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

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.