Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /nfs/c03/h02/mnt/56080/domains/logos.nationalinterest.in/html/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-hooks.php on line 160
Tag Archives | religion

Danger of Militarism over Nationalism in current times

The use of military veterans to portray nationalism for achieving political objectives has dangerous ramifications for civil-military relations in a liberal democratic society like India and must be avoided at any cost  

The use of military symbols to project nationalism by the present government has dangerous ramifications. In trying to portray Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid (the case is still sub judice) and some other students as anti-national, the government, aided by a section of the TV news networks, unfortunately used Lance Naik Hanumanthappa’s heroic death due to avalanche in Siachen glacier. The obvious aim was to steer the discourse in a binary framework: national versus anti-national or simply, us versus them. Ex servicemen have been commandeered to be the torchbearers of patriotism and nationalism by inviting them to meetings at the JNU. Prima facie, there seems to be nothing wrong with inviting veterans to the JNU. What is wrong is the brand of competitive nationalism that is being imposed and exploiting our soldiers to do the dirty job. The social media has been actively used for trolls and counter trolls. In an event held in JNU by ABVP on February 24, senior veterans were invited  to speak to the university administration. Reportedly, they asked for a memorial to be built in the campus and also volunteered to donate a tank.  The latest to join the fray is a 2 minute video titled ‘Freedom of Action?’ directed by Vivek Joshi.

The title is quite provocative and asks probing question from the audience. Two soldiers are on guard with their guns trained at the enemy across the border when they hear some anti-national slogans coming from own side. At this, one of them turns around and aims his gun in the direction of sloganeering (although, no one is visible). The other soldier laconically tells his comrade that killing them is useless, as  he would be killing only the men and not the ideology. To which, the second one replies that a man who has broken his relationship with his mother has broken all his relationships. And then, goes on to take aim. The message is very clear. Army can be the symbol of extreme form of nationalism and it will be used to eliminate whoever is deemed anti-national.  Getting the veterans involved in student politics that is within the ambit of state is nothing short of absurdity.  This rings an ominous warning and brings us to the complex debate of civil-military relations.

The Indian armed forces are modeled on the British system. The civilian control and oversight over the military is taken for granted in such a set-up. The military in a liberal democratic society must remain strictly apolitical for it to remain professional. Towards this, the officer corps plays an important role, for they are the decision makers of an arm of the state which is capable of utmost violence.  Huntington, a highly acknowledged American political scientist terms this as the ‘objective civilian control’ which is the most desirable for effective civil-military balance of power. This maximises military professionalism, and hence security of the state. The military’s and as a corollary, the officers’ role in politics is non-existent. The civilian control is the independent variable to the dependent variable of military effectiveness. This is in stark to contrast to ‘subjective control’ where the civilian assertion has dangerous portends of deprofessionalising the military which might ultimately result in a coup.

One doesn’t need to go far in the subcontinent. Pakistan is a standing example where intrusive interference by Jinnah involved military in politics immediately after independence.  Within a decade, the military overthrew the civilian government. There has been no looking back since then. Bangladesh too has had an uneasy relationship with the military wherein the founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman was assassinated in a bloody military coup within a few years of its independence.  Myanmar has been ruled by its military for the better part of its existence. The complex of civil-military relations becomes a dangerous cocktail when mixed with religion. A benign flirting with religion at the beginning, subsequently leads to massive inroads into the vitals of military effectiveness and competence.

From its inception, military has been associated with masculinity, valour,  and defending the territorial integrity at any cost. The trouble starts when these values get mixed with symbols of religious identity masquerading as nationalism in a politically charged atmosphere with passions running high. A large standing army can be a beast— it can be extremely powerful and strong enough in thwarting an external aggression.  By the same token, it is also used to quell internal strife and insurgencies by remaining purely apolitical and non-partisan.  At the same time, it should be subservient enough to the civil authority and not become a frankenstein monster. Till now, by all available evidence, only a minuscule section of retired personnel have visibly showed signs of aligning with the ideology of Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra.  In contrast, the police in uniform has demonstrated its partisanship by looking the other way when violence broke out in the Delhi High Court premises. It must be borne in mind by the political masters in charge that the military has an almost paternal relationship with its veteran community. The politicians are only playing with fire by involving the veterans to realise before long that the serving officer corps too is afflicted with this. To achieve their ends, the stormtroopers in the form of foot soldiers of ABVP are being released as trial balloons. Once this genie of ‘military in politics’ is out of the bottle, it will be dangerous to control.

 

Guru Aiyar is a research scholar with Takshashila Institution and tweets @guruaiyar 

Featured Image : Military unit in training by Elizabeth Anderson, licensed by creativecommons.org

 

 

 

Comments { 2 }

The question of gender justice in religious places of worship

The prohibition of entry to women in Sabarimala shrine is being contested by lawyers in the Supreme Court which will open a pandora’s box for other faiths too

 

The Supreme Court on 11th January, has asked the government of Kerala that why women cannot be given entry to the Sabarimala temple. Gautam Bhatia, a Delhi based lawyer has offered interesting insights into the case. The SC is hearing a 10 year old petition filed by Indian Young Lawyers’ Association (IYLA). The case is coming up for hearing again on 18th January. Women between the ages of 10 and 50 have been traditionally denied entry in the temple on the grounds that they are ‘impure’. This has been a custom going back 1500 years. The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) which administers the temple is responsible for enforcing this custom.

The challenge to enforcing the custom by the board brings judiciary to interpret the laws pertaining to rights guaranteed by the constitution to individuals.  Article 25 (1) guarantees to all persons the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate their religion. Article 26 (b) grants to religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion. However, Article 25 (2) allows state intervention in religious practice, if it is for the purpose of “social welfare or reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus”.

The temple board has argued that the custom is essential to the practise of the religion.  If the board fails to prove that prohibiting women is an essential religious practice, then it cannot claim immunity under Article 26 (b). Women worshippers can also argue that prohibiting them from access violates their right to worship under Article 25(1). This takes us to the question of interpreting the law from the aspect of ‘state-shrine’ relationship.  Article 25(1) is enforceable against the state and not individuals, or corporate bodies. If the board can argue that it is corporate body, Article 25 (1) cannot be applied.

If this be so, then IYLA can argue that it is the duty of the state to guarantee a woman’s right to worship. The women devotees may ask the court to direct the state to take all necessary steps to guarantee their access and safety to the shrine.  Interestingly, judgement in this case will open up issues pertaining to other religions also. There is a case pending in Bombay High Court, filed by Muslim women asking for the recognition of their right to enter the inner sanctum for worship at the Haji Ali shrine in Mumbai. The question of gender justice in religious institutions is the charter of state which is responsible to enforce the constitution. Being a secular state, the governments have not interfered in the matters of individual religions which are administered by their respective religious bodies. The ramification of judgement in this case will be then to find a solution which will advance the constitutional guarantee of equality, non-discrimination and freedom of religion.

 

Guru Aiyar is a research scholar with Takshashila Institution and tweets at @guruaiyar.

Featured Image credit: Law.gov–opening up primary legal materials, licensed under creative commons.

Comments { 0 }