National

The Republic Of Roar

The exhibition of military might, 50 years after India adopted its Constitution, is redundant

Advertisement

The Republic Of Roar
info_icon

The peace pipes were loud, but the jackboots were louder. India’s 51st Republic Day was more about guns than rose petals. There was more military hardware and Kargil victory floats on display than reflections on peace. And the most preponderant military aspect of the parade-through Rajpath on January 26, 2000-was an outdated expression of what constitutes the glory of a nation-state. The brandishing of ballistic missile technology and fire power, reminiscent more of the Soviet Union during the Cold War than of a country marching into an era of changed global realities.

"The concept of confrontation, subjugation and war which is inherent in the parade is less relevant today in a unipolar world. And the demonstration of virility is truly disturbing," comments Harbans Mukhia of Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Advertisement

While most democracies have stopped showcasing the state’s muscle-power-deeming it unnecessary-India refuses to relent. In fact, it’s been a case of reverse swing for the nation. Modern Indian history expert K.N. Panikkar rightly points out: "Today the demonstrative part has become stronger instead of showing a wane."

The parade itself serves a dual purpose. In Panikkar’s opinion, it not only warns ‘adversary’ Pakistan, but is also meant to instill the fear of the state in the hearts of the citizens. Adds the historian: "It is purely coercive in nature. But there is no informed debate in the country on these issues. So we don’t really know what people are thinking or feeling about such issues."

Advertisement

But if a bristling show of military might can be interpreted as a show of power, it can also very well be seen as paranoia. "If we are secure as a nation, why do we need to show it? Surely it reveals a sense of deeper insecurity!" says historian Kunal Chakrabarti. He recalls daily parades in former East Germany, days before the Berlin Wall fell. "If the state is trying to tell us that we are safer because of their presence, then why are iron gates coming up all over our cities with private citizens taking care of their own security?"

Psychologist Ashis Nandy believes that the military parade is a complete waste of time and money, but carries on partly due to inertia. According to an analyst, the whole show costs the exchequer approximately Rs 10 crore. Besides, an unprecedented presence of security, days before the event, was testimony to the pressure the government was under to make sure that January 26 passed off without a hitch. A ring of steel tightened around India Gate and the surrounding lawns as tanks, helicopters, artillery and missiles took over the grounds and the ice-cream vendors faded away. Children, dogs, tourists were all transformed into potential security risks. A celebration for the people turned into an occasion to be feared.

Advertisement

In Maj Gen (retd.) Afsir Karim’s view the need for a military parade 50 years ago when television was not quite there is understandable. Then few people knew what a functioning army looked like. "In any case, military hardware doesn’t impress many people now-satellite TV has made it possible to see everything everywhere," he adds. He also believes that it does not make any sense for the forces to be practising for months and then camping here for days on end while people get killed in Kashmir.

For Panikkar, there is a complete lack of aesthetics in such overtly politico-military exhibitionism. Says he: "In many western and non-western countries, the might of the state is not visible and is not shown in such a crude way. But India seems to have no such compunctions. " And though it shows its strength and awards prizes to the brave, on January 26, it hides away its ultimate weapon-the nuclear bomb. Avers V.B. Singh, director of the Centre for Studies in Developing Societies: "I believe it’s a morale booster to have the military parade. The people I have spoken to are very confident and feel happy after it. So, I think it’s useful even today, It is, however, a bit hypocritical not to show the N-bomb."

Advertisement

Some analysts believe that the entire celebration should be restricted to the presidential address. Others feel that smaller celebrations in various states with the participation of the people would be a much more meaningful affair. "These celebrations should not be state-sponsored, but only state-supported," suggests Panikkar.

But there are still people who believe that national pride is worth the cost of a military display. Analyst K. Subrahmanyam believes that so long as there are people who intrude into the country, and as long as there are hijackings, and where there is "an international system that permits these things and makes nuclear bombs legitimate," it is necessary to have a military parade. Subrahmanyam draws a fine distinction between military parades in India and those elsewhere. "Here it is just entertainment." But not all would agree. "There is an effort to portray an aggressive image of India today. After all, Kargil has been projected as the ultimate achievement-and if you look at these parades newer and newer weapons are being unveiled to a watching public all the time," comments an analyst.

Advertisement

In India the military parade owes its origins to the country’s colonial past, when it was compelled to show off to its own people as well as the rest of the world that it was capable of order, unity, strength as well as stability. But it is a mission, which even the nationalists believe, still has a long way to go before it can be accomplished. So much for nationalism and honour.

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement