Sind die Zivil- und Militärbehörden Indiens ausgerichtet?
Sind die Zivil- und Militärbehörden Indiens ausgerichtet?
5 Kommentare
When the military starts drifting away from the civilian government, its time to bring the military into line.
SS: In *Foreign Policy*, Sumit Ganguly examines a worrying disjunction in India’s civil-military equation, where the armed forces increasingly fill the silence left by civilian leaders on matters of national security. After the recent military skirmish with Pakistan, it was not the Defense Minister but Chief of Defense Staff Anil Chauhan who publicly acknowledged the loss of Indian aircraft, an admission that, while controversial, laid bare the growing absence of political voice and strategic ownership.
Ganguly traces this pattern to deeper institutional drift: once governed by a post-independence ethos of civilian supremacy established by Nehru, India’s civil-military relations now show signs of inversion. His account evokes the figure of Bhishma in my mind, who vowed to serve the Kuru throne without question, loyal to a lineage even when it lost its moral compass. Like Bhishma, India’s military has long upheld its constitutional oath with discipline: no political ambitions, no heirs, no ideological posturing, just perfect soldiering. Yet when the throne falters and the court turns mute, even such fidelity risks becoming a tragic burden.
The military’s forays into political commentary and public policy criticism, uncensured by the civilian leadership, are not signs of rebellion but of misalignment, of a warrior class bound by duty, yet left without guidance. Ganguly does not raise the specter of a coup, but warns that without a confident and assertive civilian hand on the reins, India’s strategic apparatus may become unmoored, led not by principle, but by inertia and improvisation.
Probably more than most countries on Earth tbh
Never seen a modern population which rallied around the flag and openly admire/support their military more than Indians during Op Sindoor. Makes sense due to how fiercely patriotic India is
Maybe other than the USA in the 20th century, and Pakistanis before they became blackpilled from Imran Khan getting imprisoned
What Indians do have a problem with is the “babu” culture and useless layers of bureaucratic inefficiencies, but this effects all layers of gov, not just the military
The writer is overthinking—he needs to cool down. I don’t think, in any democracy, leaders openly admit that they’ve lost jets or aircraft. If they do, they risk losing public support. Has any democratic leadership ever admitted to such losses? The Chief of Defence Staff’s interview was a disaster—nothing more. No one admits their losses. Just look at Pakistan—every satellite image shows their airbases being destroyed, but has anyone there admitted it? Do civilian leaders in any country ever acknowledge such losses?
The writer is just trying to create a huge sense of drama, implying that the Indian government has no control over the military, which is pure nonsense. If Indian companies like HAL are unable to deliver jets on time, then criticism and raising concerns are absolutely valid. In fact, every Indian is asking why the jet deliveries are being delayed.
However, expecting the Indian Defence Minister to hold press briefings instead of defence personnel is a completely childish thought. The Defence Minister doesn’t even know the ABCs of military operations—how is he expected to conduct a technical press briefing? It’s an immature and exaggerated take by the writer, nothing more.
In a broad sense, very much. Civilians are quite proud of their nation, the flag, and the army which serves as the guardian of their vested national interests. I do understand where the civilian pride for the nation comes from, to some extent. Post British era, the nation was in a condition worse than some African regions back then. As much as the Brits like denying their past and finding excuses for their wrong-doings, it is still very much a fact that their rule left the Indian subcontinent so impoverished that it’s kind of astonishing really. Bouncing back from those hellish conditions to the point that most of the world can safely call India, a regional power, is frankly dumbfounding and a matter of pride for the Indians who’ve seen those dark days. The only nation which has exceeded this level of growth is obviously China. To digress: the same kind of nationalistic pride is seen in China too. Yes, Xi regime is far from the best (freedom and all), but they did bring a never-before-seen economic boom which continues today and refuses to show any signs of stopping anytime soon. Coming back to India: the military is also very much in line with public sentiment and its not that common to see everywhere. People are very much willing to serve the country and the enrollment numbers are staggering. The military shares a common sense of pride in their work and a generally positive attitude of the government and devotion to its people. In short, India is probably one of those handful of countries where the civilian and military are absolutely on the same page, for the better or for worse (for Pakistan maybe, for I don’t see how that can be a bad thing).