(This is the latest edition of the Political Line newsletter curated by Varghese K. George. The Political Line newsletter is India’s political landscape explained every week. You can subscribe here to get the newsletter in your inbox every Friday.)
Many political thinkers and practitioners of statecraft, Hindutva icon V. D. Savarkar among them, have reflected on the role of the military in the functioning of a nation-state.
Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar has called for compulsory military training for youngsters, terming it essential to instil a sense of discipline and foster patriotic feelings among the youth.
Many political thinkers and practitioners of statecraft, Hindutva icon V. D. Savarkar among them, have reflected on the role of the military in the functioning of a nation-state. Savarkar wanted to “militarise the Hindus,” for reasons that Mr Arlekar suggests and more. The modern Indian republic has a long tradition of insulating the military from the overall social and political dynamics, but Hindutva believes in an all-of-society approach to defence. This is driven also by its constant engagement with the notion of enemies within.
The founding fathers of America started off with a concept that a standing, professional military would be misused by the state to enslave the people. James Madison warned that “armies kept up under the pretence of defending, have enslaved the people,” and Alexander Hamilton suggested Congress should vote every two years “upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot.” In fact, the right to arm oneself, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, came into existence as a bulwark against the possibility of state using armed forces to suppress the citizens. Overall, the thinking was that defending the nation was the job of the citizen, not the state, and citizens were to be equipped to defend themselves from the state also. Experiences in real wars would change this thinking soon, and the US went on to build the most lethal and professional militaries on the planet.
If you are interested in knowing more about how Western, Christian thinking about the identity of the soldier evolved in connection with wars and the concept of duty, sin and citizenship, here is an essay by an American Marine. (Klay, P. (2016, May 24). The citizen-soldier: Moral risk and the modern military. The Brookings Institution.
As of now, the US military is considered a unifier of its multiethnic citizenry, many of them born in a foreign country at any given point in time. Henry Breckinridge, an American leader during World War I, said “universal military service will be the elder brother of the public school in fusing this American race;” while Franklin Roosevelt saw military service as a means to “Americanise” immigrants. Military life emphasises the collective over individual identity, and as Klay writes in this essay, “in boot camp, being called ‘an individual’ is a slur.” Joining the military is the ultimate surrendering of one’s individuality, to the extent of being willing to sacrifice one’s own life.
When this virtues associated with the collective identity is expanded for the whole society, as opposed to the professional military, the values of discipline, hierarchy, and a readiness for sacrifice are emphasised over the rights of the citizens which are central to a democracy.
The Indian state considered it a bad idea to give military training to the general public. Arun Jaitley, as Defence Minister in the first year of the Narendra Modi government in 2014, said in Parliament: “Military training to all the youth of the country may also lead to militarisation of an entire nation. With our socio-political and economic conditions, it is highly undesirable, lest some of the unemployed youth trained in military skills join the ranks of the undesirable elements.”
The Agnipath scheme of the Indian military overturns this thinking. Starting 2026, at least 30,000 people will exit the military after a short-term service of four years, every year.
Federalism Tract: Notes on Indian Diversity
Governors of all that they survey
The Supreme Court of India pushed back against the arguments by the Attorney General and the Centre, through the Solicitor General, that Governors can indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies. The Court warned this would leave elected governments at the “whims and fancies” of appointed Governors, undermining democracy. The bench argued constitutional interpretation must adapt to present realities, noting that the power to withhold assent should not result in an effective veto or permanent stalling of State legislation. The Court questioned if such powers align with the original constitutional vision of harmony between Governors and elected State governments. “Then what happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds of the majority of the legislature of a particular State? We are on the question of a Governor, however high he may be, sitting on Bills passed by a competent legislature,” Chief Justice Gavai observed.
Separately, the Centre has submitted before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that the Union Territory’s Lieutenant-Governor can nominate five members to the J&K Legislative Assembly without the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers. In effect, if this argument stands, the LG can even unseat a Council with a narrow legislative majority or install one of his or her choice.
How should members be recommended to the Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly? What does the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 state with respect to nominations to the Puducherry Assembly? What was the ‘triple chain of command’ opined by the Supreme Court in 2023? You could read here.
Meanwhile, new proposals introduced through three Bills mandate that if the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, or Ministers are arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days for offences punishable by at least five years’ imprisonment, they must be removed from office. The President, on the advice of the Prime Minister, will remove Union Ministers; Governors will remove State Chief Ministers and Ministers. Since no investigative agency will ever detain the Prime Minister, that proposal is redundant. Effectively, all this means the Centre, acting through the Governor, can remove a CM or a State Minister based on the pious claim of probity and accountability.
Election integrity debates
Election integrity questions are roiling democracies, India and the US being two big examples. President Donald Trump said this week that he would stop mail-in voting, linking it to fraud and electoral manipulation. He plans to issue an executive order banning mail ballot usage and voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterms, though his authority to do any such thing is being questioned by constitutional scholars. Election rules are set by States and Congress. Over 30 democracies use postal ballots, but the expansion of remote voting during the 2020 elections due to the pandemic has raised concerns of fraud.
The BJP is trying to overhaul India’s electoral system, and the central idea is to have simultaneous polls for State Assemblies and Parliament. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, appearing before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the simultaneous elections Bill, praised India’s democratic maturity but flagged serious concerns about Clause 5 of the proposed Article 82A. He warned that granting the Election Commission unfettered discretion to postpone State Assembly elections risks undermining the basic structure, including equality (Article 14), and could erode federalism by enabling indirect President’s Rule. He recommended fixing election dates in the Bill itself, rather than relying on open-ended notifications. The ECI is already facing a crisis of credibility.
Published – August 23, 2025 12:58 am IST