Pakistan army

Nepal‘s‌ Regime Shift & Why India Remains Secure: A Look at State Strength and ‌Social Valves

Kathmandu/New Delhi – Recent ‌political⁤ upheaval ⁤in Nepal, culminating in a‌ change in government, has sparked debate about‌ the potential for similar “street-level” regime changes‍ elsewhere in South Asia. However,experts argue that the⁢ conditions allowing for this shift in⁣ Nepal are‍ fundamentally different ⁤from those in India,where a robust ⁣constitutional framework and⁣ established mechanisms for dissent significantly mitigate the risk⁣ of ‌similar outcomes.

The discussion stems from observations ​that ⁣a nation’s true power ​resides not‍ solely within its formal institutions – the⁣ “Deep State” – ⁣but within the “shallow State,” encompassing the practical ability to maintain order and manage dissent.This concept was⁣ highlighted in a recent conversation⁣ recalling a dinner ⁢hosted by India Today editor Aroon Purie, where⁤ former Home Minister Buta Singh recounted ‌a discussion wiht ​Soviet Foreign‍ Minister Eduard Shevardnadze.Shevardnadze ‌reportedly inquired about India’s⁤ handling ⁢of large protests, contrasting it with the Soviet army’s use of poison gas against a smaller crowd in Tbilisi. Singh’s response – ⁤offering CRPF companies ‍- ‍underscored the importance of ‍a state’s capacity ⁤to maintain law⁢ and order through trained forces,negotiation,and democratic‌ patience.

Crucially, the absence of a strong opposition is not ⁢indicative of a “hard state,” but rather‌ the ​opposite. A functioning opposition acts as a‍ vital “pressure-release ⁤valve,” allowing citizens to vent grievances through established channels rather than resorting to ​disruptive⁤ or destabilizing actions. Several of India’s neighbors have​ experienced instability after suppressing ⁣their opposition, ⁣in varying degrees.

While India⁣ experiences ⁣localized⁢ unrest – with “a couple ‌of dozen mutinies”‌ occurring at any given time – two important challenges to the state from public movements in the past 50 years failed to​ achieve regime change. The first, beginning in ⁤1974,⁣ was ⁢Jayaprakash Narayan’s (JP) Navnirman Andolan, ‍compounded by the George Fernandes-led railway strike. Despite⁣ widespread ⁣disruption, it‍ did not dislodge Prime Minister Indira gandhi, ultimately requiring an⁢ election⁣ to resolve the political situation.

The second major challenge⁢ came with ‌Anna ⁢Hazare’s⁢ anti-corruption protests, backed ⁤by new television media and elements within the opposition, including⁢ the RSS – mirroring support seen during JP’s movement. Even‍ a comparatively weak UPA-2 government was able to ​withstand the pressure. A late-night debate on the Jan Lok Pal Bill proved pivotal,with Samajwadi party MP Sharad ⁢Yadav’s ⁤impassioned defense of the democratic ⁢system – pointing to ⁣a fellow MP,Pakauri Lal,as ‍an example⁤ of how⁢ even humble citizens ⁢could‍ participate⁢ in governance – effectively ending the momentum of the Anna movement.‍ “in this system​ a man as humble as him can be here. ⁣And this is the system you’ve come ⁣to destroy?” Yadav reportedly asked, resonating with Parliament’s resolve to protect ⁤the state.

the article further highlights the⁤ importance of a state’s internal conviction in maintaining unity, recalling⁢ a 2010 conversation with then-National​ Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan​ during a period of intense⁣ unrest in Kashmir. When voices suggested allowing ​Kashmiris to‍ secede if they were unhappy,​ Narayanan reportedly emphasized the need for ⁢the state to “have it in its gut to stay together.” Fifteen years ‍later, the situation in⁤ Kashmir has demonstrably changed, suggesting the effectiveness of this​ approach.

These examples demonstrate that⁢ India, despite being labeled by ⁢some as a “soft state,” possesses​ the institutional strength and ⁣established mechanisms to navigate significant challenges to its authority without succumbing to “tool kit”-driven regime change.The essential difference lies in ⁢India’s commitment to‍ constitutional ‍democracy,where a “regime” does not exist in the same vulnerable sense as in nations with weaker institutions ‍and⁤ suppressed dissent.