
50 years of Emergency: EAM Jaishankar blames 1974 deal for fishermen arrests by Sri Lanka; says consequences still visible in Tamil Nadu
External affairs minister S Jaishankar on Friday said that the root of the ongoing issue of Sri Lanka arresting Indian fishermen lies in a controversial agreement made during the Emergency era, under which India gave up certain fishing rights.
Speaking at an event organised by the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) to mark the 50th anniversary of Emergency, Jaishankar said such a deal would not have gone through if Parliament had been functioning properly at the time.
'We hear about our fishermen arrested by Sri Lanka. The reason is that an agreement was entered into during Emergency under which the rights of the fishermen for fishing in some sea waters of Sri Lanka was abandoned,' Jaishankar said.
The 1974 maritime agreement, signed under then the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government, ceded the uninhabited Katchatheevu island to Sri Lanka. A follow-up agreement in 1976 barred Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen from entering each other's exclusive economic zones—restrictions that continue to affect fishing communities in Tamil Nadu.
'The consequences of this decision are still visible in Tamil Nadu,' the EAM noted.
Criticising the Congress for bypassing democratic processes during the Emergency, Jaishankar said, 'Had a genuine Parliament functioned at the time, there would have been a debate and this decision would not be accepted.'
He said many major decisions were taken without public or parliamentary scrutiny during that 21-month period, which began on June 25, 1975.
Reflecting on the time, Jaishankar recalled police raids in Jawaharlal Nehru University hostels and shared how his family had links with anti-Emergency leaders such as George Fernandes.
'I heard from my seniors in the foreign service how difficult it was to defend India after the murder of the Constitution and democracy by the imposition of Emergency,' he said.
In a pointed attack on the Congress leadership, Jaishankar said that an Emergency situation arises when the 'family' is kept ahead of the country.
'Some people keep the copy of Constitution in their pockets but have other intentions in their hearts,' PTI cited the external minister.
Without naming Rahul Gandhi directly, he questioned the party's refusal to apologise for the Emergency, saying it was not just a political mistake but an assault on the people's way of life.
The younger generation must learn how the Congress strangled the Constitution out of greed for power, he said, referring to the mock parliament conducted by the BJYM. He further added that empowering citizens is the key to preventing any similar situation in future.
He also took a swipe at the opposition's repeated claims of an 'undeclared Emergency' under the current government. 'I want to clarify that this is not the time of an Emergency nor will there be one in the future. That is why we are all present here at this mock parliament today,' he said.
During the Emergency, Jaishankar pointed out, five Constitutional amendments and 48 Ordinances were passed, one of which prevented Emergency provisions from being challenged in any court.
Calling India's peaceful resistance during that time proof that 'democracy is in our DNA,' he said the public's rejection of Emergency through the ballot box eventually led to fresh elections and the restoration of democratic rule.
He also touched on moments of unity, saying Operation Sindoor, where even opposition leaders joined efforts to bolster India's global position, reflected 'deep national pride' and stood as an antidote to the authoritarianism of the Emergency.
"The events of 50 years ago should not just be viewed as history — they still live on in the minds of many. Therefore, we must remain cautious of those who still have no regret about the Emergency," he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Indus Waters Treaty: India rejects ‘illegal' arbitration court's authority, calls it ‘charade' at Pak behest
India on Friday rejected the authority of an arbitration court 'illegally' formed under the Indus Waters Treaty after the body issued a 'supplemental award' on its competence to hear cases on the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu & Kashmir. The Indian government has consistently opposed the proceedings of The Hague-based Court of Arbitration ever since its constitution by the World Bank in October 2022. In a statement Friday, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) termed the move as the 'latest charade at Pakistan's behest' and said that this is an attempt by Islamabad to escape accountability for its role as the global epicentre of terrorism. 'India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration, and India's position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and consequently any proceedings before this forum and any award or decision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void,' said an MEA statement. The Court of Arbitration had said Thursday that India's position of holding the treaty in abeyance 'does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence'. India is constructing the Kishenganga project on the Kishenganga river, a tributary of the Jhelum, and the Ratle project on the Chenab river. In 2015, Pakistan objected to their design features and moved the World Bank to seek a settlement through a neutral expert. But it withdrew its request a year later and asked for adjudication through a Court of Arbitration instead. India, for its part, sought a neutral expert to rule on the differences. On October 13, 2022, the World Bank appointed Michal Lino as the neutral expert. The same day, it also appointed a Court of Arbitration. India has opposed the court since then, saying it could not be 'compelled to recognise illegal and parallel proceedings not envisaged by the Treaty'. India has continued participating in the 'Treaty-consistent Neutral Expert proceedings'. The MEA statement on Friday said: 'Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, India has in exercise of its rights as a sovereign nation under international law, placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism. Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its obligations under the Treaty. No Court of Arbitration, much less this illegally constituted arbitral body which has no existence in the eye of law, has the jurisdiction to examine the legality of India's actions in exercise of its rights as a sovereign.' The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, after nine years of negotiations between India and Pakistan. Then Indian Prime Minister Pt Jawaharlal Nehru and then Pakistani President Mohammed Ayub Khan signed the treaty in Karachi. The treaty has 12 Articles and 8 Annexures (from A to H). As per the provisions of the treaty, all the water of 'Eastern Rivers'— Sutlej, Beas and Ravi—shall be available for the 'unrestricted use' of India. However, Pakistan shall receive water from 'Western Rivers'—Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. In January 2023, India had issued a notice to Pakistan seeking the 'modification' of the Treaty. This was the first such notice in the more than six decades of the Treaty's existence. India upped the ante in September 2024, by issuing Islamabad another formal notice, this time seeking the 'review and modification' of the IWT. The word 'review', according to experts, effectively signals New Delhi's intent to revoke, and renegotiate the Treaty which will turn 65 this year. India decided to keep in abeyance the IWT on April 23 Pahalgam terror attack, in which militants killed at least 26 people and injured another 10.


Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court nationwide injunction ruling: What are Justices Barrett and Jackson's arguements
The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a major victory by ruling to curb the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding his policies. However, the issue of whether the administration can limit birthright citizenship still remains unresolved. Trump welcomed the court's 6-3 ruling, declaring that his administration can now proceed with numerous policies such as his executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship. US Supreme Court ruled on nationwide injunction by federal judges on Friday(AFP) "We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the ruling, directed lower courts that blocked Trump's order on birthright citizenship to reconsider. She and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had completely different arguments in their opinions. Jackson and other liberal justices wrote a joint dissent. The Biden-nominee, in her solo dissent, said 'disaster was looming'. 'It gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate,' she wrote. Barrett quickly rebuked her colleague. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary. No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent, added: "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump called the ruling a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law'. "It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump said of nationwide injunctions. (With inputs from Reuters)


The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Thackeray cousins to jointly oppose mandatory Hindi in schools
Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray are set to join forces to Oppose the 'imposition' of Hindi in primary schools under the three-language formula. Following parallel announcements earlier, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut said the two parties - Shiv Sena (UBT) and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) - would now jointly hold a rally on July 5 in Mumbai. 'Thackeray is the brand!' Mr. Raut posted on social media, along with a photograph of the two leaders. This marks the first time the Thackeray cousins have united on a political issue since Raj Thackeray founded the MNS in 2006. Meanwhile, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) chief Sharad Pawar also expressed opposition to the three-language formula. 'It is incorrect to impose Hindi from Grade 1 to Grade 4. The government shouldn't force it. Today, 55% people speak Hindi in India. It can be a language of communication. Because there is no hatred towards Hindi in Maharashtra, it shouldn't be made mandatory,' he said while speaking to reporters in Kolhapur. Asked whether he would join the Thackerays' protest, Mr. Pawar said he would 'first understand the issue after returning to Mumbai.' Reunification of the Thackerays 'Two separate rallies on the same issue are not good. I discussed with both the leaders, and they decided to come together,' Mr. Raut said, emphasising that making Hindi compulsory would put an unnecessary burden on students. 'So, it is not just a linguistic but also an academic issue,' he added. According to Mr. Raut, Mr. Raj Thackeray had called him after announcing his rally and proposed a joint protest. Mr. Raj Thackeray had earlier announced a 'Virat Morcha' on July 6 from Girgaon Chowpatty, while Shiv Sena (UBT) had backed a rally at Azad Maidan on July 7. The scheduling of parallel rallies had led to public speculation over coordination between the parties. The protest is against the State government's April 16 decision to mandate Hindi as a third language in primary education and the amended Government Resolution (GR), which requires a minimum of 20 students to opt for any alternative Indian language. Reiterating the joint stance, Mr. Raut posted: 'There will be one united protest against compulsory Hindi in Maharashtra schools.' Mr. Raut also launched a sharp attack on Union Home Minister Amit Shah, calling him 'Maharashtra's political enemy' and accusing him of manipulating the Election Commission and the Supreme Court to engineer the 2022 split in the Shiv Sena.