BENGALURU: In his third book, Poles Apart: The Military and Democracy in India and Pakistan (India Viking; 336 pages; `699), Aditya Sondhi takes readers on an engaging journey through the intertwined fates of two nations cut from the same cloth but shaped into disparate political entities. The seasoned advocate of the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court, as well as a writer and playwright, examines the decisions and paths that led India and Pakistan to become, as the book’s title suggests, ‘Poles Apart’ – just 78 years after their violent separation.
A result of Sondhi’s long-held fascination with military history, partition and comparative politics, Poles Apart builds upon his PhD thesis. “This subject seemed to bring all three areas together nicely, and that’s really what drew me to it,” he reflects. “Over a decade after completing my thesis, I sat down to rewrite it. Academic writing can be quite dense, and I wanted the book to be more accessible. I also added numerous references to provide broader perspectives and included new chapters on Bangladesh and developments in both India and Pakistan since 2014,” he says.
A central theme of Poles Apart is the stark contrast between how India and Pakistan’s military institutions have interacted with their respective governments. “Pakistan never had a strong multiparty system at its inception,” says Sondhi, a Bengalurean who is based in New Delhi. “With no elections in its early years and no constitution until 1956, the deaths of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan left a power vacuum that the military quickly filled, with far-reaching consequences.”
In contrast, India’s post-Independence journey was guided by a constitution, civilian leadership, and a commitment to electoral democracy. “India had its constitution by the end of 1949, officially coming into force in January 1950,” Sondhi notes. These early commitments ensured that the Indian military remained focused on national defence, avoiding political interference.
Poles Apart also highlights moments when India could have mirrored Pakistan’s trajectory, such as the 1962 war with China, the Emergency of 1975-77, and Operation Blue Star. “Each of these events was a potential tipping point,” Sondhi observes. “Bangladesh has made strides in its democratic experiment, but recent developments show that nothing is guaranteed. This underscores a key point of my research: the traditions a country inherits are vital in shaping its future direction.”
In India, the military’s apolitical stance has been a cornerstone of its democratic resilience. Conversely, Pakistan’s lack of early democratic tradition led to military coups that disrupted its political progress. “After 78 years of Independence, we can confidently say that the Indian armed forces have upheld their duty without ever threatening the civilian government,” Sondhi asserts. “In Pakistan, the military was often invited into politics by the executive, while in India, civilian leaders kept a cautious distance. This separation, reinforced by the Indian bureaucracy acting as a buffer, has kept the military out of political decision-making.”
Sondhi hopes readers will recognise the crucial role that ‘seemingly passive’ institutions, such as the Indian armed forces, have played in sustaining democracy. “We must never take our democratic ideals for granted. It’s not just about institutions. The role of the media, civil society, and everything that happens between elections defines a mature democracy. Even during challenging times, transitions must remain democratic,” he warns.
“Bangladesh’s recent history is telling. Although a student movement effectively unseated an elected government, the transition was notable because the army chief played a role. You have a figure like Mohammad Yunus, an honourable man, yet not an elected leader or someone holding a constitutional role, stepping in. These sharp periods of transition test how well a country can absorb shocks and return to a stable, democratic path,” he explains.