Does India need a spell of martial Law to set the ills of society and the republic right. ?

@ Gulhan ji

Sir you made the things so clear that your thread doesn't leave place for suspicions and doubts.. It is very true that if martial has to be imposed by the President, has to get the consent from the council of Ministers headed by the PM.. Yes Military will be employed  for some internal disturbances and floods etc.

I once again express my gratitude for a crystal clear clarification,

Singapore is a single party state with very little population. It cannot be compared to large countries  in terms of governance. Yes it has made spectacular progress but a lot many Singaporeans do not like the muzzled political atmosphere and it is considered to be a boring country as more Singaporeans leave it then enter every year. There were various ideological groups in 1947 in Congress who were opposed to the core philosophy of Congress and gradually left it and started opposing it. Nothing wrong in it. But it is mighty surprising for Kripalani to say that he would burn India. In 1975 I attended a meeting against emergency addressed by Kripalani wherein he used foul language to the surprise of the audience.

I frankly am not able to understand why Martial law is seen as a solution to democracy even for  ashort term. Seems some have run out of ideas and lost nerve.

Martial law  has no place in a democratic setup. Yes, as Gulshan ji said army can be used for certain purposes like some disturbances and rescue operations during natural calamities.

Army should be under civilian control and not civilians under military control.

vijay wrote:

Army should be under civilian control and not civilians under military control.

 

I don't think, I can find such a simple, clear and vivid clarification than this to stress on the the issue. Simply  superb,

I can give you simpler statements- our police is already under the civilians' (???) control and almost dancing to their tunes.  I believe civilians and politicians of this country need a better control so that the helpless civilians of this country realize what benefits they are missing which they could have enjoyed otherwise. We have nothing available a state should provide to its citizens just because we do not know our fundamental rights and our politicians are busy fighting for the power only. The crimes have reached to a point where living under martial law will be far better than living in Indian style democracy. The current situation of parliamentary affairs will give you an idea of our current democratic standards.    

I would like to ask you a question. I'm sure you still remember Emergency imposed by Indira Raj. Do you think is anything short of Martial Law ? What great benefits this country got ?

rambabu wrote:

I would like to ask you a question. I'm sure you still remember Emergency imposed by Indira Raj. Do you think is anything short of Martial Law ? What great benefits this country got ?

 

That was one of the best periods for Indian common people. Everything was running smoothly, no black marketing, no strikes, everyone in the office at dot on time, no corruption, fewer crimes. The people (politicians and their supporters in whatever the fields) were against it because they were unable to adapt to their blackmailing politics during that period. But they are doing the same when there is no emergency. This country's politicians cannot live without total power in their own hands and when they see the power is slipping out of their hands they can go to any extent. People of this country come last in the list of their priorities, (maybe they are nowhere in that list).

 

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

I would like to ask you a question. I'm sure you still remember Emergency imposed by Indira Raj. Do you think is anything short of Martial Law ? What great benefits this country got ?

 

That was one of the best periods for Indian common people. Everything was running smoothly, no black marketing, no strikes, everyone in the office at dot on time, no corruption, fewer crimes. The people (politicians and their supporters in whatever the fields) were against it because they were unable to adapt to their blackmailing politics during that period. But they are doing the same when there is no emergency. This country's politicians cannot live without total power in their own hands and when they see the power is slipping out of their hands they can go to any extent. People of this country come last in the list of their priorities, (maybe they are nowhere in that list).

 

Then,, after lifting the emergency ? What happened after lifting emergency :

I'm of the opinion, the Emergency is that it cannot be repeated. Leave aside the Constitutional safeguards and the hugely changed configuration of political forces. The material fact is that if Indira Gandhi's Emergency proved anything at all, it established that India would be governed, to the extent it can be governed, democratically or not at all.

 

 

rambabu wrote:

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

I would like to ask you a question. I'm sure you still remember Emergency imposed by Indira Raj. Do you think is anything short of Martial Law ? What great benefits this country got ?

 

That was one of the best periods for Indian common people. Everything was running smoothly, no black marketing, no strikes, everyone in the office at dot on time, no corruption, fewer crimes. The people (politicians and their supporters in whatever the fields) were against it because they were unable to adapt to their blackmailing politics during that period. But they are doing the same when there is no emergency. This country's politicians cannot live without total power in their own hands and when they see the power is slipping out of their hands they can go to any extent. People of this country come last in the list of their priorities, (maybe they are nowhere in that list).

 

Then,, after lifting the emergency ? What happened after lifting emergency :

I'm of the opinion, the Emergency is that it cannot be repeated. Leave aside the Constitutional safeguards and the hugely changed configuration of political forces. The material fact is that if Indira Gandhi's Emergency proved anything at all, it established that India would be governed, to the extent it can be governed, democratically or not at all.

 

You should have quoted the references

http://news.rediff.com/special/2010/jun/23/inder-malhotra-on-35-years-after-the-emergency.htm

 

 

Indeed, there are signs of a growing consensus that the Emergency was 'scripted jointly' by her and JP, as Jayaprakash Narayan was called by one and all. The country's premier sociologist, Andre Beteille, historian Bipan Chandra and scholar Ramchandra Guha agreed that the 'anarchy' that JP was promoting and the 'authoritarianism' of Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay, were the 'two sides of the same coin.' Some others ask whether the saintly JP was justified in 'inciting' the armed forces and the police to disobey the government.

 

My point is this- The position is more or less same as it was in 1975. It was Congress facing the music then and now Congress on the other side of the road. I do not say the ruling party is doing everything right.

 

 

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

I would like to ask you a question. I'm sure you still remember Emergency imposed by Indira Raj. Do you think is anything short of Martial Law ? What great benefits this country got ?

 

That was one of the best periods for Indian common people. Everything was running smoothly, no black marketing, no strikes, everyone in the office at dot on time, no corruption, fewer crimes. The people (politicians and their supporters in whatever the fields) were against it because they were unable to adapt to their blackmailing politics during that period. But they are doing the same when there is no emergency. This country's politicians cannot live without total power in their own hands and when they see the power is slipping out of their hands they can go to any extent. People of this country come last in the list of their priorities, (maybe they are nowhere in that list).

 

Then,, after lifting the emergency ? What happened after lifting emergency :

I'm of the opinion, the Emergency is that it cannot be repeated. Leave aside the Constitutional safeguards and the hugely changed configuration of political forces. The material fact is that if Indira Gandhi's Emergency proved anything at all, it established that India would be governed, to the extent it can be governed, democratically or not at all.

 

You should have quoted the references

http://news.rediff.com/special/2010/jun/23/inder-malhotra-on-35-years-after-the-emergency.htm

 

 

Indeed, there are signs of a growing consensus that the Emergency was 'scripted jointly' by her and JP, as Jayaprakash Narayan was called by one and all. The country's premier sociologist, Andre Beteille, historian Bipan Chandra and scholar Ramchandra Guha agreed that the 'anarchy' that JP was promoting and the 'authoritarianism' of Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay, were the 'two sides of the same coin.' Some others ask whether the saintly JP was justified in 'inciting' the armed forces and the police to disobey the government.

 

My point is this- The position is more or less same as it was in 1975. It was Congress facing the music then and now Congress on the other side of the road. I do not say the ruling party is doing everything right.

 

Whether the ruling party is doing everything right or wrong is not relevant here. I equated Martial law with Emergency days.Then i have arrived at a conclusion that imposing Martial law is nothing but buying an evil to eradicate another evil.

 

 

 

rambabu wrote:

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

I would like to ask you a question. I'm sure you still remember Emergency imposed by Indira Raj. Do you think is anything short of Martial Law ? What great benefits this country got ?

 

That was one of the best periods for Indian common people. Everything was running smoothly, no black marketing, no strikes, everyone in the office at dot on time, no corruption, fewer crimes. The people (politicians and their supporters in whatever the fields) were against it because they were unable to adapt to their blackmailing politics during that period. But they are doing the same when there is no emergency. This country's politicians cannot live without total power in their own hands and when they see the power is slipping out of their hands they can go to any extent. People of this country come last in the list of their priorities, (maybe they are nowhere in that list).

 

Then,, after lifting the emergency ? What happened after lifting emergency :

I'm of the opinion, the Emergency is that it cannot be repeated. Leave aside the Constitutional safeguards and the hugely changed configuration of political forces. The material fact is that if Indira Gandhi's Emergency proved anything at all, it established that India would be governed, to the extent it can be governed, democratically or not at all.

 

You should have quoted the references

http://news.rediff.com/special/2010/jun/23/inder-malhotra-on-35-years-after-the-emergency.htm

 

 

Indeed, there are signs of a growing consensus that the Emergency was 'scripted jointly' by her and JP, as Jayaprakash Narayan was called by one and all. The country's premier sociologist, Andre Beteille, historian Bipan Chandra and scholar Ramchandra Guha agreed that the 'anarchy' that JP was promoting and the 'authoritarianism' of Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay, were the 'two sides of the same coin.' Some others ask whether the saintly JP was justified in 'inciting' the armed forces and the police to disobey the government.

 

My point is this- The position is more or less same as it was in 1975. It was Congress facing the music then and now Congress on the other side of the road. I do not say the ruling party is doing everything right.

 

Whether the ruling party is doing everything right or wrong is not relevant here. I equated Martial law with Emergency days.Then i have arrived at a conclusion that imposing Martial law is nothing but buying an evil to eradicate another evil.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that we should sack the elected government (since that is not possible in our rule books) and bring martial law as imposed in some countries but to provide powers to law enforcement agencies to deal with stricter hands and army should play a role in that as they know how to handle rowdiness.

 

 

 

 

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

I would like to ask you a question. I'm sure you still remember Emergency imposed by Indira Raj. Do you think is anything short of Martial Law ? What great benefits this country got ?

 

That was one of the best periods for Indian common people. Everything was running smoothly, no black marketing, no strikes, everyone in the office at dot on time, no corruption, fewer crimes. The people (politicians and their supporters in whatever the fields) were against it because they were unable to adapt to their blackmailing politics during that period. But they are doing the same when there is no emergency. This country's politicians cannot live without total power in their own hands and when they see the power is slipping out of their hands they can go to any extent. People of this country come last in the list of their priorities, (maybe they are nowhere in that list).

 

Then,, after lifting the emergency ? What happened after lifting emergency :

I'm of the opinion, the Emergency is that it cannot be repeated. Leave aside the Constitutional safeguards and the hugely changed configuration of political forces. The material fact is that if Indira Gandhi's Emergency proved anything at all, it established that India would be governed, to the extent it can be governed, democratically or not at all.

 

You should have quoted the references

http://news.rediff.com/special/2010/jun/23/inder-malhotra-on-35-years-after-the-emergency.htm

 

 

Indeed, there are signs of a growing consensus that the Emergency was 'scripted jointly' by her and JP, as Jayaprakash Narayan was called by one and all. The country's premier sociologist, Andre Beteille, historian Bipan Chandra and scholar Ramchandra Guha agreed that the 'anarchy' that JP was promoting and the 'authoritarianism' of Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay, were the 'two sides of the same coin.' Some others ask whether the saintly JP was justified in 'inciting' the armed forces and the police to disobey the government.

 

My point is this- The position is more or less same as it was in 1975. It was Congress facing the music then and now Congress on the other side of the road. I do not say the ruling party is doing everything right.

 

Whether the ruling party is doing everything right or wrong is not relevant here. I equated Martial law with Emergency days.Then i have arrived at a conclusion that imposing Martial law is nothing but buying an evil to eradicate another evil.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that we should sack the elected government (since that is not possible in our rule books) and bring martial law as imposed in some countries but to provide powers to law enforcement agencies to deal with stricter hands and army should play a role in that as they know how to handle rowdiness

 

OK. I expressed my opinion. We cannot compare with other countries with India The rule is strictly according to the Constitution. Yes what all we need here is a strict implementation of the existing laws without any compromise. Presently Army is being used in case of extraordinary conditions l, when there are communal riots and Rescue operations during natural calamities. Now army is doing the same in Himachal Pradesh because of floods.

 

 

 

 

 

The claim that in emergency things had improved is not right. I give an example. A few months after emergency was declared I had to travel overnight to Delhi by train. When I approached the sleeper TTE for a berth he asked for Rs 10 as his cut. I protested that it is Rs 5.. He in a hush hush tone told me that there is emergency and higher risk means higher premium. So emergency increased the rates and the common man suffered. Replace the term emergency by Martial Law and the suffering for common man will continue.

Well said. I appreciate your comment, "Higher risk means higher premium." The word EMERGENCY should be erased from the mind forever.. Otherwise there is a risk of Bad dreams.

In Martial Law there is no feedback system which emboldens corrupt people to make money at very high rates as we see in China which is a one party rule with strong support of army.

I do not understand why this noise when there is  no specific or express provision in the Constitution that authorizes the executive to declare martial law.

Martial does not simply happen nor will it be implemented according to the constitution .It will begin with civil unrest leading to civil war and then slowly either army and the one of the political party in league with the army will take control and bring in martial law...If there is to much unrest then things will happen automatically without any planning .

Under extraordinary conditions which threaten civil life, Martial law can be imposed. And, when the conditions come back to narmalcy Martial lawbill be removed. For permanently imposing Martial law, there is no such provision in Indian constitution.

rambabu wrote:

Under extraordinary conditions which threaten civil life, Martial law can be imposed. And, when the conditions come back to narmalcy Martial lawbill be removed. For permanently imposing Martial law, there is no such provision in Indian constitution.

Normally there is no provision for Martial law in any nations constitution , it happens after unrest and a coup..