June 25th, 1975 was a Black Letter Day in the history of independent India. Then, prime minister Indira Gandhi introduced Emergency, unheard of till that time, only had to be lived through, to be better understood. Rightly so, the government is re-living the day through exhibitions, talk shows, in every way serving a reminder that a similar day should never happen again. A total trampling down on democracy, on every democratic right, putting all opposition in jails across the country, introducing one sided Herculean laws, placing hundred percent clampdown on free press. What is more, starting with forced sterilizations, imposing targets on school teachers, these were dark days for every law abiding Indian.
Was the Emergency a sudden aberration? Just brought about overnight, all so sudden? Or, was it a culmination of a fiery streak in Indira’s personality, that bred autocracy, high-handedness and could not care less about opposition. Was she already for some years, in that mode, when only her opinion mattered. Did she not systematically break down institutions, for instance, put people of her own choice as heads, seeking unbridled power over all else? Was this high point reached in her appointment, one day, of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed as president, only as late as August 20th, 1974? From being union Agriculture Minister, being asked to resign, being made the Congress candidate for the president? From a party man, to becoming president, shifting from the cabinet to Rashtrapati Bhawan, literally overnight? Offices of the president and governors are essentially from public life, not party. Though Fakhruddin sahb was a most eminent choice in himself, but he was a staunch Congress man, not the perfect fit for the top job, just for that reason – that he was simply shifted from the cabinet showed scant respect for public morality.
Not just the Emergency, Mrs. Indira Gandhi was the first prime minister who brought down institutions, a scary tradition that has been carried forward, in differing proportions, by future dispensations. Some less, some even lesser. She not only showed the way, she sowed the way. So much so, it is now a done thing that governorship is now less prestige and more placement of party seniors who could not get into better ‘jobs’, as it were. The slide from best democratic practices began with her!
Though to be fair to Mrs. Indira Gandhi, she had her sterling qualities, too, which prompted the then Opposition leader, and later the prime minister, to address her as Durga. But then her own partymen also alleged that India was Indira, which she readily believed. Her tenure was legendary in holding high India’s position among comity of nations, India’s war to liberate Bangladesh, her affinity with the common man, and not to forget her endless personal charisma.
What do we best remember the Emergency for? That in one stroke, a nation can get paralysed, when governments of the day enjoy unbridled power. Can such an act happen again? Most unlikely as among other changes in the body politic, the press is more controlled today by social media, but then the internet can get suspended overnight, too. Indian democracy has also matured, ironically, more distilled than ever before, in spite of the hiccups we hear about every other day. Such brazen display did not last long, even then. It had to be called off, not by choice, but as it was unsustainable in our system.
That a section of the Congress party has chosen to defend the imposition of emergency is suicidal. The Maharashtra unit has claimed it was necessary to ensure national stability, when anti-national forces were striking at the root of the country. This is a diabolical explanation, one that can be conjured again, by any future dispensation. The better recourse is to accept a wrong committed, to admit it was an aberration never to be repeated; when in public life, we begin to admit mistakes, we would be a happier, maturer nation, that breathes more stability.
Was there a good side to the Emergency? Unfortunately, trains ran on time, babus punched in at 9:00 AM, ration cards got people food, and kerosene became available. Did the system actually work better for it – was it the fear of the ruler that augured better than did democracy? But for people who yearned for delivery of public service, witnessing the broken system work, even for a bit, was this a relief? Does this explain why a motley group of parties that stormed to power withered away after three years, leading to a thumping comeback of the same Indira Gandhi with an even bigger majority. As dangerous as it may sound, would it suggest that people like strong men and strong women? When it comes to their democratic rights, are they willing to trade them for better access to services they are entitled to?
In a recent article in The Indian Express, former vice president of India, Venkiah Naidu writes: “The historic general elections of 1977 constituted a watershed moment because they brought about a major transition reflecting the will of the people. The Janata Party’ s triumph brought an end to the Emergency and was a victory for democratic ideals, reaffirming the supremacy of the ballot. It underscored the power of democratic participation as a peaceful and effective means of achieving change – in this case, by over- throwing a powerful dictatorial regime. This is perhaps the most glowing example of the power of the ballot in our recent history.
The lessons we learnt from this dark era must be passed on to India’ s younger generation. They must be firm in standing up to safeguard democratic principles, protect civil liberties, and ensure a foolproof system of checks and balances. Let us not forget that the role of the judiciary and media freedom also came under the lens during this draconian phase. The Emergency reminded us that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.
