Secular Army

Veeresh, {``And for what it is worth, which is a lot, it is a great contribution to Independent India that those who do not wear uniforms and may be communal themselves, made sure that those in uniform remained secular, too.``}

Thank you for sharing such positive thoughts with all of us. Armed forces can be an insurance against tyranny or a cause of it. India, as you correctly pointed out, has been very fortunate in this regard. However, I think it is much more than mere dumb luck. It is the very difficult commitment to tolerance, that Indians have painstakingly safeguarded, that creates the climate for this cherished outcome. Even Indira`s ``emergency`` in the 70s was not able to convince the military to change its time-honored role.

Tolerance for dissent and respect for individual rights are the twin pillars that protect civilized societies from the onslaught of fascism, militarism, and theocratic rule. Just look at Chowk, for example. You once noted, some years ago, that Chowk was a meeting place of all sorts of characters with freedom to say what`s on their minds. The sad fact is that the opposite is true. Chowk is an oligarchy of favored interactors, Chowk Staff pets, and selected ``brahmins.`` When dissenters are discovered, they are tagged, deleted, and finally banned with insidious attempts to ban them from even accessing the website. In real life, these Chowkmasters would have resorted to threats, arrest, exile, and if necessary death.

Yes, I do appreciate India much more since coming to Chowk. More than its economic strides, more than its movies, more than its military might, more than its numerous beautiful tourist destinations, I admire India`s commitment to tolerance, fairness, and freedom of speech. Jai Hind. :)

Salim

Why does every article on India have to mention Pakistan? I have never been able to figure that out. To me anytime one mentions someone else to point out something about one`s self, it is a sign of under-confidence. For example, if someone thinks their wife is good-looking, all they need to say is, ``My wife is good-looking.`` Not, ``My wife is good-looking, because your`s is ugly.`` The former shows confidence, the later shows under-confidence........

``That Jinnah`s instructions for the introduction of religion as a litmus test for remaining in the Pakistan Armed Forces at the inaugural ceremonies in Karachi on the 14th of August 1947 was part of such a dream was visible very soon.``

Could you point me to the speech. I was unaware of any such restriction..........

Re: # 2
//...Why does every article on India have to mention Pakistan?...//

because Veeresh loves to f!nger you pakis.....Now watch the pakis do the monkey-dance!!!

#2 by Romair on August 24, 2005 11:54am PT


Why does every article on India have to mention Pakistan?


Looks who`s talking...

when El-Presidente congratulated paki space scientists when they took charge of a beat-up hughes piece of junk, he told everyone in Pakiland that Pakiland was now ahead of India is space tech.....yup..ahead of India that has launched it`s own satellite...

#4, {``yup..ahead of India that has launched it`s own satellite...``}

So that`s what you call Temporal when he had too much bhang and accidentally strayed into India? :)

thank you arjun

``That this did not happen in India is probably the best contribution made to Independent India by those who wear uniforms. And for what it is worth, which is a lot, it is a great contribution to Independent India that those who do not wear uniforms and may be communal themselves, made sure that those in uniform remained secular, too. ``

Agreed!! Well said.........................but attempts have always been made by the communalists to communalize the ranks................however, by and large the officers appear to be very secular in their views......

romair/02, the record of this instruction, that the Pakistani Armed Forces were going to use religion as a litmus test, exists.

I am not saying this was good, bad, whatever.

Furthermore:-

1) I did not use the word ``restriction``, you did.

2) There are more than 2000 documented cases of Armed Forces officers of all religions, including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Parsees, who hailed from what is today Pakistan & Bangladesh, changing over to India in and around 1947.

3) There is not one case of a non-Muslim Armed Forces officer doing the reverse, from what is today India changing over to Pakistan.

+++

The instruction to replace a Hindu officer with a Muslim officer leading the parade for the first unfurling of the Pakistani flag by Shri Jinnah on 14th of August `47 is the main reason that I was born an Indian. Not only can I point you to that instruction but I can also point you to the families of both officers involved in Karachi on 14th of August 1947.

Please understand, I say this without any acrimony or dual meanings. The winds of fate could have made you an Indian too, as easily as they made me.

+++

#2 by Romair

[Why does every article on India have to mention Pakistan?]

Captain Clueless, you just made my day. Just the other day, when Pakistan ``tested`` a cruise missile, Mushy claimed that it was better than India`s BrahMos, and unlike the BrahMos which was jointly developed by Indian and Russian scientists, the ``Paki`` missile was entirely ``indigenous``.

Yeah its great to see officers saluting our old and arthritic civilian leaders but is it that big a deal? Can the people of India with their heightened sense of freedom and political awareness ever be subjugated by a bunch of men wielding guns? I dare them to try.

INA support for Japan during World War II would have been an act of folly if Japan had advanced into Indian heartland.

Romair # 2
Indian Army`s professionalism stands in start contrast to other regional armies - not just Pakistan. Burma has a pretty unprofessional military.

Hi Veeresh

Nice article and you made some interesting points which you could have pushed further.

1. The Secular Army?
In a coutry, where most institutions have failed completely the army is glorifies as `secular`, apolitical reflecting our own failures. An army is as good or as bad as the people of the country it is drawn from. How long will the Indian Army remain secular and apolitical when the public sphere and the body politic is slowly becoming undemocratic and communal?

2. The Apolitical army?
the Indian army is apolitical not only because of its traditions and its commanders but more importantly because the political space for it to take over is just not there. The very nature of politics in India, parties representing different groups,castes and aspirations is the result of the democratic processes initiated by the freedom movement ,supported by the Constitution. While the process has been through its ups and downs, it is still a viable process and it has left little space, despite its many failures, for the army to take over.
(Perhaps this is a good time to acknowledge Nehru for laying the foundations of democracy. Whatever the faults the poor man is cursed for today, remember you can curse him only coz its a democracy.)

The point here is that, while i am proud of the army, I am not grateful to it for its apolitical nature. To do so, is to be grateful to the postman who delivers post or the electricity guy for doing his work etc.

Veeresh, I do hope you understand what I mean. As a son of an Army officer i am proud of the army as well. My school, Army Public School,Delhi has a martyr`s gallery to honour its aluminis who died in Kargil and lots of my classmates serve in the army now.

And yet, I also see the army as the most colonial institution in India. Perhaps its these very colonial traditions that keep it secular , at the same time, one must recognise that the system of orderlies for officers and other such vanities has to come to an end.

cheers

Aditya

Re: # 2

Romair:

````That Jinnah`s instructions for the introduction of religion as a litmus test for remaining in the Pakistan Armed Forces at the inaugural ceremonies in Karachi on the 14th of August 1947 was part of such a dream was visible very soon.``

Could you point me to the speech. I was unaware of any such restriction.......... ``

---

This incident was reported in ``Freedom at Midnight`` by lapierre and Collins. Jinna wanted all the non-Muslims out of the Pakistani army.. While in India, people in the army are given a choice, in Pakistan there was no choice for non-Muslims. Actually an incident in which an accidental firing by a Sikh soldier (I believe resulted in no injuries/death) in a Sikh regiment based in Pakistan started off a rumor that the departing Sikh regiments are killing Muslims, and that resulted in large scale killing of Hindus/Sikhs.. Actually I think rumors killed a lot of folks..

while there are no doubts about the secular character of Indian Army and its distance from the politics,but I fail to understand what was the need to have regiments inthe names of religions/castes etc...e.g. Sikh regiment, Mahaar regiment,Sikh LI etc....and I have witnessed family members of Army officers using caste-based derogatory language for some regiments .

Re: # 6

``but attempts have always been made by the communalists to communalize the ranks.``

can you please elaborate? Any eg.

Re: # 13

``but I fail to understand what was the need to have regiments inthe names of religions/castes etc...``

It was started by Brits and have been left intact after independence.
there are no regiments based on religion other than the Sikh regiment and SLI.

Some time back there was a question of restructuring the army without any caste/regional affiliations.
People in favor of the current form argued that it would take more time and effort for people from two distinct areas to understand and build camarederie between them. Some cite it as an internal strength of the army as soldiers fight for the honor of the regiment.

``I am not grateful to it for its apolitical nature. To do so, is to be grateful to the postman who delivers post or the electricity guy for doing his work etc.``

Aditya, that was an astounding statement because it was so completely true.

Yet...to be able to assert that `truth` one has to live in a very lucky, fairly well-run country. I am sure you would agree.