50 Years Since Emergency: How The Israel-Arab War Shook Indira Gandhi's Hold On Power
Last Updated:
During the Yom Kippur War, India's dependence on oil imports led to a severe economic crisis, triggering rampant inflation and a sharp rise in prices of essential commodities
On June 25, 1975, India entered a controversial phase in its democratic journey as the government declared a state of Emergency, triggering sweeping changes to its political and constitutional framework. Fifty years later, the move remains a subject of debate and reflection. What led a democratically elected Prime Minister to impose such extraordinary measures on the country's institutions and civil liberties continues to prompt critical examination.
According to political experts, the central figure in this period was then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, whose hold on power faced persistent challenges amid the political turbulence of the 1970s.
Many political commentators believe the roots of the Emergency can be traced back to 1973, with the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War between Israel and the Arab nations. Although this conflict was geographically distant from India, its repercussions were felt deeply as oil prices surged globally. India, heavily reliant on oil imports, plunged into an economic crisis, causing rampant inflation and skyrocketing prices of essential commodities. Everyday items, including petrol, bus fares, and electricity rates, became unaffordable.
Student Movements In Gujarat And Bihar
Economic discontent first erupted in Gujarat with the 'Nav Nirman Movement' in January 1974, where students took to the streets of Ahmedabad protesting against inflation, corruption, and chaos. The movement gained momentum across the state, eventually leading to the resignation of Gujarat Chief Minister Chimanbhai Patel.
Simultaneously, the student unrest spread to Bihar, where increased college fees and bus fares ignited existing frustrations with inflation. On March 18, 1974, thousands of students marched in Patna from Patna Science College to the Assembly, resulting in violent clashes and an atmosphere of tension.
Was JP's 'Total Revolution' The Turning Point Before The Emergency?
The public discontent found direction and leadership under Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), a senior freedom fighter, Gandhian thinker, and moral figure, who on June 5, 1974, called for a 'Total Revolution' from Patna's Gandhi Maidan. JP's movement transcended issues of inflation and corruption, becoming a significant socio-political campaign advocating for radical reforms in education, administration, and politics. This movement united youth, students, intellectuals, and opposition parties alike.
Did The Court Verdict Push Indira Gandhi To Declare Emergency?
The movement's impact resonated nationwide, and on June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court invalidated Indira Gandhi's election from Rae Bareilly, citing corrupt practices and disqualifying her from contesting elections for six years.
This legal blow amplified opposition voices, jeopardising Indira Gandhi's political position. In response, JP urged the army and police to disobey unlawful orders, prompting Indira Gandhi to declare an Emergency on the night of June 25.
According to political commentators, the Emergency was not merely a political manoeuvre but a consequence of the economic, social, and global upheavals of the period.
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC rejects plea claiming ‘discrepancies' during 2024 Maharashtra polls, ‘high percentage of votes after 6 pm'
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea raising concerns over alleged discrepancies in the voting process on November 20, 2024, the polling day for the Maharashtra Assembly elections, including 'unusually high percentage of votes' cast during the final minutes and after the closing hour of 6 pm. 'We have no manner of doubt that the petition is required to be summarily rejected. It is accordingly rejected. The hearing of this petition practically has taken the whole day, leaving aside our urgent cause list and for such reason it would certainly warrant dismissal with costs. However, we refrain from doing so,' the high court held. The bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor passed the order on a writ plea by city resident Chetan Chandrakant Ahire who claimed that over 75 lakh votes were polled after the official voting time of 6 pm, and several discrepancies were found in over 90 constituencies where the number of votes counted did not match with those polled, and there was no transparency in the process. The high court had on Monday concluded the hearing on contentions related to the maintainability of the plea and had noted that it will pass an order on Wednesday, June 25. The plea sought directions from the court to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose the exact number of tokens distributed to voters after 6 pm at each polling station, and the total tokens distributed across all constituency segments. It also sought a declaration of the total votes cast and polled after 6 pm, and in the end sought that results declared by the respective returning officers (ROs) of each Assembly constituency be made 'null and void' due to non-compliance of norms and procedural lapses. The plea also sought immediate withdrawal of the election certificates issued by such ROs. Advocate Prakash Ambedkar, representing Ahire, on Monday argued that there was no transparent system for recording or verifying the authenticity of the 75 lakh votes and the ROs failed to comply with the guidelines in the ECI's 'handbook' for conducting elections and did not report discrepancies to the ECI. The bench queried whether the practice of coupons or tokens being given to those who voted beyond 6 pm was followed during the Lok Sabha elections and asked what was the difference during Assembly elections. 'Why did you not contend this during the Lok Sabha elections? Is that your case that the said practice (of giving coupons or tokens) was always available, but was not during Assembly elections? Is it a standard practice, and how was there a departure this time (Assembly elections) from earlier practice? That statement is not there in your petition. That's the whole thing,' the bench stated. Ambedkar said that while the statement concerned was not there in the petition, the apprehension was that those elected were not chosen through a free and fair election as it was manipulated with the 'deceit' by officials. 'A fraud on the Constitution cannot be allowed to remain,' Ambedkar argued, claiming that the ECI should come forward with documents to restore the shaken faith of commoners. The bench said that it was a grey area as to who got the votes polled after 6 pm. 'It may be the case that a single vote was not cast in favour of an elected candidate. How do we know? This is all uncertain.' Senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, representing the ECI, however, raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the plea stating that the petitioner had no locus standi (legal standing) to approach the court, the elected candidates were not made party to the plea, and the election cannot be set aside 'behind their back'. He added that the elections were conducted as per due procedures across over 1 lakh polling booths in 288 constituencies in Maharashtra. Advocate Uday Warunjikar, representing the central government, opposed the writ plea claiming that the petitioner could have filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as he did not contest the elections or an election petition could have been filed within 45 days since the declaration of results by a candidate, however, the said period is over.
New Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
When Indira Gandhi donated Rs 90,000 for JP's treatment during Emergency
NEW DELHI: In a little-known episode from the Emergency era, former prime minister Indira Gandhi quietly donated a significant sum of Rs 90,000 for treatment of her fiercest critic, Jayaprakash Narayan, the leader of the nationwide anti-Emergency movement. A new book reveals that the donation, which Narayan declined, came at a time when his health had deteriorated and he required a life-saving portable dialysis machine. Arrested on June 26, 1975, just hours after the Emergency was declared, Narayan spent five months in custody in Chandigarh before being released on a 30-day parole in November that year. According to "The Conscience Network: A Chronicle of Resistance to a Dictatorship" by Sugata Srinivasaraju, JP was diagnosed with kidney failure during his custody and required lifelong dialysis to survive. "Very soon, the cost of his treatment, and the regular dialysis he needed, became a matter of worry. It was decided, in due course, that a portable dialyser machine would work out better than going to a hospital regularly. It was also decided that the government's help would not be accepted. Therefore, his admirers started raising money for a dialyser," reads the book. As news of his condition spread, supporters across India and abroad mobilised resources. The plan, according to the book, was to collect Re 1 per person from the public to fund the expensive dialysis machine. However, the progress was slow. "At that point, Indira Gandhi, who learnt about the effort, sent a cheque with a handsome amount on it as her contribution," it added. However, the Indians For Democracy (IFD) -- a diaspora-led organisation formed in the United States just weeks before the Emergency -- was dismayed by the news of Indira Gandhi's donation. The group urged Radhakrishna of the Gandhi Peace Foundation, the organisation collecting the funds, to return the money. "I made it known that it would greatly disappoint JP's admirers if the cheque were simultaneously requested JP to return Indira Gandhi's cheque. It was returned purely on our intervention. It was a fact that money was not coming through in India because people were scared of the government," recalls Anand Kumar, a member of the IFD, adding that his organisation vowed to collect the deficit amount.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Banakacherla project: What is the latest water dispute between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy on Tuesday (June 24) challenged former state CM and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Chandrashekar Rao to a debate in the state Assembly over the contentious Banakacherla reservoir project. The BRS has been criticising the Congress government in the state for 'allowing' the neighbouring Andhra Pradesh to go ahead with the project. Revanth Reddy said the debate would be about who actually compromised Telangana's water interests. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu has announced his plan to link the Godavari River with the Penna River through the Krishna River and build a massive reservoir at Banakacherla in Nandyal district. The Telangana government, opposing the project vociferously, has said it violates the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The Banakacherla reservoir project is meant to transform Andhra Pradesh's drought-prone Rayalaseema region into a fertile land. As per the project, the first step would be to enhance the Polavaram Right Main Canal's capacity from 17,500 cusecs to 38,000 cusecs to allow the transfer of Godavari water to Krishna. Then, the capacity of Thatipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme's canal will be increased from 1,400 cusecs to 10,000 cusecs. A reservoir will then be constructed at Bollapalli in Guntur district, from where water will be lifted at a rate of 28,000 cusecs for transferring to the Banakacherla reservoir. Lift stations will be established at Harischandrapuram, Lingapuram, Vyyandana, Gangireddypalem, and Nakirekallu to pump water to the Bollapalli reservoir. The water will then be diverted to the Veligonda reservoir and Banakacherla reservoir via a tunnel passing through the Nallamala forest. Chandrababu Naidu's main claim is that the water being diverted to Banakacherla is surplus water from the Godavari. Why is Telangana opposing the project? Telangana's CM Revanth Reddy and Minister for Irrigation Uttam Kumar Reddy have written to Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Jal Shakti Minister CR Patil, stating that the Banakacherla project violates the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014. The project should be kept in abeyance because it has not yet received approval from the Apex Council managing the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) and the Godavari River Management Board (GRMB), and the Central Water Commission, they have claimed. Telangana has contended that the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal has ruled on 1,486 TMCft of Godavari between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, of which Telangana was allotted 968 TMCft. The tribunal did not determine the extent of surplus water in the river, and hence Banakacherla project will be a threat to Telangana's water security, it has claimed. Diverting Godavari waters to Banakacherla will affect the water projects of the state, Telangana has said. Why is this a political bone of contention? Chandrababu Naidu's interest in the Banakacherla project is with an aim to consolidate his power in the Rayalaseema region, a bastion of his Telugu Desam Party's rival YSR Congress Party. If the water crisis in this region is sorted, TDP hopes to reap rich electoral dividends here. In Telangana, however, the issue is emotive. Telangana was carved out of AP in 2014, after many years of agitation for separate statehood. Water-sharing was the heart of this agitation. It was contended during the agitation that Telangana's water resources were being diverted to Andhra Pradesh because of regional disparities. Building a reservoir to divert water from the Godavari to Andhra Pradesh has thus opened old wounds.
