The Military’s Influence on Politics in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh

Across South Asia, the army wears very different uniforms when it comes to politics. In one country, soldiers stay firmly inside the barracks and answer to elected leaders. In another, generals have repeatedly torn up constitutions and seized the presidency. In a third, the military has alternated between ruling openly and pulling strings from behind a civilian curtain. Understanding why these three neighbours-sharing a common history until 1947 and again until 1971-took such divergent paths tells us a great deal about how democracies survive or collapse. This post examines the role of the army in the political structures of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and what that role means for democratic stability.

Why civil-military relations matter 🔗

Every state needs an army for defence, but armed forces also pose a unique danger to the very governments they serve. They control the instruments of organised violence. The central question of civil-military relations is therefore simple to state but hard to achieve: how do elected civilians keep ultimate authority over the people with the guns?

Political scientists describe healthy civilian control as having two parts. First, civilian institutions-cabinets, parliaments, and defence ministries-set policy and approve what the military does. Second, the military develops a professional culture that includes staying out of politics and obeying lawful civilian authority. When both parts hold, a country is, in effect, “coup-proofed.” When either erodes, the door to military intervention opens. South Asia offers a natural experiment in all three outcomes.

India: an apolitical army under constitutional command 🔗

India stands out as one of the developing world’s clearest success stories in keeping soldiers out of politics. Since independence in 1947, the country has never experienced a military coup, and the armed forces have remained subordinate to civilian authority throughout. This is remarkable given the coups that have rocked nearly every neighbour.

The constitutional framework 🔗

The Constitution places the military firmly under civilian command. Article 53 vests executive power, including supreme command of the armed forces, in the President, but this power is regulated by law and exercised on the advice of the elected Council of Ministers. In practice, real authority rests with the elected executive working through the Ministry of Defence. The Army Act of 1950 governs discipline and operations, while the civilian bureaucracy acts as the intermediary between political leaders and the service headquarters.

This arrangement was deliberately engineered in the early years after independence. The political leadership of the time reduced the military’s earlier prominence, placed service headquarters under the Defence Ministry, and built norms that kept generals away from policymaking. Military officers initially resented the extent of this control and the civilians’ limited military knowledge, but the system held and set the pattern for decades.

Defence and disaster relief, not politics 🔗

With politics off-limits, the Indian army channels its energy into two main roles: national defence and assistance to civilians. The second has become highly visible. Under the principle of Aid to Civil Authorities, backed by the Disaster Management Act of 2005, the forces are deployed when civilian capacities are overwhelmed by floods, earthquakes, or other emergencies.

The numbers show the scale. In 2025, the army deployed 141 columns across more than 80 locations in ten states, rescuing over 28,000 civilians and providing medical aid to thousands more. Crucially, soldiers operate here in support of district authorities and state disaster bodies-not as rulers. Even during emergencies, the principle remains that civilian government stays supreme and any military role in administration must be temporary.

A success that needs watching 🔗

India’s record is strong but not automatic. Scholars note that civilian control has historically been narrow, concentrated in the bureaucracy with limited participation from parliament or civil society in defence oversight. Recent reforms, such as the creation of the Chief of Defence Staff and a Department of Military Affairs, have brought the military closer to the government. Some commentators worry this could narrow the healthy distance between politicians and generals. The consensus, though, is that there is no serious threat to constitutional rule from the army-the danger, if any, lies in complacency rather than ambition.

Pakistan: an army that captured the state 🔗

Pakistan presents the opposite picture. Born from the same colonial partition as India, it has spent more than three decades under direct military rule and remains, even in civilian periods, a country where the army is the most powerful institution.

A history written in coups 🔗

Pakistan has experienced three major coups, in 1958, 1977, and 1999, each reshaping the nation’s trajectory.

The first came in 1958, when President Iskander Mirza abrogated the constitution and named army chief General Ayub Khan as Chief Martial Law Administrator. Just thirteen days later, Ayub Khan pushed Mirza out and took the presidency himself, ruling until 1969.

The second came in 1977, when General Zia-ul-Haq overthrew Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto amid disputed elections and street violence, suspended the constitution, and postponed elections indefinitely while banning political parties. The third came in 1999, when General Pervez Musharraf seized power from an elected prime minister.

Why the army keeps coming back 🔗

The military’s dominance is not only about tanks rolling onto the streets. Its influence operates through what Pakistanis call “the establishment”-a network involving the judiciary, civil bureaucracy, allied politicians, and others. Through this network, the army has toppled elected governments and exercised indirect control over weak administrations.

Two factors stand out. First, courts repeatedly legitimised intervention. The early “doctrine of necessity” ruling provided a legal template that was later used to justify military action against elected governments. Second, civilian politicians themselves often invited the army in. Analysts point out that the army has always found “civilian partners” willing to bend laws to accommodate generals, eroding institutional boundaries from within. Even when not formally in power, the military remains the invisible guiding hand over foreign affairs, national security, and the economy.

Bangladesh: ruling openly, then ruling from the shadows 🔗

Bangladesh, which broke away from Pakistan in 1971, sits between the two extremes. It has known both prolonged military rule and genuine civilian government, and its recent history shows the army can still shape outcomes decisively.

The years of coups 🔗

The turmoil began early. In 1975, the country’s founding leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was assassinated along with most of his family in a military coup, opening a long period of military dominance. Two further coups that same year ended with General Ziaur Rahman taking power. He was assassinated in 1981, and a year later General Hussain Muhammad Ershad seized control in a bloodless takeover, ruling as president for much of the 1980s.

Even after democracy returned, the army did not vanish from politics. In 2007, the army chief backed a caretaker government that ran the country for two years before Sheikh Hasina took office in 2009. The military, in other words, kept reappearing as the ultimate referee of national politics.

The 2024 turning point 🔗

The most dramatic recent episode came in August 2024. After weeks of student-led protests-initially sparked by a controversial court decision on civil service job quotas-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigned and fled the country. The army chief announced her departure and the formation of an interim administration.

While much international coverage framed this as a popular revolution, several analysts argue the army’s role was central to the outcome. An interim government of civilian “advisers” was installed under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, which some observers describe as a civilian facade over renewed military influence. Notably, Bangladesh faces no major external enemy yet maintains a large military, which has long sought political influence even when not ruling directly.

A power behind the scenes 🔗

As of early 2026, Bangladesh is preparing for national elections under the interim arrangement. The army is not contesting for power, but it has become the most visible guarantor of public order while the police remain weakened. For nearly a year and a half, soldiers have policed the streets with magisterial powers. Analysts suggest the era of open coups may be over for now, but the cantonment’s influence over politics persists. The country’s trajectory illustrates a middle path: not the entrenched dominance of Pakistan, nor the firm subordination seen in India.

What the comparison teaches us about democratic stability 🔗

Placed side by side, the three cases reveal a clear pattern. The army’s political role and a country’s democratic stability move together.

India built strong, layered civilian control early and reinforced a professional, apolitical military culture. The result is durable democratic continuity. Pakistan saw its institutions repeatedly bypassed-by generals, by complicit courts, and by politicians who courted the army for short-term gain. The result is fragile democracy living permanently in the army’s shadow. Bangladesh swung between these poles, suggesting that military influence is not a permanent destiny but something that institutions can either contain or invite.

The common thread is that coups rarely happen by force alone. They are enabled when civilian institutions are weak, when courts supply legal cover, and when politicians treat the army as an ally against their rivals. Where those enabling conditions are absent, as in India, even a very large and powerful army stays in the barracks. Where they are present, the most carefully written constitution offers little protection.

What do you think? If civilian politicians inviting the military into disputes is what truly weakens democracy, what reforms could make a country’s institutions resistant to that temptation? And do you think India’s strong record of civilian control is permanently secure, or does it require active effort to maintain?

References

1. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/civil-military-relations-in-independent-india
2. https://shop.ssbcrack.com/blogs/blog/ias-vs-army-officer-who-has-more-power-in-india
3. https://akkaias.com/indias-humanitarian-assistance-and-disaster-relief-framework/
4. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2228319&reg=3&lang=1
5. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/baeb4a2f-faca-4c0a-9514-5ba68cd7d165/content
6. https://www.wionews.com/world/three-coups-and-a-nation-divided-a-political-history-of-pakistan-s-military-takeovers-1747832633017
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_coups_in_Pakistan
8. https://www.thequint.com/news/world/pakistan-prime-minister-president-government-military-takeovers-coups
9. https://www.orfonline.org/research/cause-and-effect-the-factors-that-make-pakistans-military-a-political-force
10. https://bharatshakti.in/a-nightmare-for-democracy-pakistans-unending-coups/
11. https://www.arabnews.com/node/2453606/amp
12. https://www.aol.com/news/factbox-bangladeshs-history-upheaval-coups-122613340.html
13. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/08/11/bangladeshs-prolonged-coups-and-its-impact-on-surrounding-countries/
14. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4831210-a-quiet-military-coup-in-bangladesh/
15. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/1/29/bangladesh-election-is-the-military-still-a-power-behind-the-scenes