Indian army slammed for hypocrisy and political pandering
Islamabad: Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi recently made controversial remarks, labeling neighboring countries as “terror epicenters” while simultaneously denying any involvement of the Indian Army in political affairs, including military coups or election manipulation.
According to Kashmir Media Service, this glaring contradiction has drawn significant criticism from political experts, who accuse the Indian Army chief of indulging in political pandering rather than addressing facts. Many experts have pointed out that his statements appear more politically motivated than grounded in reality, especially considering the historical and ongoing influence of the Indian military in the country’s political landscape.
The Indian Army has long been accused of exerting considerable political influence, with critics suggesting that General Dwivedi’s denial of such involvement is not only disingenuous but also an attempt to deflect attention from the military’s established role in Indian politics. While India prides itself on its democratic institutions, the shadow of military influence remains a contentious issue. Analysts warn that the army’s continued engagement in political matters undermines the credibility of such denials.
The controversy surrounding General Dwivedi’s statements also extends to his claims about the electoral process in Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). The Indian Army Chief described two recent elections in the occupied territory as “free and fair,” yet critics argue that these elections were conducted under extreme duress. The ongoing Indian military presence, coupled with severe socio-economic conditions in IIOJK—including an energy crisis, widespread unemployment, and brutal crackdowns on peaceful protests—raises serious questions about the integrity of the electoral process.
Many experts contend that the high voter turnout in IIOJK does not reflect genuine democratic participation but rather results from coercion, intimidation, and the heavy militarization of the region. Critics argue that such conditions cannot be deemed conducive to a free and fair election, pointing out that the Modi government’s policies, particularly since the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, have only exacerbated anti-Kashmiri sentiment and entrenched militarization in the territory.
The criticism of the Indian Army’s involvement in politics is further compounded by accusations of hypocrisy. Pakistan has consistently condemned the Indian Army’s “dual standards,” particularly in light of its military’s substantial influence in political affairs, while India has often been quick to point fingers at similar practices in neighboring countries. The Indian government’s stance on Kashmir, critics argue, reflects a troubling pattern of selective democracy, where the claims of a thriving democratic process stand in stark contrast to the harsh realities on the ground.
In summary, General Dwivedi’s contradictory statements on military involvement in politics and the electoral process in IIOJK have drawn sharp rebukes from political analysts and observers. His comments are seen as an attempt to obscure the uncomfortable truths about the Indian military’s ongoing influence in political matters, particularly in Kashmir, where the question of democracy and human rights remains deeply contested.