nSecurity planners have an incredible task as they tackle an imagined and unknown future seen as threats and opportunities. The challenge is compounded by the paucity of resources and immense potential for progress in the field of science and technology. External threats are often better known and accepted. Internal threats that have manifested as extremism are troubling but are usually within the power of the state to keep them under control. But what can be overlooked and neglected and usually allowed to simmer for long periods of time until it explodes like a powder keg is communal disharmony. For India, it risks a live fault line.
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat recently met some people from the Muslim community. He then visited a madrasa and met with Mohammad Elaisi, the head of the All India Muslim Imams. Bhagwat’s meetings are perhaps indicative of concerns about the state of Hindu-Muslim relations at the national level. Obviously, both sides were criticized for wrong purposes and this should not be mistaken for a change of heart anywhere in the field of religious politics.
With the control of the temperature calibrated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its affiliates such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) since the 1990s and the prominence of the Ram temple in Ayodhya in India’s religious politics, the temperature of communal discord boils. is on. The RSS on the one hand and a mix of Muslim institutions on the other, some of which have served and continue to act as proxies for Pakistan and other outside radical religious groups. Overall, the pollution has resulted in communal harmony and so far it has mostly been confined to sporadic explosions. But perhaps it is time to review the situation because we are missing out on the real danger that may have been clearly hidden.
Read also: The path to Hindu Rashtra for BJP and RSS is not through the Constitution
decoding the real threat
The real danger profile probably lies in Statement Created by Mohan Bhagwat a few days after Delhi reached an audience of tribal people in Meghalaya- “All people living in India are Hindus in terms of identity.” Political Hinduism seems to be stretching its limits, while none exist in its religious philosophy, which is pluralistic at best. The boundaries give rise to the ‘other’, which moves it closer to Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Islam, but excludes Judaism in our context. Such a change, if popularized and deepened within the Indian social fabric, is not only unconstitutional, but can also be a breeding ground for internal conflict, the potential magnitude of which should be of concern to the national security establishment. .
This version of political Hinduism explicitly holds that cultural identity, seen as a derivative of religious basis, takes the place of national identity. The special thing is that it is the ideological child of the elected government. But it cannot hide the constitutional danger that must be protected by all elements under oath to do so. On that score, in terms of imagination, the ultimate responsibility may lie with the armed forces, which are bound to act under the ultimate constitutional authority – the President of India.
Read also: From silence to blaming ‘Bangladeshis, Rohingyas’, why AAP’s terminology on Muslims has changed
role of armed forces
The main role of the armed forces in India’s democratic set up is based on its apolitical nature. In the constitutional structure, its ultimate loyalty lies with the President, who is also the Commander-in-Chief. The elected government, being the executive branch, exercises authority over the armed forces by acting on behalf of the President. The powers and mandates enjoyed by the armed forces are conferred by the constitutionally derived powers of the ruling government. In the context of civil-military relations, the broad understanding is one of military-political neutrality and voluntary subordination combined with civilian recognition of ‘autonomous military professionalism’. The underlying apolitical basis of the Indian civil-military structure is similar to that of Western liberal democracies.
The armed forces, quite right, have no say in the trajectory that political Hinduism is going to take. But could its leadership, being aware of the broader and longer-term societal trend, be blinded by the issue? Should the armed forces assume that they are not expected to do anything and therefore do nothing? Alternatively, does autonomous military professionalism command the military leadership to be duty-bound to protect and strengthen the national values of the military institution from being corrupted by dangerous trends in domestic politics? Shouldn’t the leadership sensitize itself and its rank and file on an ongoing basis because no one will know where India’s religious politics is headed. And it has to do so without seeing it as acting outside the powers conferred by the government in power.
Read also: Indian history tells us that to move beyond Hindu nationalism, we have to go beyond identity.
taking action with respect to boundaries
It seems a difficult and almost impossible task. The easiest thing to do, of course, is to pretend that no such problem is visible or likely to appear in the future. It will also not be seen as dereliction of duty as sensitization measures have not been taken, which have long-term effects which, in retrospect, cannot be attributed to particular persons holding the highest positions – such as the Chief of Defense Staff (CDS) and Service Heads.
But it would be difficult for the Indian Army, as an institution, to absolve of responsibility if its actions during the prolonged and intense national communal unrest were unable to restore law and order as it was itself weakened by religious prejudice. A prejudice that may have seeped freely into the military as well as into the fabric of civil society, when the leadership looked the other way in the belief that it was not their business.
The political leadership has sometimes used its power to reject the seniority principle when selecting senior military leadership. If the move is combined with the search for military leaders along the lines of ideological leanings that Mohan Bhagwat recently acknowledged in Meghalaya, or they were chosen for hopes of viability, India faces a communal explosion. The ability to do so – if it ever does – could be weakened with consequences that could cost the nation dearly.
As the weary phrase goes, the line between party and government is narrowing. With institutional collapse for good measure, the move towards a democratic state may not stop for very long. Therefore, the Armed Forces must focus on its internals and implement measures to protect and promote institutional values.
The military structure stands tall. Hope lies in the fact that high issues of national security and morale are deliberated behind closed doors by apex collective and joint-services panels. This should include the two top-levels in the hierarchy—the CDS/Service Chiefs and immediately below them, the heads of command structures of the Army, Navy and Air Force. Depending on the stakes involved, the morally successful outcome of these deliberations will depend on the application of a righteous sense of duty and an enduring commitment to the Constitution of India established by law.
The supposed high duty to the military, as envisaged, can be overly predictable and too idealistic. Ultimately, the higher power that can delay and arrest the religious slide is not the military but the public awakening. But this cannot be a justification for the armed forces not to face their own demons.
Lt Gen (Dr) Prakash Menon (Retd) Director, Strategic Studies Programme, Taxila Institute; Former Military Adviser, National Security Council Secretariat. He tweeted @prakashmenon51. Thoughts are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)