Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Death Anniversary special: If Nehru had not been there

Paramilitary units were also formed in India to distribute the work of the army. The army is still the best option for the youth who wants money, prestige and power in Pakistan. The Commander-in-Chief was considered the second most important person in India during colonial rule. Though India’s political legacy and charismatic prime ministers and freedom fighters like Nehru are beyond any oblivion, the country has remembered them on many occasions. The present article is by the famous Gandhian thinker and writer Ramchandra Guha, in which he has highlighted the role of Nehru and the essentials of his political existence in a country like India and what is needed of a leader like Nehru in a democratic country. When the famous writer Aldous Huxley came to India in 1961, he was deeply disappointed to see the situation of overpopulation, unemployment and growing unrest here. In a letter to his brother, he wrote, ‘If Nehru is not there, it will not take long for the government to become a military dictator. As seen in all newly independent nations, where the military has become the most orderly and supreme centre of power.’ Just look at the tone of saying these words, ‘If Nehru was not there…’. Nehru died three years after Huxley’s visit. But neither at that time nor after that there was ever a situation of military rule in India. India’s position in this matter was different from all the countries of Asia and Africa like Myanmar, Ghana, Nigeria and Indonesia, where the military played an effective role in political life. India’s success can be felt more deeply when it is compared with the simultaneously independent Pakistan. In one country, the army honestly stays away from politics, while in another country there is excessive interference by the army, despite the shared historical and cultural values ​​and colonial slavery. A credible explanation of this conflicting attitude found in both countries is found in the new book Army and Nation by political scientist Steve Wilkinson of Yale University. In this book, Wilkinson enumerates several reasons for the difference in the directions of India and Pakistan. The first reason relates to the inherent difference in the social base of the major political parties of the two countries. The Congress had the support of a large section of the farmers and middle class all over the country. It was deliberately kept federal in nature. Various linguistic and cultural groups were adequately represented in it. The Government of India also started recruiting soldiers from those parts of the country to maintain balance in the army. On the other hand was the Muslim League, which had a narrow elite base. This included large landowners and professionals. The league proved to be a weak opponent in the face of the Pakistani army. But the Congress was so powerful, and its roots were so deep, that the Indian Army could not even think of challenging it. The second reason was that while the Pakistani army was dominated by a province, it was not so in India. During the two world wars, the British had recruited in large numbers from Punjab. When the country was divided, the army was also divided. The situation was that 72 per cent of the soldiers in the Pakistani army were Punjabi Muslims. In India too, Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus accounted for about 20 per cent in the army, which was comparatively not much. During this time the Government of India also started recruiting soldiers from those parts of the country which were traditionally under-represented to maintain balance in the army. Apart from this, paramilitary units were also formed in India to distribute the work of the army. The third reason was the instructions given from time to time to the army by the political leadership, through which the army was continuously made aware of their subordination. Wilkinson refers to a letter that Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to the British Commander-in-Chief in August 1947. In this, he wrote, ‘The policy of the Government of India should be followed in the policy related to the army or any other field. If an army officer finds himself incapable of following the policy laid down by the Government of India, he has no place in the Indian Army and the structure of the government.’ The fourth reason was the symbolic fall in the status of the official army. The Commander-in-Chief was considered the second most important person in India during colonial rule. At that time only the Viceroy used to have a bigger house than his house in New Delhi. Later Nehru started living in that house. After independence, the army chief was made answerable to the defence minister. The Defense Minister was responding to the Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Not only this, the new constitution of the republic placed the Chief of the Army at the twenty-fifth position in the official rank hierarchy. Cabinet ministers, governors, judges of the Supreme and High Courts were placed above the army chief. Chandravanshi Inc