|
The dreaded 'c'-word has rarely been
uttered in connection with the Indian Army because it is supposed
to have inherited in full measure the professional traditions of
its colonial mentors about the military being subservient to the
civil authorities. Hence, the idea of a coup d'etat has always
been deemed to be alien to its mindset.
That does not mean fears about what happens with distressing
frequency in neighbouring Pakistan being repeated in India haven't
been expressed. For instance, according to a biography of Field
Marshal K.M. Cariappa written by his son, the retired
commander-in-chief, as the post was known then, was appointed as
India's high commissioner to Australia in 1953 to forestall such a
possibility.
Cariappa did feel that "an indefinite President's rule all over
the country would do us a lot of good". He said in an interview
that during this period, "only such areas which may be unruly can
be given in the hands of the army" and that "only after the
restoration of normalcy can elections be held". This was in 1974.
A year later, the Emergency, which the enfant terrible of the
time, Sanjay Gandhi, wanted to be "indefinite", was imposed. But
that is another story.
What is relevant is that since Cariappa's time, all the army
chiefs have stuck to the straight and narrow path of neutrality.
Whether during defeat, as in 1962, or at a time of triumph, as in
1971, there hasn't been a whisper about the army nurturing
political ambitions.
The latest brouhaha, therefore, would have been seen as a storm in
a tea cup even if the prime minister had not called the report
about supposedly suspicious troop movements in January "alarmist".
Manmohan Singh's comment was followed by the army chief, Gen. V.K.
Singh, describing the Indian Express report as "stupid".
To complicate matters, the Free Press Journal of Mumbai claimed
that "some time in late January the services of this newspaper
were sought to be enlisted by elements hostile to the army chief
for putting out a report that he could even consider the
unthinkable if he did not get his way in his dispute over his
actual year of birth. Indeed, sources close to the government
suggested that he had given up the idea of the unthinkable only
because he had failed to enlist the support of the top army
brass".
Several factors can be held responsible for the rumpus, of which
competitive journalism is one. Of the others, the government's
palpable weakness because of its embroilment in various scams
provides an ideal setting for rumours about a coup, for it is
precisely such conditions which the armies elsewhere use to
overthrow a stumbling government.
Considering that responsible columnists believed that an Arab
Spring could not be ruled out in India, and even saw its first
signs in Anna Hazare's movement last year, showed how conducive
Delhi's hot house atmosphere was for such fanciful speculation. If
an Arab Spring could be envisaged, why not a coup?
There is little doubt that the "breaking news" syndrome - "there
are lots of people who want to make stories these days", to quote
Gen. Singh - plays a crucial part in sustaining the capital's
endless quest for gossip. To return to Cariappa, when the field
marshal sent an article to the Indian Express about his pet idea
of an "indefinite" President's Rule, the editor of the time, Frank
Moraes, returned it saying that it would embarrass the newspaper
and harm the former commander-in-chief's reputation.
Today, any newspaper or magazine or television will lap up any
such article sent by a retired general. At the same time, it also
has to be admitted that despite the cut-throat competition in the
media world, and the eagerness with which "experts" articulate
their views in "prime time" shows, instances of gross
irresponsibility are few and far between in spite of what the
irrepressible Press Council chief, Markandey Katju, may say.
But as the Niira Radia tapes showed, there are elements in the
government and outside who are involved in all kinds of games. The
"leakage" of the tapes and the "leakage" of Gen. Singh's letter to
the prime minster on the army's obsolescence are evidences of
insiders trying to undermine other insiders with the help of
journalists during a turf war.
However, the good news is that the institutions have stood firm.
There are no signs that anyone in the army wants to emulate Ayub
Khan or Zia-ul Haq. The media has tried to look at the scene
dispassionately even if some of them are momentarily swept off
course, as during Anna Hazare's agitation last year. The
judiciary, the Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor
General (CAG) are acting as the guardians of a free society.
Even the bumbling government has had the sense to respond with
dignity to attempts to create a mountain out of a molehill, as the
prime minister's reference to the "exalted office" of the army
chief shows.
Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. He can be
reached at amulyaganguli@gmail.com
|
Comments
|
Quick links