian armed forces resulting in 1962 defeat against China.
  
• Nehru did not take decisions by democratic consensus, but through his personal agenda much the same way an army general does after coup.
  

southindian wrote:
CD, that's a very good question.

I always tell kids... Ask if you don't know. Just don't assume what the other person is saying/writing.

Also... everything that others tell you is not lecture... otherwise you'd be Senior Emeritus Professor here on SuCH.

By autocratic I meant that

• Nehru had maximum seats in parliament. No opposition. Nehru could take decisions he wanted and he did.
  
• Nehru and Menon clipped the army due to fear of coup in India. India did not need army rule, since Nehru did what army does after coup. Army reduces civilian power. Nehru did the same with Army. (Read from your link).
  
• Nehru was short tempered and his shoving of personal decisions/choices on India affected India's security.
  
• Nehru/Menon's decisions weekend Indian armed forces resulting in 1962 defeat against China.
  
• Nehru did not take decisions by democratic consensus, but through his personal agenda much the same way an army general does after coup.
  

His daughter Indira did the same in 1975 during emergency.