State Stability and the Military’s Loyalty to the State: Lessons From India’s Experience

Opinion

If you want to bring about a change of power in politics or the fall of a government, street protests alone are not enough—the role of the military and their loyalty to the constitution are the real determinants.

Recently, many in our country had made many assumptions about a particular political movement in India, dreaming of the fall of the government. But the reality is that emotions and field politics are one thing, and the foundation or institutional structure of a state is something completely different.

In India, the government cannot be overthrown by any unconstitutional means at will. The main reason for this is the country’s army. For more than seven decades since India’s independence, the army of that country has remained completely professional, patriotic and 100% loyal to the constitution. They have never been used as a pawn in any political conspiracy or as a pawn of foreign masters.

When many people failed to understand or accept this at the beginning of the movement, perhaps their emotional criticism escalated to abuse. But at the end of the day, the reality has not changed; the movement has indeed stopped, but the state structure remains steadfast in its place.

To understand how the apolitical position and professionalism of the military make a country a superpower and stable state, let’s look at other countries in the subcontinent that gained independence around the same time as 1947.

Since independence, military intervention has become a regular occurrence in Pakistan. The key to the country’s power has gone to the barracks. The result? In the past quarter of a century, no elected government in Pakistan has been able to complete its full five-year term. The military’s political ambitions have pushed the country towards a steady decline in politics and economy.

We have seen the same picture in the history of Bangladesh. Since independence, there have been several incidents of military intervention in politics. In 1975, the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family were brutally murdered by some deviant members of the army. In the following months, many brave freedom fighters and army officers had to give their lives. Martial law was imposed in the country.

Later, President Ziaur Rahman also lost his life at the hands of the army, and the country was under military rule for a long decade. Although democracy returned in 1990, the military-backed ‘One-Eleven’ government came to power in 2006. Even in the recent events of 2024, the role of the military and geopolitical calculations have determined the final outcome – where there have been allegations of decisions being taken without regard to the country’s constitution and oath.

India stands in stark contrast. In the more than 75 years since independence, the Indian Army has never once attempted to interfere in the politics of its country. From the Emergency to many socio-political crises, the army chiefs have always worked under civilian rule.

Politicians may make mistakes, governments may change, but the Indian Army continues to uphold the belief that the primary responsibility of the army is to ensure the security of the state and the constitution.

The stability of a country does not come by any miracle, but by the strength of its institutions. One of the pillars of the democratic structure that a country as vast and diverse as India has been able to maintain is the apolitical nature of the military. Those who want to understand the far-reaching impact of a change in power or a movement must understand this reality of geopolitics and the historical structure of the country’s military. Because the strong wall of institutional professionalism that India has built cannot be broken down in the wind of political tension.

–Affan ur Rahman Habib

Washington D.C.