There is provision of emergency but not martial law in Indian constitution. Hence Martial law cannot be imposed contitutionally and thisis not so done anywhere. That is only a military coup.  Some friends have praised emergency imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi.  There can be some benefits of emergency. But this can't be permanent feature. So it is better that something should be done to bring a sense of discipline and orderly behavior by all on regular basis. I suggest that all should be required to work for some time in army. The most practical way will be to enrol all able bodied citizens upto age of fifty years in Terrotorial Army. This is a sort of reserve force. The members of the force can perform any job even business or shop- keeping but have to attend training every two years. The period of training is called 'embodied service'. after training, they are 'disembodied' and  again go for their normal job  

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

There is provision of emergency but not martial law in Indian constitution. Hence Martial law cannot be imposed contitutionally and thisis not so done anywhere. That is only a military coup.  Some friends have praised emergency imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi.  There can be some benefits of emergency. But this can't be permanent feature. So it is better that something should be done to bring a sense of discipline and orderly behavior by all on regular basis. I suggest that all should be required to work for some time in army. The most practical way will be to enrol all able bodied citizens upto age of fifty years in Terrotorial Army. This is a sort of reserve force. The members of the force can perform any job even business or shop- keeping but have to attend training every two years. The period of training is called 'embodied service'. after training, they are 'disembodied' and  again go for their normal job  

 

I am in total agreement with you. "Embodied Service" is a good suggestion and it should be implemented.

While going through the topics, stumbled upon this. I am in favor of Martial law. So far as the instances of misconduct of army personnel is concerned, it is one off instance that we see and media focus is so much on it that it seems that things are out of control there. On the contrary when such an incident occurs, serious steps are taken against the offender. Such cases are way much more  in civil which probably is taken as normal occurrence and therefore not brought to people's notice. The services provided by the armed forces , discipline and rules followed by the armed forces are perfect to deal with the troubled situation in the country.

But the question is, is there a provision for Martial Law in the constitution ? There is a provision for emergency, but not for Martial Law.

rambabu wrote:

But the question is, is there a provision for Martial Law in the constitution ? There is a provision for emergency, but not for Martial Law.

 

In a country like India Martial law doesn't mean a country is run by army but the help of army is taken to maintain the law and order. There have been several instances where martial law was imposed in my area when the situation went out of control or the administration thought the situation could go out of hands. I have seen it here in my own city when army/BSF/SPF/ RAF/ ITBP were deployed to keep situation under control. When army has power of shoot at site in its hand everything runs smoothly. We had our area under army's control during kanwar yatra this month itself. 

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

But the question is, is there a provision for Martial Law in the constitution ? There is a provision for emergency, but not for Martial Law.

 

In a country like India Martial law doesn't mean a country is run by army but the help of army is taken to maintain the law and order. There have been several instances where martial law was imposed in my area when the situation went out of control or the administration thought the situation could go out of hands. I have seen it here in my own city when army/BSF/SPF/ RAF/ ITBP were deployed to keep situation under control. When army has power of shoot at site in its hand everything runs smoothly. We had our area under army's control during kanwar yatra this month itself. 

Using the Army in dealing with disturbances is already there. Even if Martial Law is imposed, it bust be for a short while. But imposing Martial Law is out of  question.

http://www.vajiramandravi.in/martial-law-and-fundamental-rights.html

 

 

rambabu wrote:

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

But the question is, is there a provision for Martial Law in the constitution ? There is a provision for emergency, but not for Martial Law.

 

In a country like India Martial law doesn't mean a country is run by army but the help of army is taken to maintain the law and order. There have been several instances where martial law was imposed in my area when the situation went out of control or the administration thought the situation could go out of hands. I have seen it here in my own city when army/BSF/SPF/ RAF/ ITBP were deployed to keep situation under control. When army has power of shoot at site in its hand everything runs smoothly. We had our area under army's control during kanwar yatra this month itself. 

Using the Army in dealing with disturbances is already there. Even if Martial Law is imposed, it bust be for a short while. But imposing Martial Law is out of  question.

http://www.vajiramandravi.in/martial-law-and-fundamental-rights.html

 

That's what everyone in favor of a martial law is saying. We need a short term martial law to help the elected government where the situation is out of control. For instance, Chattisgarh, J&K, other riot/terror hit areas and parts of bordering states where infiltration is going on. 

 

 

 

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

But the question is, is there a provision for Martial Law in the constitution ? There is a provision for emergency, but not for Martial Law.

 

In a country like India Martial law doesn't mean a country is run by army but the help of army is taken to maintain the law and order. There have been several instances where martial law was imposed in my area when the situation went out of control or the administration thought the situation could go out of hands. I have seen it here in my own city when army/BSF/SPF/ RAF/ ITBP were deployed to keep situation under control. When army has power of shoot at site in its hand everything runs smoothly. We had our area under army's control during kanwar yatra this month itself. 

Using the Army in dealing with disturbances is already there. Even if Martial Law is imposed, it bust be for a short while. But imposing Martial Law is out of  question.

http://www.vajiramandravi.in/martial-law-and-fundamental-rights.html

 

That's what everyone in favor of a martial law is saying. We need a short term martial law to help the elected government where the situation is out of control. For instance, Chattisgarh, J&K, other riot/terror hit areas and parts of bordering states where infiltration is going on. 

Martial Law for a short term is OK. I said this in one of my threads.

 

 

 

 

The question was does India need it? The answer is yes it would have done India a great deal good , if it could be implemented because no political party can ensure that kind of discipline and security for the country.... it is wishful thinking that such a day will come..but then I'm an optimist

India needs it.No doubt Martial Law has the capability of making India a Disciplined country. No, it is the wishful thinking of not only you but of everybody's. There are several other ways of making the the country disciplined through the existing constitutional provisions. But it needs a determined government and courage.