It is interesting to note that, although the Pakistani and Indian political systems share many common features relating to history, military organization and an overall areal culture, the two systems have displayed contrasting patterns of civil-military relations. The armies of both the countries inherited the British Indian military traditions of non-involvement in politics, but in Pakistan the Army eroded this tradition by intervening decisively and frequently whereas in India, the principle of civilian supremacy remains intact. Their post-independence development, composition, and relationship with the civilian authority has been markedly different. This had a direct bearing upon the divergent roles of the armies of the two countries.
Given the variety of hypotheses that have been suggested as explanations for the contrasting behaviour of the two successor armies of British India, this article would examine several variables and relationships in comparative perspective under two sets of theoretical explanatory variables that are too often kept separate. These are: 1 the internal features of the military establishment1 and 2 the external or environmental variables.2
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
For emphasis on the military establishment variables see
PaukarGuy, “South-East Asia a Problem Area in the Next Decade,”World Politics (Princeton), Vol. XI, no. 3, April 1959, pp. 325–45; Lucian W. Pye, “Armies in the Process of Political Modernization,” in JohnsonJohn J. (Ed.), The Role of the Military in Underdeveloped Countries (Princeton, 1962), pp. 69–89; Morris Janowitz, ”Military in Political Development of New Nations: An Essay in Comparative Analysis (Chicago and London, 1964), pp. 31–74, and Henry Bienen, The Military and Modernization (Chicago, 1971), pp. 1–34
2.
For the theoretical formulations focusing on the relationship between the environmental variables and military intervention in politics see
FinerS.E., The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics (London, 1962); Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (London and New Haven, 1968), and Gavin Kennedy, The Military in the Third World (London, 1974)
3.
SinghNagendra, The Theory of Force and Organization of Defence in Indian Constitutional History: From Earliest Times to 1947 (New York, 1964), p. 265. For the Pakistani account of division of the armed forces, see Kalim Siddiqui, Conflict, Crisis and War in Pakistan (London, 1972), p. 74
4.
The percentage of the military participation ratio in Pakistan and India relating to their national populations is calculated on the basis of data obtained from the annual Military Balance of The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981–82 (London), pp. 79–80 and 86
5.
MacmillanMargaret, “The Indian Army Since Independence,”South Asian Review (London), Vol. III, no. 1, October 1969, p. 45
6.
CohenStephen P., “The Military and Politics in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.” Paper presented at the Symposium on British Commonwealth Politics, Kingston, 12–13 November 1972, p. 28
7.
8.
SayeedKhalid Bin, The Political Systems of Pakistan (Boston, 1967), p. 195, and Henry F. Goodnow, The Civil Service of Pakistan (New Haven, 1964), p. 107
9.
CohenStephen P., The Indian Army: Its Contribution to the Development of a Nation (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 180–82
10.
ChavanDefence Minister Y.B. in a speech at Poona declared: “We are all Kshatriyas now,” and that when it comes to the defense of the Indian nation, all are equally martial, whatever caste or class label they may wear. “Everyone has to become a Kshtriya to defend the country's honour.” The Statesman (New Delhi), 4 October, 1965.
11.
CohenStephen P., “The Military and Politics in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh,” n. 6, p. 23
12.
FeitEdward, The Armed Bureaucrats: Military Administrative Regimes and Political Development (Boston, 1973), p. 66
13.
KaulB.M., Untold Story (Bombay, 1967), p. 267
14.
WilcoxWayne A., “Political Change in Pakistan: Structures, Functions, Constraints and Goals,”Pacific Affairs (New York) Vol. XLI, no. 3, Fall 1968, p. 347
15.
SeeAltekarA.S., State and Government in Ancient India (Delhi, 1962), pp. 225–38. Also see J. C. Heesterman, “Power and Authority in Indian Tradition,” in MooreR. J. (Ed.), Tradition and Politics in South Asia (Delhi, 1979), pp. 66–83
16.
RudolphLloyd I.RudolphSusanne H., “Generals and Politicians in India,”Pacific Affairs, Vol. XXXVII, no. 1, Spring 1964, p. 5
17.
For an important interpretation of the nature and the functioning of the Congress Party in India see
Morris-JonesW. H., The Government and Politics in India (London, 1964), pp. 148–54, and Rajni Kothari, Politics in India (New Delhi, 1970), pp. 152–79
18.
See
EldersveldSamuel J.AhmedBashiruddin, Citizens and Politics: Mass Political Behaviour in India (Chicago and London, 1978). Also see Rajni Kothari, “Party Politics and Potical Development,” in KothariRajni (Ed.), The Context of Electoral Change in India (New Delhi, 1969), pp. 3, 16–18
19.
SinghM.P., “Social Structure, Electoral Processes, and Party System in India,”Indian Political Science Review (Delhi), Vol. XIV, no. 2, July 1980, p. 170
20.
In India, as in many other countries during the last decade, the total number of all kinds of paramilitary forces has risen to nearly one-third of the strength of the country's armed forces, which is over one million men. This can be gauged from the fact that in eleven years-1966 to 1977—expenditure on the centrally controlled forces alone shot up from $ 26.5 million to $ 375 million.MisraK.P., “Para-military Forces in India,”Strategic Digest (New Delhi), Vol. XI, no. 9, September 1981, p. 772
21.
CohenStephen P., “Military and Politics in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh,” n. 6, p. 18
22.
BhatiaKrishna, The Ordeal of Nationhood: A Social Study of India Since Independence (New York, 1971), p. 199
23.
FinerS.E., n. 2, pp. 81–87
24.
For details of frequency and forms of public involvement in politics in India, see
EldersveldSamuel J.AhmedBashiruddin, n. 18, pp. 180–81
25.
LaPorteRobertJr., Power and Privilege: Influence and Decision-Making in Pakistan (Berkeley, 1975), pp. 173–75
26.
SubrahmanyamK., “Zia's Strategy,”Strategic Analysis (New Delhi), Vol. V, nos. 1–2, April-May 1981, p. 85
27.
ChariP.R., “Civil-Military Relations in India,”Armed Forces and Society (London), Vol. IV, no. 1, Fall 1977, p. 26
28.
CohenStephen P., “Civilian Control of the Military in India,” in
WelchClaude E.Jr. (Ed.), Civilian Control of the Military: Theory and Cases from Developing Countries (New York, 1976), pp. 53–55
29.
ChopraM.K., “Democracy and Defence in India,”Military Review (Leavenworth), Vol. XLVII, August 1967, pp. 9–15 and Stephen P. Cohen, The Indian Army: Its Contribution to the Development of a Nation n. 9, p. 30. Also see Daljit Singh and Kathenne Singh, “The Military Elite and Problems of National Integration in India and Pakistan,” Indian Journal of Politics (Aligarh), Vol. VII, no. 2, July-December 1973, pp. 172–73
30.
KhanGeneral Ayub himself served as the Defence Minister from October 1954 to July 1955 in Mohammad Ali Bogra's second cabinet. He also retained the post of the Commander-in-Chief of the army during this period
31.
CohenStephen P., The Indian Army: Its Contribution to the Development of a Nation, n. 9, p. 176. Although stories have on different occasions been put in circulation that General K. M. Cariappa, General K. S. Thimayya, General J. N. Chaudhuri, General (later Field Marshal) S. H. F. J. Manekshaw have sometimes toyed with the idea of seizing power, these are in fact, preposterous allegations. It is evident that our officers have no stomach for politics, though the senior level officers do take keen interest in the political affairs of the nation and the world but all have stayed away from political power pursuits. For details see, S. K. Sinha, Of Military Matters (New Delhi, 1980), pp. 25–29, and V. Longer, “Army Politics in Two Nations,” National Herald (New Delhi), 11 June 1981, p. 7. For the attitudes of the army officers regarding the possibility and consequences of military rule in India see, Field Marshal Manekshaw's interview in Delhi Recorder, 14–28 December 1979, pp. 10–14. Also see Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora, “The Making of a Modern Army,” The Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 17 January 1982, pp. 1 and 6
32.
CohenStephen P., The Indian Army: Its Contribution to the Development of a Nation, n. 9, pp. 177–78
33.
HuntingtonSamuel P., “Civilian Control of the Military: A Theoretical Statement,” in
EulauHeinzEldersveldSamuel J.JanowitzMorris, (Eds.), Political Behaviour: A Reader in Theory and Research (Illinois, 1956), p. 381
