|
Various countries even that have highly developed democracy, economy and knowledge-based society faced Coup D'etat, Dictatorship and/or Civil War. India was an underdeveloped society, economy and had a history of colonial rule. Why didn't India face any Coup D'etat/Dictatorship/Civil War? What factors were active to save Indian democracy from any of those anomalies? Or, is it their religion/culture/just the nature of the people? |
||||
|
|
|
India might have faced civil war, during the 1947 partition. It was largely through the efforts of Gandhi and other peace seekers that it didn't happen. The influence of Gandhi and other advocates of non-violence helps explain the lack of coups or dictatorships. Basically, "strong men" were not a fixture of Indian society as they were in others. |
|||||||||||
|
|
One reason could be the numerical size of the diversity present in thought and culture within India which keeps pulling the nation in different directions and acts as a check to the momentum any dramatic activity within the system generates. Coups, Dictatorships etc may appear to be driven by one man but they are brought about by a collective feeling within a number of people. Such a collective feeling is never allowed to gain strength in India because the inbuilt diversity prevents any one group from gaining the upper hand. Its virtually a norm in India that whatever happens, there is always a sizeable group criticizing it, and a sizeable group praising it. The key thing here is "the size". By sheer numbers it is enough to generate its own momentum and act in opposition to the current trend. A recent anti-graft movement led by the social activist Anna Hazare is an example. Initially it appeared as if "Team Anna" had brought the government on its knees but then the movement cooled down. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
First of all, there was a period of dictatorship in India, Indian Emergency of 26 June 1975 – 21 March 1977 and, after that, there was a minor civil war with the Sikh minority. There was also considerable religious unrest during the formation of the nation. So, I wouldn't say that Indian culture precludes these political activities. I would say that one major reason was the nature of the world during the bulk of India's history, namely, the Cold War and India's strategic location. It was in the interest of both the US and USSR to have a stable government in India where neither side had an upper hand. Therefore, there were no significant outside influences pushing for radical changes as there was in China and other countries. Another factor was that India was underdeveloped and there was a great desire to see economic improvement. Having a stable, mostly democratic, government with good rule of law and protection of property rights is the best way to achieve this goal. India's leadership knew this and, but for a few exceptions brought on by typical human failings as I noted above, they've headed in this direction. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Actually, I don't think there's ever been a very long period in Indian history where the country was united and was undergoing no civil wars. Just since the end of the British era, there's been the Pakastani partition (a civil war/diplomatic war/war that eventually split the country in two, or three depending on how you count), the Tamil rebellion, and a more or less continuous ongoing low-level rebellion in Kashmir. |
|||||
|
