This was the nail in the coffin. Now i understand what you meant by 'desire being nonexistent' by and large and hence inevident in the 'institutional setup
Perhaps an ideal soceity is envisioned in the constituitional framework. Although dysfunctinal in some aspects democracy by virtue of constitutional setup does guard the core interests of citizens. Nevertheless i stand convinced with your view.
I came across a book that you should find very interesting. Militarism in India: the army and civil society in consensus
Apurba Kunduhttp://books.google.co.in/books/about/M ... 9uAAAAMAAJ
it tackles the very question you are asking, why does the Indian military, unlike most other militaries of the 3rd world not interested in taking over power. in it, the author interviews over a 100 senior officers and covers the full gamut of military's position in society since independence.
most interestingly, there's a chapter on whether military would have agreed if IG wanted to continue her emergency rule with forces' help. till that time the emergency was still technically constitutional. the overwhelming consensus (90% of the officers) was that they won't have, with a significant portion saying they would have considered bringing down a despotic govt and help hold elections.
In many states in the developing world, tensions between the armed forces and a civilian government have sometimes led to the extreme sanction of a military coup d'etat. India remains one of the exceptions. Despite great ethnic, religious, regional and economic challenges to the existing order, her military officers have remained loyal to the legitimate government of the day.
Based on extensive work with senior military figures, this book examines the remarkable consensus of purpose between Indian officers and their civil counterparts in the construction and maintenance of civil supremacy-of-rule.