Remains of the Darkness

ODD AS IT MAY seem, the 50th an­niversary of the infamous Emergency has seen attempts to argue that the decision to invoke the extreme provisions of Article 352 did not violate the Constitution. Further, a section of Delhi’s influential commentariat has castigated Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), who led the protests against Indira Gandhi, for joining hands with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a decision they blame for Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) ascendance in Indian politics. In their telling, the ‘legitimisa­tion’ of RSS, rather than the imposition of the Emergency, was the real threat to India’s democratic institutions.

Criticism of the allegedly anarchic element in JP’s Jan Andolan against an increas­ingly autocratic and unpopu­lar Indira Gandhi is not new. It has been argued that a situation akin to a civil revolt was fast developing in the first half of 1975 requiring a tough and decisive response. “Unfortunate but necessary,” is how a former member of Indira’s inner circle would put it. But it might have been more convincing if Emergency had not been declared within two weeks of the Allahabad High Court setting aside Indira Gandhi’s election and a day after Supreme Court refused to overturn the ruling but allowed the Prime Minister to continue in office. The consequent jailing of opposition leaders was further proof, if any was needed, that the Emergency was enacted to preserve Indira’s rule over India.

The current discussion, however, is a reflection of bitterly polarised political debates engaging a section of India’s elites unable to view any event without indulging their dislike for BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The participants in this highly politicised discussion general­ly hold the view that nothing good has happened since May 2014, when Modi assumed office. Their railing against the Modi government has intensified as this entrenched class finds itself dispossessed of its assumed role of defin­ing India’s political, cultural and intellectual identity. The hardiness of a new imagina­tion embodied by Modi’s more nativist and organic worldview has increased the vexation as attempts to label his policies as anti-modern or inward-looking have failed to move public opinion. Rather, the prime minister is able to articulate a robust vision of self-reliance and cultural revival that is not at odds with embracing modernity.

Belated attempts to defend Emergency or find new reasons to criticise JP and other leaders of the era for derailing the ‘secular’ project sedulously promoted by the Left and parties wedded to caste and communal mobilisation cannot, however, alter reality. The authoritarian impulse that moved Indira Gandhi to impose Emergency soon became even more evident with her use of a pliant parliamentary majority to pass the 38th amendment that prevented courts from examin­ing the president’s decision to pronounce an Emergency, the 39th amendment that placed the election of the prime minister and speaker of Lok Sabha above judicial scrutiny, and the 42nd amendment that severely curtailed fundamen­tal rights enshrined in Article 19. The exact figures are hard to come by, but more than a lakh of people were placed under detention. Laws, such as the Maintenance of Internal Secu­rity Act (MISA), were used to carry out arbitrary detentions of persons seen to be critics of the government while the Emergency was extolled for ensuring better and timely train and bus services—a claim that was never widely tested.

The phrase “internal disturbance” in Article 352 that facilitated the Emergency proc­lamation was later replaced by “armed rebellion”, doing away with an ill-defined clause open to misuse. Congress leader and then West Bengal Chief Min­ister Siddhartha Shankar Ray is credited with the suggestion to invoke an imminent threat to the security of India to justify Emergency. Suppression of political dissent was followed by the adoption of socialist redistributive policies like the “20-point programme” that aimed to alleviate poverty and generate employment. Indira Gandhi’s younger son, Sanjay Gandhi, became a power centre gathering around him a cohort of Youth Con­gress stormtroopers attracted by his strong-arm methods and political clout. Observers at the time noted Indira Gandhi was unable to exercise any control over her wayward son. Sanjay Gandhi strongly advo­cated sterilisation to control population growth and about a crore of people underwent surgeries, mostly against their will. The sterilisation pro­gramme and demolitions of slums carried out in a forceful manner without bothering about legalities led to wide­spread anger and fear that cost Congress heavily when the Emergency was lifted on March 21, 1977, and national elections were held.

The elections saw the newly

formed Janata Party, an amalga­mation of leaders and parties opposed to Indira Gandhi, assume office. Congress—then the Indian National Congress (R)— lost heavily in North India and Indira Gandhi was humbled in her constituency of Rae Bareli and Sanjay also lost in Amethi. The Janata Party comprised leaders from the Congress old guard who had fallen out with Indira Gandhi, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), Swatantra Party, the Bharatiya Lok Dal, social­ists such as George Fernandes and a breakaway Congress faction led by Jagjivan Ram. The communists were also part of the electoral alli­ance that contested against Congress. The tenure of the Opposition led by the austere Morarji Desai proved tumul­tuous and short-lived. It was marred by raging ambitions of leaders and intrigues that led to socialists like Madhu Limaye raising the “dual membership” issue, arguing that Jana Sangh members cannot continue to hold allegiance to RSS while being part of Janata Party. The dual membership bogey was intended to be a deal-breaker as Limaye and others knew fully well that Jana Sangh would not disown RSS. After an even more short-lived government led by Lok Dal leader Charan Singh which was supported by Congress, the Janata experiment collapsed and Indira Gandhi returned to office in 1980.

The Emergency was a black chapter in India’s post-Inde­pendence history which has mercifully not been repeated. The curtailment of Article 352 and the proactive role of the constitutional courts in protecting the “basic struc­ture” of the Constitution have prevented political overreach while a democratic culture has struck deep roots among Indian people. The Emergency saw Opposition leaders of all hues being jailed. Claims about RSS and Jana Sangh kowtow­ing to the Indira regime are unsupported by the evidence of hundreds of Sangh workers being arrested. If indeed the Sangh sought accommoda­tion with Indira Gandhi, it did not appear to have dampened the enthusiasm of the police in tracking and arresting RSS and BJS members. Today, self-appointed tsars of political correctness are the true inheri­tors of both the Emergency’s dictatorial convictions and Janata Party socialists whose prejudices brought down the Morarji government. In their refusal to accept valid­ity of democratic verdicts, they would think nothing of banning opponents from the electoral field itself. Fortu­nately, voters have repeatedly demonstrated a healthy com­monsense in identifying their interests and their choices keep India’s democracy alive and well.

1975 EmergencyIndian democracyIndian politicsIndira Gandhi