Introduction
The
Indian political system has proven to be flexible and
durable, but major internal conflicts have threatened
the constitution. In practice, the elected office of
the nation's president has gravitated toward the formal
and ritual aspects of executive power, while the office
of the prime minister, backed up by a majority in Parliament,
the cabinet, national security forces, and the bureaucracy
of the Indian Administrative Service, has wielded the
actual power. The national Parliament has not developed
an independent committee structure and critical tradition
that could stand against the force of the executive
branch. The judiciary, while remaining independent and
at times crucial in determining national policy, has
stayed in the background and is subject to future change
through constitutional amendments. The constitution
itself has been subject to numerous amendments since
its adoption in 1950. By August 1996, the constitution
had been amended eighty times.
National
politics have become contests to set up the appointment
of the prime minister, who then has considerable power
to interfere directly or through a cooperative president
in all aspects of national life. The most drastic example
of this power occurred in 1975, when Indira Gandhi implemented
the constitutional provision for a declaration of Emergency,
suspending civil rights for eighteen months, using Parliament
as a tool for eliminating opposition, and ruling with
the aid of a small circle of advisers. The more common
form of executive interference has been the suspension
of state legislatures under a variety of pretexts and
the implementation of President's Rule. This typically
has occurred when opposition parties have captured state
legislatures and set in motion policies unfavorable
to the prime minister's party. After Indira Gandhi's
assassination in 1984, her successors engaged in such
overt acts of interference less often.
The
main opposition to the national executive comes from
the states, in a variety of legal and extralegal struggles
for regional autonomy. Most of the states have developed
specific political identities based on forms of ethnicity
that claim a long historical past. The most common identifying
characteristic is language. Agitation in what became
the state of Andhra Pradesh led the way in the 1950s,
resulting in the reorganization of state boundaries
along linguistic lines. Agitations in the state of Tamil
Nadu in the 1960s resulted in domination of the state
by parties dedicated officially to Tamil nationalism.
In
the northeast, regional struggles have coalesced around
tribal identities, leading to the formation of a number
of small states based on dominant tribal groupings.
Farther south, in Kerala and West Bengal, communist
parties have upheld the banner of regionalism by capturing
state assemblies and implementing radical socialist
programs against the wishes of the central government.
The
regional movements most threatening to national integration
have occurred in the northwest. The state of Punjab
was divided by the Indian government twice after independence--Haryana
and Himachal Pradesh were sliced off--before it achieved
a Sikh majority population in what remained of Punjab.
That majority allowed the Sikh-led Akali Dal (Eternal
Party) to capture the state assembly in the early 1980s.
By then radical separatist elements were determined
to fight for an independent Sikh Punjab. The result
was an army attack on Sikh militants occupying the Golden
Temple in Amritsar, Indira Gandhi's assassination by
her Sikh bodyguards, both in 1984, and a ten-year internal
security struggle that has killed thousands. In India's
state of Jammu and Kashmir (often referred to as Kashmir),
where Muslims constitute the majority of the population,
regional struggle takes a different religious form and
has created intense security problems that keep bilateral
relations with Pakistan, which also lays claim to Kashmir,
in a tense mode.
The
central government usually has been able to defuse regional
agitations by agreeing to redefinition of state boundaries
or by guaranteeing differing degrees of regional autonomy,
including acquiescence in the control of the state government
by regional political parties. This strategy defused
the original linguistic agitations through the 1970s,
and led to the resolution of the destructive political
and ethnic crises in Assam in the mid-1980s. When national
security interests came into play, however, as in Punjab
and Jammu and Kashmir, the central government did not
hesitate to use force.
Challenges
to Internal Security
One of the most serious challenges to India's
internal security and democratic traditions has come
from so-called communal disorders, or riots, based on
ethnic cleavages. The most typical form is a religious
riot, mostly between Hindus and Muslims, although some
of these disturbances also occur between different castes
or linguistic groups. Most of these struggles start
with neighborhood squabbles of little significance,
but rapidly escalate into mob looting and burning, street
fighting, and violent intervention by the police or
paramilitary forces.
Religious
ideology has played only a small part in these events.
Instead, the pressures of urban life in overcrowded,
poorer neighborhoods, combined with competition for
limited economic opportunities, create an environment
in which ethnic differences become convenient labels
for defining enemies, and criminal behavior becomes
commonplace. Whether ignited by a street accident or
a major political event, passions in these areas may
be directed into mob action. However, after the catastrophe
of independence (when hundreds of thousands in North
India died during the partition of India and Pakistan
and at least 12 million became refugees), and because
the pattern of rioting has continued annually in various
cities, a culture of distrust has grown up among a sizable
minority of Hindus and Muslims. This distrust has manifested
itself in the nationwide agitations fomented by elements
of the BJP and communal Hindu parties in the early 1990s.
It reached a peak in December 1992 with the dramatic
destruction of the Babri Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya
(in Uttar Pradesh), and communal riots and bombings
in major cities throughout India in early 1993. In this
manner, the frictions of daily life in an overcrowded,
poor nation have had a major impact on the national
political agenda.
Tension
with Pakistan
The internal conflict between Hindus and Muslims
has received some of its stimulus since 1947 from the
international conflict between India and Pakistan. One
of the great tragedies of the freedom struggle was the
relentless polarization of opinion between the Congress,
which came to represent mostly Hindus, and the All-India
Muslim League (Muslim League--see Glossary), which eventually
stood behind a demand for a separate homeland for a
Muslim majority. This division, encouraged under British
rule by provisions for separate electorates for Muslims,
led to the partition of Pakistan from India and the
outbreak of hostilities over Kashmir. Warfare between
India and Pakistan occurred in 1947, 1965, and 1971;
the last conflict led to the independence of Bangladesh
(formerly East Pakistan) and a major strategic victory
by India.
The
perception of Pakistan as an enemy nation has overshadowed
all other Indian foreign policy considerations because
neither country has relinquished claims over Kashmir,
and a series of border irritations continue to bedevil
attempts at rapprochement. In the late 1980s, tensions
over large-scale military maneuvers almost led to war,
and regular fighting over glacial wastelands in Kashmir
continues to keep the pressure high. An added dimension
emerged in 1987 when Pakistan publicly admitted that
it possessed nuclear weapons capability, matching Indian
nuclear capabilities demonstrated in 1974. In the mid-1990s,
both nations continue to devote a large percentage of
their military budgets to developing or to purchasing
advanced weaponry, which is mostly aimed at each other--a
serious drain of resources needed for economic growth.
The
Cold War
Nehru and the early leadership of independent
India had envisioned a nation at peace with the rest
of the world, in keeping with Gandhian ideals and socialist
goals. Under Nehru's guidance, India distanced itself
from Cold War politics and played a major part in the
Nonaligned Movement. Until the early 1960s, India spent
relatively little on national defense and enjoyed an
excellent relationship with the United States, a relationship
that peaked in John F. Kennedy's presidency. India's
strategic position changed after China defeated the
Indian army in the border war of 1962 and war with Pakistan
occurred in 1965. During this period, the situation
became more precarious because India had opponents on
two fronts. In addition, Pakistan began to receive substantial
amounts of military assistance from the United States,
ostensibly to support anticommunism, but it was no secret
that most of the weapons purchased with United States
aid were a deterrent projected against India. Under
these circumstances, India began to move closer to the
Soviet Union, purchasing outright large amounts of military
hardware or making agreements to produce it indigenously.
Relations
between the United States and India reached a low point
in 1971 during the Bangladesh war of independence, when
a United States naval force entered the Bay of Bengal
to show support for Pakistan although doing nothing
to forestall its defeat. This display of force, which
could not be opposed by India or the Soviet Union, served
only to strain the relationship between India and the
United States and heightened Cold War tensions in South
Asia. During the 1970s, as the United States and China
improved relations and China became closer in turn to
Pakistan, India's strategic position became more entwined
with Cold War issues, and the Soviet connection became
even more important. These international postures contrasted
dramatically with the increasing importance to India
of American scientific and economic links, which were
strengthened by the increasing emigration of Indian
citizens to North America. The overall result, however,
was India's weaker international situation in the view
of some Americans.
During
the 1980s, then, India was still officially a nonaligned
nation but found itself deeply embedded in Cold War
strategy. India's reaction to the Soviet occupation
of Afghanistan was a disquieting feature of Indian foreign
policy, in that India decried the Soviet military presence
but did nothing against it. Continued United States
support for Pakistan, plus the buildup of United States
strike forces on the small island of Diego Garcia in
the Indian Ocean, heightened tensions. It was no coincidence,
therefore, that the 1980s witnessed a major expansion
of Indian naval forces, with the addition of two aircraft
carriers, a submarine fleet, and major surface ships,
including transport craft. But although the Indian buildup
made the United States unhappy, India's technological
capacities remained inferior to those of the United
States Navy, and the Indian navy was never a large threat
to United States interests. Instead, the growth of the
Indian navy had major implications for the regional
balance of power within South Asia. The Indian navy
could potentially create a second front against Pakistan
should major hostilities recur.
India's
military buildup allowed it to intervene in low-intensity
conflicts throughout South Asia. From 1987 to 1990,
the Indian Peace Keeping Force of more than 60,000 personnel
was active in Sri Lanka and became embroiled in a fruitless
war against Tamil separatist guerrillas. And, in 1988
Indian forces briefly intervened in Maldives to prevent
a coup. Regular border problems with Bangladesh after
1971, the Indian annexation of Sikkim in 1975, and the
1989 closure of the border with Nepal over economic
disagreements all added up to the picture of a big country
bullying its smaller neighbors, a vision Indian leaders
took great pains to dispel. Thus, even though the country
officially remained at peace during the 1980s, India's
growing military power and the intersecting problems
of regional dominance and Cold War ambivalence drove
an ambitious foreign policy.
Post-Cold
War Era
The Indian strategic position changed dramatically
in the early 1990s. The end of the Cold War, and then
the disintegration of the Soviet Union itself, deprived
India of a great ally but also put a stop to many of
the worldwide tensions that had relentlessly pulled
India into global alignments. When the United States
cut off military aid to Pakistan in 1990, it defused
one of the most intractable barriers to good relations
with India. Then, in 1992, the Persian Gulf War against
Iraq brought India grudgingly into an alignment with
both Pakistan and the United States, a connection strengthened
in 1994 when troops from all three nations cooperated
in Somalia under the aegis of the United Nations.
The
possession of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and India
immersed them in a familiar scenario of mutually assured
destruction and made it more problematic for India,
despite its military superiority, to overrun Pakistan.
Thus, in the mid-1990s, despite continuing hostility
over Kashmir, which intensified as the internal situation
there disintegrated in the 1990s, the long-term possibilities
for official peace between the two countries remained
good. Threats from other South Asian nations were negligible.
Issues with China were unresolved but not very significant.
No other country in the world presented a strategic
threat. As budgetary problems beset the government in
the mid-1990s, therefore, the Indian military began
cutbacks. The military also expanded contacts with a
variety of other nations, including Russia and the United
States. India hence has entered a period of relative
security and multilateral contacts quite different from
its twenty-five-year Cold War immersion.
India
is a complex geographic, historical, religious, social,
economic, and political entity. India is one of the
oldest human civilizations and yet displays no cultural
features common to all its members. It is one of the
richest nations in history, but most of its people are
among the poorest in the world. Its ideology rests on
some of the most sublime concepts of humanism and nonviolence,
but deep-seated discrimination and violent responses
are daily news. It has one of the world's most stable
political structures, but that structure is constantly
in crisis. The nation is seeking a type of great power
status, but no one is sure what that involves. India,
in the end, defies easy analysis.
|