Is military rules correct in India to solve problems?

Answer 1

Kenneth is right that it has not worked in Pakistan. Even though its not restricted to 'stans', the rule is for alll the countries that its politicians who run the business of the state and its the army which is under civilian command.
A glance at world history only confirms that military rule has invariably caused decay of the civil institutes and has worsened the situations for which army always claimed to have taken over the powers.
Situation in India and Pakistan has common grounds which make some people think that armyrule can be used for the evils that exist in Indian society. But its a gross overgeneralization of the facts.
Pakistan is a totally bankrupt state in all areas of life but the worst effected area is the demise of civil society. Pandit Nehru, the prime minister of India and Mr. Jinnah the governor general of Pakistan both were democratic men and trained in the fine tradition of democracy and civil liberties. They had a vision of a modern liberal state. Indian people had a long history of political training by the likes of Nehru and Gandhi who were a rare combination of aristocratic values and down to earth politics of masses. Muslims of India were reactionary at best. They in 1906 A. D. founded "all India Muslim League" only as a reaction to the increasing popularity of Indian national congress as they were threatened by the impeding Hindu majority rule. Their fears were not baseless. But their dilemma was a greed filled, orthodox, unflexible, rotten minded feudal aristocracy riddled with all the prejudices and false prides of being the rulers of Indian subcontinet from 800 A. D. to 1857 A. D. They only took false pride in the conquest but had forgotten the nature and simplicity of their own religion. They were a dead society. Mr. Jinnah was dead within one year of independence and thus started a criminal saga of linguistic hegemony, first initiated by his own lieutenant, Liaqat Ali Khan, it led to the loss of thousands of lives in the province of Sindh later on and sowed the initial hatred between natives and the immigrants. He was an aristocrat concerned only for the welfare of Urdu speaking people of U.P and C. P of Indian subcontinent. Within ten years Pakistan army was in power and started a process of authoritariansim, self proclaimed righteousness, greed, acquisition of choice lands and pillage of national wealth, total destruction and subjugation of judiciary and academic institutions didn't resist longer to follow, people instead of getting liberated in hearts and minds got myopic and felt safe in their castes and clans and in centuries old decayed prejudices and hatred which made them elevated in their own eyes, and the process has continued unabated ever since. Indian political seen saw the worse but the initial efforts and a stable rule by civilian government of Nehru had laid the foundations of democracy in India. Indira Gandhi was assasinated as the result of massacre of Sikhs in Punjab and bombing of their holiest city and shrine "golden temple" in Amritsar but indian army was always kept at bay by the educated middle class and public opinion. People in India have come to have strong sense of participation in the state affairs and they don't find it acceptable to let generals rule them. The freedom to question has become a prominent feature of Indian society and this freedom will be so traumatised if army endeavors to come in power. Army inherently is trained (after a formal 10 to 12 years of education) in the skills of warfare. Its not in their domain or training to run countries. Even if politicians fail and there is unrest in the society, its the time for another politician to come. If a surgeon fails to do good surgery we don't ask a butcher to do the job and if a teacher consistently gives bad results in exams, we still don't ask a cobbler to do his job. Why army in the first place:)

Answer 2

Has it worked well in Pakistan, or in any other "stans". Military rule is the worst kind or oppression and it will make problems worse. The military is not the organization for a civil society to call on to make things better.

Answer 3

military rules???
What you are getting now in the whole world, is PROVOCATION... Muslim vs Non Muslim. Whoever gains from this conflicts are neither Muslims, nor Non Muslims. Do you think some simple people of Pakistan or India, or Iraq, or even US, or Iran, or anywhere in the world will gain from a war? No they will suffer, they will pay with their innocent life, lives of their families. It is the industry who gains, manipulating their politician-puppets, putting them against each other. And we, people, are eating this nonsense, and killing each other.