The use of military symbols to project nationalism by the Narendra Modi-led government has dangerous ramifications. In trying to portray Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and some other Jawaharlal Nehru University students as anti-national, the government unfortunately used Lance Naik Hanumanthappa’s tragic death due to an avalanche in the Siachen glacier in Jammu and Kashmir. The obvious aim was to steer the discourse towards a binary framework – national versus anti-national, or simply, us versus them. Ex-servicemen have also been commandeered to be the torchbearers of patriotism with invitations to meetings, like the one held at Jawaharlal Nehru University recently. Prima facie, there seems to be nothing wrong with this. What is wrong is the brand of competitive nationalism that is being imposed.
On February 24, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the student wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party, held an event at Jawaharlal Nehru University during which armed forces veterans were invited to speak to the university administration. The veterans reportedly asked for a war memorial to be built and a tank to be installed on the JNU campus to instil a sense of nationalism among the university’s students.
Playing with fire
That’s not all. A 2-minute-long video provocatively titled Freedom of Action is being actively circulated on Twitter and WhatsApp these days. It shows two men dressed in Army fatigues with guns ostensibly trained across India’s border. One of them asks the other: “Afzal Guru ki barsi kab hai?” (When is Afzal Guru’s death anniversary?) Both laugh awkwardly. Suddenly, one soldier says he can hear something. He then abruptly turns around and trains his gun in the opposite direction, essentially taking aim at the unseen so-called anti-nationals shouting slogans in India. The other soldier tells his comrade that killing them is useless, as he would be killing only people and not the ideology, to which the first one replies that a man who has broken his relationship with his mother has broken all his relationships. He then goes on to take aim. The message in that film is clear: The Army – the ultimate instrument of state violence – should turn upon people within India who are deemed to be anti-national.
This brings us to the complex debate of civil-military relations.
The Indian armed forces are modelled on the British system. Civilian control of the military is taken for granted in such a set-up. The military in a liberal, democratic society must remain strictly apolitical for it to remain professional. The officer corps plays an important role in this as they are the decision makers of an arm of the State that is capable of violence. Political scientist Samuel Huntington refers to this as “objective civilian control” which is desirable for an effective civil-military balance of power. This maximises military professionalism and hence the security of the state. The role of the military, and, as a corollary, officers, in politics is non-existent. Civilian control is the independent variable to the dependent variable of military effectiveness. This is in stark contrast to “subjective control” where direct civilian assertion or interference can de-professionalise the military, which might ultimately result in a coup.
You don’t need to go far in the Indian subcontinent to see its obvious dangers. Pakistan is a standing example of “subjective control” where interference by Jinnah in the military immediately after Independence (he ignored the advice of his army commanders against the invasion of Kashmir and directly dealt with junior Army officers who were happy to oblige) began the process of politicisation of the Pakistan Army. Within a decade, the civilian government was overthrown, and Pakistan saw several years of military rule. Bangladesh too has had an uneasy relationship with the military – its founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, was assassinated in a bloody military coup within a few years of its independence. Myanmar too has been ruled by the military for the better part of its existence.
The Frankenstein warning
The complex of civil-military relations becomes a dangerous cocktail when mixed with religion. What seems to be a benign flirting with religion at the beginning, subsequently leads to massive inroads into the vitals of military effectiveness and competence.
The military has always been associated with masculinity and valour – defending the territorial integrity of the nation at any cost. The trouble starts when these values get mixed with symbols of religious identity in a politically charged atmosphere. A large army can be a beast – it can be extremely powerful in thwarting external aggression. This is why it is also sometimes used to quell internal strife and insurgencies. But the key is for the Army to always remain apolitical and non-partisan. At the same time, it should be subservient enough to civilian authority and not be allowed to become a monster like Frankenstein that turned upon its master.
So far, by all available evidence, only a minuscule section of retired armed forces personnel have showed signs of aligning with the ideology of Hindutva and the concept of a Hindu state. In contrast, the police has demonstrated its partisanship several times post Independence. The latest instance was seen at the Patiala House courts in Delhi where the police looked the other way even as teachers, students and journalists were assaulted by the self-proclaimed defenders of India.
Our political masters need to remember that the military has an almost paternal relationship with its community of veterans. Politicians who prod veterans to take sides are playing with fire because it won’t be long before serving personnel also start taking sides. To achieve their ends, stormtroopers in the form of foot soldiers of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad are being released as trial balloons. Once the genie of “military in politics” is out of the bottle, it will be dangerous to control. We still have time and not too much has been lost.
Guru Aiyar is a research scholar with Takshashila Institution.