The Armies (by which I mean Army, Navy, AF, SF, Seals et all) are mediocre-ly paid everywhere just as any other govt dept, with perks differing from country to country based on the influence of the Armies in that specific country - from accommodation with piped gas etc to management of PSUs (in Pakistan) to regularly manning public offices (in US/Europe). But there's a lot of difference in the role Armies play in different countries and I will try to group them in to three categories:
1. Cat 1: Armies in many countries play a legitimate role in national security which is an oxymoron of sorts - you create/maintain big & potent armies so that you avoid wars, thus never having to use the Armies. Thus they generally get a bad deal due to nil or insignificant/marginal representation in polity. Owing to this, such armies remain in the fringes of governance and suffer from diminishing value in protocol & perks; offset to some extent only by the occasional war or other high profile internal development. India falls in this category, so do most defensive democracies.
2. Cat 2: In handful of countries, their Armies besides fulfilling their national security role, go beyond the oxy-moronic context to use their defensive capabilities in an offensive manner (the best defense is offence, right!) and wage or participate in wars in other countries' backyards; thereby getting involved in polity and in effect get a much better deal. America leads this bandwagon which was till WW-II being led by UK. And you can very well guess that most offensive democracies fall in this category.
3. Cat 3: Then there are the lot of non-democratic countries where Armies are the central player in polity and have the last or lasting say in most matters of national importance. Obviously, since they make the rules, these folks tend to make the rules quite favourable to themselves; thus they enjoy a pretty good deal in all aspects. They even get a chance to participate in the wars waged by the Cat 2 guys in other countries (mostly Cat 1 or 3) backyards. And you guessed it right, our westerly neighbours belong here. And so does the other in the North/East.
But the issue is not which category a country's armies belong to. The bigger issue is how they landed there and what is in store for them in future. And for each country this is intricately connected to the idea of that country. Thus, what matters more than Pakistan is the idea of it and the idea of India is more important than India itself. Founded on the stark and unstable principles of monotheism, and carved out without natural defensibility, Pakistan needs its Armies to be involved in polity by design. And found with the values of non-violence co-existence guided by the all accepting Indian culture, there is almost no place for Armies in the Indian polity and civil supremacy rules. Going by how these prevalent ideas of Pakistan and India (and other countries in the world) are being shaped, it appears that ideas of these categories of nation states are solidifying more and more; defensive democracies getting more defensive, offensive ones getting more offensive and non-democratic ones resorting to be more non-democratic.
Change they say is the new constant.. but I would say, the more they change, the more they remain the same!
1. Cat 1: Armies in many countries play a legitimate role in national security which is an oxymoron of sorts - you create/maintain big & potent armies so that you avoid wars, thus never having to use the Armies. Thus they generally get a bad deal due to nil or insignificant/marginal representation in polity. Owing to this, such armies remain in the fringes of governance and suffer from diminishing value in protocol & perks; offset to some extent only by the occasional war or other high profile internal development. India falls in this category, so do most defensive democracies.
2. Cat 2: In handful of countries, their Armies besides fulfilling their national security role, go beyond the oxy-moronic context to use their defensive capabilities in an offensive manner (the best defense is offence, right!) and wage or participate in wars in other countries' backyards; thereby getting involved in polity and in effect get a much better deal. America leads this bandwagon which was till WW-II being led by UK. And you can very well guess that most offensive democracies fall in this category.
3. Cat 3: Then there are the lot of non-democratic countries where Armies are the central player in polity and have the last or lasting say in most matters of national importance. Obviously, since they make the rules, these folks tend to make the rules quite favourable to themselves; thus they enjoy a pretty good deal in all aspects. They even get a chance to participate in the wars waged by the Cat 2 guys in other countries (mostly Cat 1 or 3) backyards. And you guessed it right, our westerly neighbours belong here. And so does the other in the North/East.
But the issue is not which category a country's armies belong to. The bigger issue is how they landed there and what is in store for them in future. And for each country this is intricately connected to the idea of that country. Thus, what matters more than Pakistan is the idea of it and the idea of India is more important than India itself. Founded on the stark and unstable principles of monotheism, and carved out without natural defensibility, Pakistan needs its Armies to be involved in polity by design. And found with the values of non-violence co-existence guided by the all accepting Indian culture, there is almost no place for Armies in the Indian polity and civil supremacy rules. Going by how these prevalent ideas of Pakistan and India (and other countries in the world) are being shaped, it appears that ideas of these categories of nation states are solidifying more and more; defensive democracies getting more defensive, offensive ones getting more offensive and non-democratic ones resorting to be more non-democratic.
Change they say is the new constant.. but I would say, the more they change, the more they remain the same!
1 comment:
Existence of armies has only been to fulfil political ambitions of a nation. security exists in the minds and hence ideas of pakistan and india are all the same necessary. categorising the armies as given by the blogger are not fair. The perks, previledges and protocols for the armies are mostly driven by the following three factors:
1. The economic and political strength of a nation.
2. The geographic location of the country
3. The foreign policy of the nation.
Their could be many other factors, but more important is who makes whom? Armies make the nation or vice versa? National security is based on deterrence rather mutual trust/cooperation, hence it appears to be an oxymoron. You ve peace(?) because of detterence.
Being political tool armies ve no role to play in polity as a whole. so they remain less previledged, poorly paid and low in protocol. Fightin wars is your job, taking decision to go fo war is political arena. In india, armies are not even on fringes of governance, they are far below that.
Armies cant change, for they are required to be kept predominantly the same (as an expendable commodity).
Getting involved in wars in the backyard of other countries does not imply the armies are involving in the polity. They may have some say in conduct of the war at most.
Their is nothing called defensive or offensive democracies! Its just bold/aggressive or mild/defensive policies/leadership.
In countries like pakistan, where armies make the policy, they may have better deals for themselves. But they get only what their nation can afford to give so its the economic capability that matters. Finally idea of pakistan or india for each other can only justify the existance of their armies. Its only for domestic consumption. Armies will always remain mere expendable tools for the polity masters. Raghu
Post a Comment