Suhas Palshikar writes on 50 years since Emergency: When we remember 1975
the well-being of cheetahs, everything happens thanks to the Leader. This similarity should make us sombre about commemorating the 50th anniversary of that moment.
Indira Gandhi's Emergency was, in most part, for the sake of her personal authority. However, as we remember that episode — and we should indeed remember it — stopping at the personal level would be a mistake. Democracies often operate within the dialectic of the personal (political leadership) and the institutional, hanging perilously between an expression of popularity and that abstract thing called the rule of law.
Therefore, the act of 'remembering the Emergency' should go beyond criticism of the past to introspection about the present. For one, we should ask what made the Emergency possible — how was it possible to persecute citizens? We should also ponder over the possibility of democracy being suspended again: Has the experience made our democracy more sabotage-proof? Or does the memory help
us make sense of the politics of undermining democracy — a more contemporary purpose?
Any analysis of the Emergency must begin with 1971. Election outcomes in a democracy are often enigmatic. The voter and the victor diverge in the meanings they attach to the outcomes. In 1971, Mrs Gandhi won a handsome victory. The slogan Garibi Hatao caught the imagination of a country whose economic growth had stagnated and failed to deliver. But following that victory and more so after the Bangladesh War, Mrs Gandhi must have concluded that the voters looked upon her as a benefactor, a saviour and, more particularly, as indispensable. This feeling was at odds with the protests that erupted in Bihar and Gujarat. The overall gloom that took over the country post-1973 was also in stark contrast to Mrs Gandhi's idea of her destined role.
The vagueness of the constitutional provision made it possible to formally declare an 'emergency'. The organisational weakness of her 'new' Congress and the concentration of power in the office of the Prime Minister also facilitated the declaration. While the media's timidity has been commented on, we do not give adequate attention to the swiftness with which the civil and police bureaucracies succumbed to the logic of authoritarianism, rejecting the rule of law in favour of rule by diktat of the popular leader. That's not to mention the Supreme Court, which acquiesced to the interpretation of the Constitution dished out by the political executive. Here was a template for a diversion away from democracy.
Mrs Gandhi's defeat and the subsequent amendment to the emergency provision created an impression that 'democracy' had won — or, less poetically, that possible sabotage in the future was now averted. And true enough, India has not seen another such amateur attempt to divert the political process away from democracy.
In other words, the Emergency template has been discarded — but has it really? Conflating partisan interests with the national interest, pushing the judiciary to fall in line and above all, converting the police and the bureaucracy into weapons against citizens are the core pathways copied from the 1975-77 template.
There are striking similarities between then and now. The over-reading of election outcomes — not just in 2014 but subsequently, too — is one. There is no doubt the outcome was a clear rejection of Congress. No doubt each election since 2014, but 2014 in particular, was a spectacular victory for Narendra Modi. But these facts are understood and presented as a second Independence and are being etched into history as the dawn of Amrit Kaal. Megalomania apart, the texture of politics and public contestations has altered dramatically since 2014 — all protests are labelled anti-national or urban naxal, and like the foreign hand of the Emergency, the hand of Soros has become the pretext to attack any difference of opinion. These labels are used to liberally invoke draconian laws, particularly the UAPA. As they did during the Emergency, the bureaucracy and the police have happily joined the battle on behalf of the political executive. Above all, more than during the Emergency, the judiciary has submerged itself in the logic of the political executive.
In conceptual terms, the short moment of 1975-77 and the current long moment manifest similarities in the downgrading of rights, a contempt for federal polity, disdain for protest movements and the mutilation of institutions. Together, they amount to reducing democracy to an anti-people instrument of power. The Constitution and its core principles are the main casualty. No wonder we hear today echoes of 'parliamentary sovereignty', which made much noise 50 years ago.
But India today is marked by one grotesque and one deeply troubling distinction from the Emergency. The grotesque is the politics of vigilantism. Anyone who can lay claim to some elements of the establishment's pet ideas has the licence to punish. A parallel system of identifying and cleansing 'wrongdoers' seems to be almost institutionalised. Personalised authority, a vengeful state and vigilantes overlap in today's politics and governance.
More worryingly, unlike the Emergency, the present moment is guided by a larger purpose: Of undermining the national movement's legacy and rejecting the constitutional imagination. Operational wrongs can be corrected through institutional efforts but normative or ideological departures are not easy to stall once they are imposed on a society and crowned as the true ideas the nation should uphold. When a gigantic media machine joins the ruling party in legitimising Hindutva and when mobs are unleashed to delegitimise difference and opposition, you have a thoroughly new template of controlling government, politics and popular sentiment.
From Mrs Gandhi's somewhat ad-hoc attempts to divert democracy in order to retain power, India seems to be moving into a very different terrain of using formal democratic mechanisms to undermine both democracy and Indianness. If the Emergency was a dark moment when democracy was suspended, the essence of that Emergency is being normalised in India's current moment.
The writer, based in Pune, taught political science
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
19 minutes ago
- Hans India
‘Stealing not considered sin but calling someone a thief is': Opposition slams EC over authentication appeal
Congress-led opposition parties hit back at the Election Commission on Sunday, over its appeal to authenticate their "vote chori" claims by filing a supporting affidavit and also termed its elaborate media address on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) controversy a mere eyewash. Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, flanked by senior EC officials, held a press conference in the capital and claimed that deliberate attempts were being made to fearmonger and misguide the voters of Bihar, apparently by opposition parties. It also stated that such fearmongering won't deter it from pursuing and implementing laid-down protocols. Replying to the CEC's presser, Congress accused it of being partisan towards the ruling party, while the RJD said that its clarification was devoid of any substance. Congress leader Pawan Khera, in a strong rebuttal, said: "Stealing is not considered a sin, but calling someone a thief is? Stop the theft, and we will stop calling you thieves. Why hasn't anyone given an account of one lakh votes from Mahadevapura?" Further accusing it breach of privacy, he said: "(BJP leader) Anurag Thakur is carrying digital voter lists of six constituencies—where did he get them from? Isn't that a breach of privacy? Did the Election Commission issue him a notice? No. But when it comes to CCTV footage, you say it violates privacy..." RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha said: "No answers were given. Not a single question was answered. Maybe someone told them to hold the press conference because it was becoming embarrassing. So, they went ahead, but what was achieved? Which question did they actually answer? Forget the political parties—the voters are not convinced by your behaviour and conduct." "Logic cannot be used to justify opacity. Opacity means lack of transparency. The biggest concern is that the Election Commission appears neither impartial nor neutral. This should be a matter of serious concern for you." Purnia MP Pappu Yadav said, "The EC has no understanding of the Constitution or Babasaheb's (B.R. Ambedkar) ideas. After indulging in theft and robbery, will they speak about the Constitution?"
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
BJP leaders to be questioned regarding Suresh Gopi's suspected leopard tooth pendant
At least two BJP leaders, who were seen accompanying Union Minister Suresh Gopi at Thrissur on the day he wore a chain with a pendant made of a suspected leopard tooth, will be summoned for interrogation. The Pattikkad Range Forest Officer is likely to issue notices to the party leaders to record their statements this week on a complaint filed by a Congress worker A.A. Mohamed Hashim. Mr. Hashim had complained that the act of wearing a leopard tooth, a wildlife trophy, was an offence punishable under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The Forest department had recorded the statements of Mr. Hashim in this regard last month. Mr. Hashim, who shared the news video clips of Mr. Gopi walking along the Swaraj Round wearing the suspected wildlife trophy, had identified one of the accompanying persons as K.K. Aneeshkumar, the Thrissur district president of BJP. Though unable to name the other one, the complainant had said he was an identifiable person. In Kannur too He had indicated that the Minister was seen wearing the ornament made out of suspected leopard tooth at a public function in Kannur too. Mr. Hashim, while giving his statement to the department, wanted the suspected ornament to be seized and its period of manufacture ascertained. Information will be sought from the persons who were seen walking along with Mr. Gopi, on whether they had any idea that he was wearing the ornament made of a wildlife trophy. The possible existence of videos or pictures that would give clues on the material constituting the ornament will be explored, since the videos shared by the complainant are insufficient to prove the allegations, sources said. The investigating officer will decide on questioning Mr. Gopi after looking into the statements of the witnesses and the evidence, they said. Meanwhile, the Pattikkad Range Forest officer recently booked a wildlife crime against a person arrested by the Thrissur police for allegedly possessing suspected narcotic substances the other day. A suspected leopard tooth, ivory and a few strands of elephant tail hair were also recovered from the accused. The suspected wildlife trophies would be sent for analysis to ascertain their genuineness. If confirmed, the accused would be prosecuted under the Wildlife Protection Act, sources said.
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Communal forces must be kept at bay: TPCC chief
Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee (TPCC) chief B. Mahesh Kumar stressed the need to protect the Constitution and democracy from communal forces. Addressing the national conference of Telangana SC, ST, BC, and Minorities Federation at Ravindra Bharathi here on Sunday, the Congress MLC stated that governments are indeed formed only with the support of SC, ST, BC and minorities. In a veiled attack on the BJP and RSS, he said, 'Those who had no role in the freedom struggle are ruling the nation today and attempting to divide people in the name of religion.' Mr. Mahesh Kumar Goud warned of conspiracies to replace the Constitution with 'Manusmriti' and stressed that all sections must unite to stop such attempts. He showered praise on Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy for his attempts to fulfill Rahul Gandhi's vision and highlighted passing of Bills guaranteeing 42% reservations for BCs in local bodies, education and employment. The TPCC chief asserted that safeguarding the Constitution and resisting communal forces that threaten democracy is the responsibility of all citizens. He emphasized the need for unity to protect the nation's democratic fabric and ensure equal opportunities for all.
