@ 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.