Forty years ago on this day
India was gagged and muzzled. The night between 25 and 26 June, 1975 was
one of midnight knocks and arbitrary arrests of almost the entire
opposition leadership. Destruction of personal liberty on such scale had
not been seen since the British left. For that reason, and because one
individual was blamed for these events, the impression of the Emergency
remains one of India coming close to a dictatorship.
That has not changed. Since then, India has touched safer waters and the danger of one person, or even a clique, taking over power is remote. The facts of that time are incontrovertible. The personal accounts (and suffering) of a large number of Indians who were incarcerated, the mass sterilization campaign and the extensive censorship of the press are illustrative of what happened in those years.
The havoc wreaked by Sanjay Gandhi—Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s son—is well known.
The reasons for breakdown of democracy are, however, contested hotly.
The personal ambition story of Emergency pins the blame on Indira Gandhi and her love for Sanjay Gandhi. This version of events comes close to the Great Man strain of history. This is, at best, a partial rendering: It leaves many questions unanswered. For example, how did one person come to assume near dictatorial authority? There is no evidence for a German-style seizure of power.
© LiveMint
Illustration: Jayachandran/Mint
If one examines
events preceding the Emergency, going back at least five years, one
finds overwhelming evidence that India found itself in an abnormal state
in the years 1969-1975. One can draw an almost straight line from the
nationalization of banks in 1969 to the events of 25 June, 1975. Each
incident provided the cue for the next one, until India found itself in
historical wreckage.
Few remember the economic problems that preceded the Emergency. India’s economic hardships went hand-in-hand with the political moves that ushered Emergency. The failure of the monsoon for two years in a row was accompanied by the quadrupling of international oil prices between October 1973 to March 1974. Tight controls on economic activity as well as rapid money supply growth made matters worse. Average consumer price inflation was above 20% for two consecutive years, as price increases were passed on to citizens. This broke the dam of public anger, making the government nervous.
A simplified version of the story begins in July 1971 when three amendments to the Constitution were moved in Parliament. The 24th, 25th and 26th amendments were pivotal in India’s move towards authoritarianism.
The 24th amendment gave overriding powers to Parliament to destroy fundamental rights by simply amending the Constitution.
The 25th amendment finally destroyed the right to property.
The 26th amendment abolished privy purses of Indian rulers—a promise that had been given to these erstwhile rulers by independent India’s first government. Logically, it was the first application of the ending of right to property.
The statement of objects and reasons behind these Bills clearly states that these amendments were essential to give shape to the socialistic directive principles of state policy. In undertaking this emasculation of the Constitution, Indira Gandhi had the overwhelming support of the Left wing of her party—Mohan Dharia, Mohan Kumaramangalam and others—and also the communist parties.
Matters did not stop there, as they often don’t in a march to dictatorship.
Soon after these changes to the Constitution were made, the distinction between socialism and personal power was lost. The Left radicals in the Congress began talking about the necessity of crafting a new Constitution. In a forgotten chapter of history, the legislative assemblies of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab passed resolutions demanding the convening of a new Constituent Assembly.
In a parallel move, a committee under Swaran Singh—a Congress veteran—began examining the changes in the Constitution demanded by the so-called Young Turks. This report, in turn, was taken over by law minister H.R. Gokhale and what he drafted became the 42nd amendment to the Constitution which ended any democratic pretensions India had left at that time.
In doing all this, leftists thought they were furthering socialism, while sycophants like Bansi Lal, the strongman from Haryana, were clear that they wanted Indira Gandhi to wield executive authority for life. It was this historical process, spanning several years that ultimately allowed Indira Gandhi to do what she pleased.
From a contemporary perspective these events are nearly impossible to replicate. Governments in the last quarter century have often found it hard to get simple Bills passed in Parliament; to imagine the momentous Constitutional changes of those years is to forcibly imagine nightmares.
If one adds the layer of a far stronger judiciary to this matrix, one can safely rule out any Emergency-like adventure.
That has not changed. Since then, India has touched safer waters and the danger of one person, or even a clique, taking over power is remote. The facts of that time are incontrovertible. The personal accounts (and suffering) of a large number of Indians who were incarcerated, the mass sterilization campaign and the extensive censorship of the press are illustrative of what happened in those years.
The havoc wreaked by Sanjay Gandhi—Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s son—is well known.
The reasons for breakdown of democracy are, however, contested hotly.
The personal ambition story of Emergency pins the blame on Indira Gandhi and her love for Sanjay Gandhi. This version of events comes close to the Great Man strain of history. This is, at best, a partial rendering: It leaves many questions unanswered. For example, how did one person come to assume near dictatorial authority? There is no evidence for a German-style seizure of power.
© LiveMint
Illustration: Jayachandran/Mint
If one examines
events preceding the Emergency, going back at least five years, one
finds overwhelming evidence that India found itself in an abnormal state
in the years 1969-1975. One can draw an almost straight line from the
nationalization of banks in 1969 to the events of 25 June, 1975. Each
incident provided the cue for the next one, until India found itself in
historical wreckage.Few remember the economic problems that preceded the Emergency. India’s economic hardships went hand-in-hand with the political moves that ushered Emergency. The failure of the monsoon for two years in a row was accompanied by the quadrupling of international oil prices between October 1973 to March 1974. Tight controls on economic activity as well as rapid money supply growth made matters worse. Average consumer price inflation was above 20% for two consecutive years, as price increases were passed on to citizens. This broke the dam of public anger, making the government nervous.
A simplified version of the story begins in July 1971 when three amendments to the Constitution were moved in Parliament. The 24th, 25th and 26th amendments were pivotal in India’s move towards authoritarianism.
The 24th amendment gave overriding powers to Parliament to destroy fundamental rights by simply amending the Constitution.
The 25th amendment finally destroyed the right to property.
The 26th amendment abolished privy purses of Indian rulers—a promise that had been given to these erstwhile rulers by independent India’s first government. Logically, it was the first application of the ending of right to property.
The statement of objects and reasons behind these Bills clearly states that these amendments were essential to give shape to the socialistic directive principles of state policy. In undertaking this emasculation of the Constitution, Indira Gandhi had the overwhelming support of the Left wing of her party—Mohan Dharia, Mohan Kumaramangalam and others—and also the communist parties.
Matters did not stop there, as they often don’t in a march to dictatorship.
Soon after these changes to the Constitution were made, the distinction between socialism and personal power was lost. The Left radicals in the Congress began talking about the necessity of crafting a new Constitution. In a forgotten chapter of history, the legislative assemblies of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab passed resolutions demanding the convening of a new Constituent Assembly.
In a parallel move, a committee under Swaran Singh—a Congress veteran—began examining the changes in the Constitution demanded by the so-called Young Turks. This report, in turn, was taken over by law minister H.R. Gokhale and what he drafted became the 42nd amendment to the Constitution which ended any democratic pretensions India had left at that time.
In doing all this, leftists thought they were furthering socialism, while sycophants like Bansi Lal, the strongman from Haryana, were clear that they wanted Indira Gandhi to wield executive authority for life. It was this historical process, spanning several years that ultimately allowed Indira Gandhi to do what she pleased.
From a contemporary perspective these events are nearly impossible to replicate. Governments in the last quarter century have often found it hard to get simple Bills passed in Parliament; to imagine the momentous Constitutional changes of those years is to forcibly imagine nightmares.
If one adds the layer of a far stronger judiciary to this matrix, one can safely rule out any Emergency-like adventure.
0 comments: