“War and state building are inextricably linked” … over the years war has become an everyday part of human existence, and also arguably is one of the main reasons that politics, history and we as humans are where we are today. Not only has fighting in wars built us individually, but it can also be seen as one of the main contributing factors to building states and helping political leaders strive. There have been many cases of wars under the reign of political leaders that have led to personal political success and also success of the state.
For the sake of this essay I shall be focusing on two political leaders of the modern world and their careers, and how war aided, or perhaps did not aid them in erecting their states. One of these leaders that managed to find both self and state success through war is Indira Gandhi, the daughter of Jawaharlal Gandhi and the only female Prime Minister to date of India, she was in power from 1966-1977 and then again from 1980 until her assassination in 1984. Gandhi is best known for being one of, if not the most controversial political leader of the modern world and has been both condemned and commended for her leadership and actions during her time as Indian Prime Minister. Some of her successes came in the form of refusing to conform to America’s every demand and therefore catapulting India forward into a state of strong independence that it remains to uphold to this day. It is important to look at Gandhi’s career and the effect that the Bangladesh Liberation War had on India at the time of her reign.
Born in 1881 at the time of the Ottoman Empire, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is the first leader I shall reference; Ataturk was the founder of the Republic of Turkey as well as being their first President. He had certain aspects of his life that built him up to be the leader that he became, such characteristics came from his involvement with the young Turk movement when he was growing up, but also his role during the Italo-Turkish War, the First World War and also the Balkan Wars. Similarly to Indira Gandhi, Ataturk was successful in state building with his reforms and policies which enabled state development. Some of his best reforms came in the modernisation of both the legal and educational system within the Republic of Turkey, alongside inspiring a European way of life.
Ataturk is a leader who utilised the weapon of war strongly when it comes to the building of the Turkish state, his military success was seen as a success from the get go; including his strong role in the Balkan wars, serving both against Libya and Italy. However it was not these wars that developed the state, although they elevated his status and public position, it was his leadership in the Turkish War of Independence that led him to use war to strengthen the state. The Turkish War of Independence alongside the development of Turkey supports the statement that “war and state building are inextricably linked”, as this war contributed hugely to the development of the Turkish state and the modernisation that remains today.
Compared to Gandhi, it can be seen that Ataturk’s military career and the wars that he led played a bigger contribution in state building, as his military success played a potentially larger role than his reforms. It was the mutual respect formed between himself and other young officers that led to much support with his founding of the Turkish Republic through the Turkish War of Independence. This war was fought between the Turkish Nationalist movement, led by Ataturk against various allies: on the western-front was Greece, Armenia held the Eastern front and France, the United Kingdom and Italy on the southern. The Turkish Nationalist Movement concluded in forming the Grand National Assembly, their strength led to the allies leaving Anatolia and thus it was decided that the establishment of the Republic of Turkey would be formed in October 1923. This was a huge success for Ataturk and ultimately resulted in the start of his successful career politically, it was then with the results of the Turkish War of Independence behind him that he could fulfil his aims and create social reforms that would further build the Turkish state and take it from strength to strength. Ataturk wanted to make sure that his reforms focused on the political, social and economic needs of the country and therefore transforming Turkey. One of his main aims and successes was to modernise the Turkish way of life to gain a feel of pride, equality and contentment within the newly formed state, a large role in this achievement was the use of Ataturk’s reforms. These reforms, collectively known as Kemalism saw the abolishment of the Sultan in 1922 followed by the abolishment of the Caliphate , it was the abolition of these two together that therefore saw the end of the Ottoman Empire, and thus the end of an era. The new era was based around the Republic of Turkey being “a state of the people and a state by the people” , this was also mirrored in Ataturk’s reform towards women where he enabled them the right to vote in 1924 as he believed that equality was a large step forward in the modernisation of the Turkish Republic. Many of the reforms implemented were in hope of making the new Republic more westernised and becoming more of a European state, this can be seen in the ‘Surname Reform’; resultantly Mustafa Kemal was granted the surname Ataturk by the Grand National Assembly, a symbolic surname which means “Father of the Turks”; an echo and commendation of his role played in the Turkish War of Independence.
This surname granted to him demonstrates how the war in itself helped define and make the Turkish state and therefore allowed Ataturk to use his reforms to do good for his people and consequently can provide some evidence that “war and state building are inextricably linked”.
Following the agreement towards the statement “war and state building are inextricably linked” with Ataturk, some may hold a different view when looking at the political career of Indira Gandhi. This quote can be seen as blurred grounds as arguably both the war and her personal power and policies influenced the growth of the Indian state. In 1971, India held another election where Indira Gandhi was voted in as Prime Minister for the second time, the results were a huge success for the Congress Party and left Gandhi in a strong and authoritative political position. However, it has been called upon that the reasons behind Gandhi gaining seats and re-winning the election was because of the Indian success during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, which in its own way enabled the state to grow and strengthen. The war derived from India and Pakistan having been ruled by the British for hundreds of years, when the British were departing India it was clear that the authority was being left in the hands of the Hindu’s and not so much to the Muslims, this then caused war and divide on the basis of religion. Yet it was this separation and rift which coincidentally saw the rise of the Indian state, leaving the Indian citizens elated and in high spirits as their economy pursued growth. More importantly, the attitude towards Indira Gandhi at this time was conclusive, everybody was at ease after the war and she was being commended for the dedication and allegiance that she personally demonstrated to India. Not only was she being viewed as a favourable leader, but also a compassionate and engaging person for providing support and sanctuary to the people of East Pakistan.
The success of the war followed has led the 1971 election that once again led Gandhi into power has been labelled as a “khaki election” due to it being so heavily influenced by the post war emotions of the country and the government being able to capitalise from their military success. It was through this second term as Prime Minister that then allowed Gandhi enter the realms of state building whilst the country had hope in her reign.
India’s main state building came from the policies and approaches that Gandhi used during her time in power.
Perhaps, these strategies and approaches are the most important elements that helped shape India and build it to what it became and is today. One of Gandhi’s most important and state building approaches was the Green Revolution , it is noted as a prominent turning point in Indian history and one of the most significant times of growth in India. Under the leadership of Gandhi, India as a country had managed to maximise their crop yield and thus were able to stop their reliance on external food sources, allowing them a level independence and power away from the western world that they had not seen before.
Another movement that Gandhi invoked was the nationalisation of the banks and taking them under state control; this got her some disapproval from some economists at the time, but due to her recent military success, the support of the people was with her and therefore was viewed as an extremely positive step forward for the state.
After looking at the Bangladesh Liberation War versus implemented policies and the power of Indira Gandhi, it can be seen that war can help build states but in a rather indirect way. It was not the 1971 war itself that brought India’s state to strength, instead it was the positive leadership during the war, the aftermath and election that helped build the Indian state under the reign of Indira Gandhi. Thus claiming that “war and state building are inextricably linked” is perhaps not an entirely truthful statement; Yes, there are evident links that war can help build a state, but it is also important to acknowledge the political leader and subsequently the power that said leader holds in building the state that they have power over.
Both Ataturk and Gandhi led states in different time periods that developed strength and strived under their time in power, additionally both leaders saw their countries undergo major turning points as well as being key figures in helping lead the Indian and Turkish states into a modern world. However, defining war and state building as “inextricably linked” is perhaps not a term that I wholly agree with; although there are some links between war and the growth of states, it can be seen that these links can sometimes be weak and perhaps not always there. Indira Gandhi took India through a period of modernisation mainly through important economic strategies such as the Green Revolution and nationalisation of banks, which coherently led to a strong Indian state with their new independence in social sectors.
Whereas, it was the personal military success of Ataturk and the relationships that he made during his time serving in the military that enabled him to enter into political power and hold a successful reign over the Republic of Turkey. Without the Turkish War of Independence, the Republic of Turkey would not have been formed and thus Ataturk would perhaps not have been able to implement the social and economic reforms that were to make Turkey the state it is today. Although war creates the foundations for state success and prosperity, it is in the hands of the leaders that carry them through these wars that determine the overall succession and growth of a state.