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

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.

Hope such a government becomes a reality soon. At present every thing seems so bleak with even the soldiers who sacrifice their lives for the country having to fight for their dues .

I agree. The present scenario is not rosy. But the Ball is the court of elected Government on whom electorate invested faith. It remains to be seen to what extent, the Government measures up to the expectations of the People.

It is just assumption that martial law can lead us to progress and better life. Our neighboring country Pakistan had many spells of military rule. Burma (Mynamar) has been generally under military rule. We all know the condition in these countries.  As already explained earlier, martial law in the entire country can be only through coup and not constitutionally. In Pakistan also, military rule was established several times through coup only. 

i think there is no such important need to imposed these law, there are others many law in INDIA which others don't know, but they are there for the safeguard of the citizen of INDIA and as well as for the outsiders .

They say past sins have long shadows and that's exactly what is happening in our country, all the past ill deeds are catching up and now the present government has to pay the price for it whether it is paying one rank one pension to army men ( which has been a battle going on for the past several years) or some other issue.However, there is no need for a martial law as yet since things are being worked out to get out the difficult situation and we have to hope for the best !

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

It is just assumption that martial law can lead us to progress and better life. Our neighboring country Pakistan had many spells of military rule. Burma (Mynamar) has been generally under military rule. We all know the condition in these countries.  As already explained earlier, martial law in the entire country can be only through coup and not constitutionally. In Pakistan also, military rule was established several times through coup only. 

I agree with you. We have seen how military rule in other countries like Pakistan brought Progress and Peace. The benefits of Martial law is mere mirage.