Democratic institutions and processes have been under considerable strain in the last two decades in India. Tendencies towards the use of force rather than negotiation and compromise in solving conflicts of a socioeconomic and political nature have altered the political landscape. In the light of new political situations with the complete breakdown of civil administration in several states of India and the increasing role of the army in aid of civil authority, it is pertinent to ask if existing civil-military relations are likely to remain unchanged in the near future. The frequent resort by politicians to the army to resolve law-and-order crises, its day-to-day close cooperation with civilians, as in Kashmir, the consequent increased political socialization among officers and the rank and file raises doubts about the future of the "nonpolitical" profile of the Indian army.
In 1947, British colonial rule was terminated; the country was partitioned, and the new state of Pakistan came into existence. In 1971 yet another new state was carved out of Pakistan, Bangladesh. The domestic role of the Indian army has diverged radically from its Pakistan and Bangladesh counterparts, which have been embroiled in politics almost since the inception of those states.
Studies in recent years have focused upon the nature of the military establishment itself in order to answer the question of why the Indian armed forces have exercised restraint in the political arena.1 An explanation of military non- intervention is expressed in terms of its professionalism and organization. The ethnic composition, socioeconomic background, recruitment, and training officers and soldiers is seen as not being conducive to military intervention.
It is not sufficient to link the military's political or nonpolitical behavior simply to the level of political institutionalization of a society2 or to the nature of its military organization.3 The point of departure in this study therefore is the weight given to the political attitudes and beliefs, the "political perspectives of the military."4 Decisions to involve militaries politically are made most often by its senior leadership. No analysis of civil-military relations can be made