When Jawaharlal Nehru died there was an intelligence red alert of the possibility of a military coup. An artillery brigade had been moved from Ambala to Delhi for annual field firing at the Tughlakabad range, and this coincided with the death of Nehru.
Though a military coup or a successful military invasion may result in a soldier capturing political power, there is a difference between the two. The former is directed against a government to which one owes loyalty and the latter against a government to which one does not. History abounds with examples of both. In the modern age military coups have been taking place while in the earlier days the other was more common.
Early examples of military coups are those of Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon Bonaparte. In modern times, several military coups have taken place, particularly in countries liberated from colonial rule in Asia and Africa. Modern India has a shining military coup-free record. There have been only two instances, both very long ago. The great Mauryan Empire founded by Chandragupta Maurya, comprising present-day India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, had shrunk considerably in 185 BC. The latter Greeks under Demetrius had come to the border, threatening invasion. Brihadratha, the last Mauryan ruler, was an imbecile. His commander-in-chief, Pushyamitra Sunga, assassinated him and became the ruler. The other instance was that of Hyder Ali, a successful military leader, removing the Wadiyar ruler of Mysore. Hyder Ali’s son Tipu Sultan succeeded him on his death.
All countries gaining independence from their colonial rulers in Asia and Africa have had military coups, except India. Coups have been endemic in Pakistan. Both the Indian and Pakistan Armies have a common origin and were part of the undivided Indian Army, but they have gone completely different ways. The main reason is that India had the advantage of having Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister for 17 years. The country had political stability under him. A great democrat, he established democratic polity on a firm footing. In Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, died within a year of its independence, leading to political instability. Even the first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated not long after. Because of political instability, Pakistan has witnessed a series of military coups. Unlike Pakistan where the officer class is almost entirely Punjabi and Pathan — who have much in common — the officers of the Indian Army have a very diverse background. Moreover, the Indian Army is multi-religious, with a secular outlook. On the other hand, the Pakistan Army has become a one-religion army of religious fundamentalists.
In spite of the Indian Army’s apolitical record, the fear of the man on horseback has been a constant factor in India, particularly among civil servants who have exploited this to feather their own nest and keep the Army under stifling control. They have persistently denied the Army its legitimate dues and have isolated it from decision-making on military matters. Nehru was quite clear that a military coup was not likely in India. In his letter of February 5, 1948, to chief ministers, he wrote, “We know that many attempts have been made to tamper with the Army but we also know that the Army has withstood these attempts and is a significant force, disciplined and loyal to the government.” Yet, the apprehension about the man on horseback did not disappear in our ruling establishment. There have been a few hiccups in civil-military relations.
General K.S. Thimayya was a very celebrated soldier who had earned great professional fame. He was the only Indian to have commanded a brigade in the Second World War. He represented the Indian Army at the surrender ceremony at Singapore in 1945, when Count Hisaichi Terauchi, the Supreme Commander of the Japanese Army in South East Asia, surrendered to Mountbatten. Thimayya commanded the Indian brigade of the occupation force in Japan. In December 1948, he personally led the successful attack from a leading tank when for the first time in history tanks were used on the forbidding height of Zoji la. In 1953, Thimayya was appointed as chairman of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission and was sent to Korea by the United Nations. In 1957, he took over as the Chief of the Indian Army. Apart from his brilliant military career he was a highly popular general who was referred to as the “Soldier’s General”. Defence Minister V.K. Krishna Menon was very abrasive with the service chiefs and showed little regard for them. Menon would often interfere by dealing directly with military officers, bypassing the chiefs. This led to Thimayya writing to Prime Minister Nehru tendering his resignation. Other service chiefs were also to tender their resignation. Rumours started floating that a military coup was imminent. A national controversy surfaced in the press and I can say from personal knowledge that Army officers felt very disturbed. Nehru sent for Thimayya and asked him to withdraw his resignation in the national interest. Being a patriotic soldier, he complied. What happened thereafter was most unfortunate, but we need not go into the details of that.
Lt. Gen. B.M. Kaul, against the recommendations of Thimayya, had been promoted from major general and brought as Quartermaster General at Army Headquarters. He sent for me and I was made his staff officer as also to work with a new section called Q (operations), which has now grown into the directorate of operational logistics. He would often speak to Nehru on the RAX (restricted area exchange) telephone in my presence. He even took liberties with the defence minister and Thimayya, then a sulking chief. I felt that if any general had political ambition it was Kaul, as even mentioned in Welles Hangen’s After Nehru, Who? In 1961, Kaul rewarded me by sending me to the UK on a prestigious inter-service training course at their National Defence College. Thus, I was not in any way involved in the 1962 debacle, which changed the fortune of Kaul and led to his quitting the Army.
When Nehru died there was an intelligence red alert of the possibility of a military coup . An artillery brigade had been moved from Ambala to Delhi for annual field firing at Tughlakabad range, and this coincided with the death of Nehru. The then director, Intelligence Bureau, B.N. Mullik, told me later that he was personally shadowing the Army Chief, Gen. Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri, during Nehru’s funeral procession. The other incident of an intelligence alert took place in 2010, when Gen. V.K. Singh was the Army Chief. Two para battalions had been moved from Mathura to Hindon for a joint training exercise. This coincided with Gen. Singh going to the Supreme Court against the decision of the government on his date-of-birth controversy. The defence secretary intervened, conveying the government’s order to send back the two para battalions from Hindon to Meerut. These two incidents only highlight the apprehension of people in authority of the Army carrying out a coup.
Having been closely associated with the Indian Army for 70 years now, including 40 years service in the Army, I can most emphatically rule out that our Army will ever stage a coup. It has always, with unquestioning loyalty, carried out the nation’s will and it will never impose its will on the nation. The fear among the bureaucracy of the man on horseback is unfounded.
The writer, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir
No comments:
Post a Comment