The Indian Political Leadership Never Understood the Dictum" Military Power is an Extension of the Political Aim"
Introduction
Indian history has great examples of the famous dictum by that great military thinker Baron Von Clausewitz " Military power is an extension of the Political aim". A study will show that the great Indian empire builders like the Maurya dynasty, Gupta dynasty, and Raja Harsha built up empires on military might. These periods are referred to as the Golden Age of India and this was possible because the emperors believed in soldiering as an honored profession and built up formidable armies. Chandragupta defeated the Greeks as well and forced the Greek ruler in Western India, Seleucus Nikatar to bite the dust. All these great kings built up a formidable elephant corps. History tells us that some of the Magadha kings had elephant forces that ran to as close as 60,000. This massive force was used to overawe the enemy and these warriors ushered in the Golden Age of India.
We must understand that though these kings had not read Clausewitz and his " Principles of War', yet they imbibed what he stated later and practiced the art of war. Unfortunately, by a combination of circumstances aided by traitors and moribund military thought the Hindus lost power to the Muslims and the Muslims in turn, were defeated by the English.
The defeat of the Muslims led to 190 years of English rule. The British ruled in a just and secular way, but the lynch pin of their rule was the military. They also produced some great soldiers like Robert Clive and the First Duke of Wellesley and this added to their luster. The British Indian army as it was called then was a potent force and greatly pampered by the English. It was used not only for law and order in India but also for wars overseas in China, Africa, and Europe.
The Indian political leadership at that time led by Gandhi and Nehru considered the British Indian army a mercenary force and did not trust it. One will recollect that in the massacre at Jallianwallah Bagh in Amritsar, the killing and firing was carried out by Indian soldiers under the overall command of Brigadier General Dyer. The freedom movement in Punjab was crushed and the Congress leadership should have realized the importance of the military. One cannot condone the acts of the British Indian army, but as an example of the military as an extension of political power, this cannot be understated.
The Nehru- Congress Period
The British left India in 1947. As I have pointed out in many of my articles, this withdrawal from India was necessitated not because of the antics of Gandhi or Nehru, but by a stark realization that the instrument by which they controlled India, the Indian armed forces were suspect as many had joined the India Legion and the Indian National army under that firebrand leader Subhash Chandra Bose. The British left India and a vacuum was created and the Congress party led by Nehru stepped in and became the rulers of India.
Nehru is an enigma. He was a scholar and had studied the history of India and was well aware of the potency of military power. But his mind was conditioned by his experience of the Raj and he distrusted the army. This distrust was to have a profound impact on the future of India. Nehru in his mind, still treated it as an imperialist force, forgetting that thousands had joined Bose in the fight for India's independence. Logically, he should have made the army the lynch pin of his political policy on the world stage. He did the opposite. He downgraded the army and refused to acknowledge the role of the Indian National Army and the India Legion. This policy was also dictated by a fear of Subhash Chandra Bose, who terrified him as an arrival of Bose on the scene at that time would have meant an eclipse for him.
Nehru also feared a military coup as in neighboring countries like Burma and Pakistan the army had ousted the civilian government. Add to this, his general distrust of the Indian army as a mercenary force, dictated his reasoning, which to say the least was irrational.
Nehru took the first negative step by recalling Indian troops from Tibet. By virtue of 1913, Simla Agreement between India, China, and Tibet, the British were entitled to position Indian army units in Tibet at about 5/6 places. This was a deterrence to China and made Tibet effectively a buffer state. Nehru in one stroke destroyed everything by calling back the Indian troops, which he felt were doing an 'imperialist duty". The Cin C, Indian army in 1947, opposed this move and warned Nehru of grave consequences. Nehru overruled him and India squandered a first class strategic position.
The Chinese under Mao understood the weakness of Nehru and invaded Tibet. The Peoples Liberation army was at that time a ragtag force and about 13000 troops were used by Mao. The ill-equipped Tibet army was defeated and the Dalai Lama appealed to India for help. Nehru refused, for reasons that have never been understood. Sardar Patel, the then deputy PM and Home Minister was keen for an Indian intervention to support Tibet, but Nehru prevailed. At that time, had Nehru intervened in Tibet, the more professional and better armed Indian army would have routed the ragtag combination of Mao. Tibet was occupied and Nehru just sat twiddling his thumbs.
Nehru started to consolidate his rule, but his fear of a military coup was always at the back of his mind. Matters were not helped when the Chief of the Army Staff General K.S. Thimayya resigned on the merits of promoting B.M. Kaul ( a relative of Nehru) to Lieutenant General.
Nehru did the unthinkable. He kept the army at low strength and refused it the latest armaments, with the result the Indian army till 1964 continued to use outdated tanks and first world war pedigree .303 bolt action rifles. He also destroyed the army command by setting up regional commands, with a view that the army could not unite to overthrow him. He also cut the pay and perks/ privileges of the army and overall de-fanged the best fighting force in Asia. This had its repercussions and resulted in a massive defeat at the hands of China in 1962. Earlier Nehru by his shortsighted policy of not manning the Himalayan Border with Tibet resulted in the loss of significant territory in Ladakh, including the entire Aksai Chin to China.
Nehru died in 1964 a broken man, overwhelmed by his failure to realize the geopolitical importance of military might. His successors who were also from the Congress party continued with the policy of Nehru. Many in the top leadership of the Congress actively distrusted the Army and the result was that when war broke out in 1965 with Pakistan, the Indian army was still using outdated Sherman tanks while the Pakistan army had the latest weaponry including the formidable Patton Tanks.
The Indian army fought Pakistan to a draw. Logically, India being 5 times the size of Pakistan, victory should have been a forgone conclusion. The fact India did not lose the war, is only due to the heroism of the Indian armed forces which fought bravely and stalled a Pakistan victory.
Things did move after that and some weaponry from Russia was obtained. Indira Gandhi had a shrewd Chief of Army in 1971, General Sam Maneckshaw. He orchestrated a victory in Bangladesh. However too much should not be read in the near walk over in East Pakistan as the Pakistan General Staff failed to gauge that US support would be delayed and also had just one squadron and 4 divisions for the defense of East Pakistan. Nevertheless, despite a stalemate in the west, it was a magnificent victory.
Logically this victory should have led to the restoration of the Indian army's perks and privileges. Indira Gandhi who shared the distrust of the army with her father"rewarded" the army by reducing its pension by 25%. This was an unprecedented step as correspondingly the Civilian government servants had their pensions raised by 30%.
Indira also failed to realize the twin danger of China and Pakistan acting together and thus is guilty of not building up the military strength to counter a two front war with both India and China.
The later period: Blunders Compounded
The state of affairs continued till 2010. All governments ( Mostly of The Congress) failed to understand the geopolitical importance of the military. They also seemed oblivious to a twin threat of both Pakistan and China having become allies. The army strength remained pegged and there was no effort to achieve military parity with China or military superiority with Pakistan. All the Prime ministers from Narasimha Rao, Vajpayee and later Man Mohan Singh continued with the Nehruvian policies. The cut pensions were not restored and overall an effort was made to sideline the army.
Vajpayee who was a BJP leader also had no concept of military power as all his life he had spent agitating or doing Dharna and in some significant moments, he surrendered the initiative to Pakistan. This resulted in the Kargil conflict, resulting in massive casualties for the Indian troops, much more than Pakistan. As India had not built up military power, Vajpayee could not strike at any other place on the Indo-Pak border as India did not have the capability of a surgical operation. He also, despite a promise failed to restore the military pensions, which had been cut by Indira Gandhi. Vajpayee's period is a forgettable period in Indian history.
The Congress party now came back to power and brought in a lackey of the Gandhi family as Prime Minister, Sardar ManMohan Singh. This man devoid of any spine simply acted as a regent and failed to lead India. Being an economist and beholden to the Gandhi family, he just passed his time.
The effect of the Man Mohan years on the Indian army was very bad. Pensions were not restored and for the first time in history, the Indian ex-servicemen started an agitation for restoration of pensions and perks. The serving personnel has an umbilical cord connection with ex-servicemen and the result was lowering of morale. In addition, no effort was made to increase Indian military power and the result was that China exerted pressure with 30 division in Tibet.
Last word and Modi
The BJP came to power on the back of the Modi wave as the people were fed up with the Congress and its policies of vote banks and all round corruption.
But Modi has not broken away from Nehruvian policies and still has not realized that Military power is an adjunct to great power status. In two years in power, Modi did restore pension to a limited extent. But he did not restore OROP as defined by the Kosiyari Commission and two houses of Parliament. In addition, the 7th pay commission downgraded even more, facilities for the armed forces. This led to an unprecedented letter to the Prime Minster by the 3 service chiefs protesting the downgrading of the armed forces. This has seriously affected the morale.
Modi has also little comprehension of the need to match China and overawe Pakistan. If he has he does not show it, as the force levels of the army are the same for last 2 decades. The result is that even small powers like Nepal and Lanka cock a snook at India. Pakistan is belligerent as ever and China is flexing its muscles on the Himalayan border. Modi has been the PM for 2 years and he has done precious little to break out of the Congress- Nehru mold. History will judge Modi harshly if he fritters away this golden chance to restore Indian might and pride. Only a strong India with a powerful military, who should be satisfied and have a high morale can command respect. One wonders whether Modi has that mettle. Time and tide wait for none and Modi better realize it.
A look at the map of South Asia will show that China is encircling India. The world is watching and Modi is the leader. Can he break from the past thoughts and go forward for an exceptionally strong military to further India geopolitical interests?
Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this article on other bookmarking websites.