
Fifty Years After Emergency, The Present Modi Regime's Authoritarianism Is No Less Stifling
By P. Sudhir
It may appear rather unusual to recall the inglorious sequence of events that began at midnight on June 25, 1975, with the declaration of the Internal Emergency.
However, we are reminded of those immortal words of wisdom: 'those who tend to forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.' These words compel us to revisit that dark chapter in the history of Indian democracy.
The late 1960s had dealt a blow to the Congress party's monopoly on power, with opposition parties securing victories in several states. In response, Mrs Indira Gandhi repositioned herself through a series of progressive-sounding slogans such as Garibi Hatao, bank nationalisation, and the abolition of the privy purse. Departing from traditional political practice, she concentrated power in herself, bypassing strong state-level leaders and directly appealing to the masses at the grassroots.
This approach yielded some gains for Mrs Gandhi. However, what truly bolstered her bid for political hegemony was India's intervention in support of the Bangladesh liberation struggle. The eventual establishment of an independent Bangladesh and the decisive defeat of Pakistan significantly enhanced her stature. The presence of the Soviet Union also played a crucial role in deterring potential US intervention aimed at rescuing Pakistan's military regime.
This reinforced Mrs Gandhi's stature and ensured her victory in the 1971 general elections. Nevertheless, this overall picture could not stop the CPI(M), which emerged as the single largest party in the West Bengal Assembly. But, this was not allowed to progress naturally. The 1972 assembly elections were thoroughly rigged, paving the way for nearly half a decade of semi-fascist repression. This period of authoritarianism seamlessly merged with the declaration of the Emergency on the midnight of June 25, 1975.
During much of the Emergency, Gandhi's political opponents were imprisoned, and the press was censored. Over 10,000 political opponents, journalists, and activists were jailed under her regime. Meanwhile, the country was grappling with a series of economic challenges stemming from the recent war with Pakistan, droughts, and the global oil crisis of 1973. Rising unemployment and inflation further fuelled public discontent and political opposition. These growing pressures, coupled with Mrs Gandhi's sense of personal insecurity and legal setbacks – particularly the threat of losing her Lok Sabha membership – contributed to the decision to impose Emergency.
In essence, the Emergency of 1975 was declared due to a combination of political, social, and economic factors. The government invoked Article 352 of the Constitution, which permits the declaration of an Emergency in the event of war, external aggression, or internal disturbance. The official justification cited threats to national security and public order, leading to the suspension of fundamental rights and the concentration of power in the executive.
Exposing the political dynamics that led to the Emergency, A K Gopalan, leader of the CPI(M) group in the Lok Sabha, stated during the debate on the Statutory Resolution for Approval of the Emergency proclamation on July 21, 1975:'The warning given by our Party about the rise of the tendency towards totalitarian and one-party dictatorship over the last three years has proved true with the sudden declaration of the new Emergency.'He went on to say that this abrupt move by the ruling party to extricate itself and its leader from a deepening personal and political crisis was a sign of weakness, not strength. It was designed to crush opposition voices and people's movements. He also exposed the false narrative that this Emergency was aimed against the extreme Right and Left adventurists.
The inevitable followed, and the Congress, along with Indira Gandhi, could not avert political defeat. The eighteen-month Emergency has gone down in contemporary Indian history as a grave aberration and a sordid disruption of democracy. A broad coalition of forces ensured the restoration of democracy following the 1977 Lok Sabha elections.
Today, Narendra Modi invokes the Emergency era, describing its imposition on June 25, 1975, as a 'black spot on the Constitution' of India. He has declared, 'These 50 years since the Emergency remind us to protect our Constitution and democracy with pride. The countrymen must resolve that such a travesty will never be allowed to happen again. We commit ourselves to ensuring a vibrant democracy and fulfilling the common man's dreams as outlined by the Indian Constitution.' However, this posturing is increasingly turning into a great hoax – an attempt to camouflage the RSS-BJP's own most obnoxious assault on Indian democracy, as it has unfolded over the past eleven years.
Looking back fifty years later, the Emergency can be seen as the first major onslaught on India's democratic system – one that severely curtailed civil liberties and democratic rights. But it is a mistake, as many tend to do, to draw a direct comparison between the Emergency of 1975 and the present situation. The past decade under Modi is often referred to as an 'undeclared Emergency,' but such a comparison is misplaced on several counts.
The current scenario has emerged against the backdrop of a global resurgence of the ultra-right, amidst a changed correlation of political forces in favour of imperialism. This phase has ushered in an era of finance capital driven global economies, marked by sharp inequality, rampant unemployment, and overwhelming corporate dominance. Accompanying this are unprecedented levels of identity-based polarisation and a relentless hate campaign, fostering the 'othering' of fellow citizens in both economic and social spheres.
Thus, the present assault on democracy and constitutional principles is far more insidious. It has led to the rise of institutionalised authoritarianism – or what some observers term 'electoral autocracy.'
In the Indian context, this authoritarian shift has been spearheaded by the RSS, injecting the toxic ideology of Hindutva, which seeks to fundamentally transform the very idea of India. This idea of India – born from the anti-colonial struggle – was anchored in a democratic, secular, socially just, and federal republic. The current onslaught is therefore more pervasive and stifling, aimed at dismantling the foundational principles of Indian citizenship.
In hindsight, the 1975 Emergency now appears almost amateurish compared to the full-fledged authoritarianism we are experiencing today. While the current regime may seem harder to dislodge, the experience of fighting back against the Emergency in the 1970s should inspire confidence. A people united, with the will to resist the pernicious ideology of the RSS and reclaim democracy, can still meet and overcome today's challenge. (IPA Service)
Hashtags

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


Arabian Post
11 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Fifty Years After Emergency, The Present Modi Regime's Authoritarianism Is No Less Stifling
By P. Sudhir It may appear rather unusual to recall the inglorious sequence of events that began at midnight on June 25, 1975, with the declaration of the Internal Emergency. However, we are reminded of those immortal words of wisdom: 'those who tend to forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.' These words compel us to revisit that dark chapter in the history of Indian democracy. The late 1960s had dealt a blow to the Congress party's monopoly on power, with opposition parties securing victories in several states. In response, Mrs Indira Gandhi repositioned herself through a series of progressive-sounding slogans such as Garibi Hatao, bank nationalisation, and the abolition of the privy purse. Departing from traditional political practice, she concentrated power in herself, bypassing strong state-level leaders and directly appealing to the masses at the grassroots. This approach yielded some gains for Mrs Gandhi. However, what truly bolstered her bid for political hegemony was India's intervention in support of the Bangladesh liberation struggle. The eventual establishment of an independent Bangladesh and the decisive defeat of Pakistan significantly enhanced her stature. The presence of the Soviet Union also played a crucial role in deterring potential US intervention aimed at rescuing Pakistan's military regime. This reinforced Mrs Gandhi's stature and ensured her victory in the 1971 general elections. Nevertheless, this overall picture could not stop the CPI(M), which emerged as the single largest party in the West Bengal Assembly. But, this was not allowed to progress naturally. The 1972 assembly elections were thoroughly rigged, paving the way for nearly half a decade of semi-fascist repression. This period of authoritarianism seamlessly merged with the declaration of the Emergency on the midnight of June 25, 1975. During much of the Emergency, Gandhi's political opponents were imprisoned, and the press was censored. Over 10,000 political opponents, journalists, and activists were jailed under her regime. Meanwhile, the country was grappling with a series of economic challenges stemming from the recent war with Pakistan, droughts, and the global oil crisis of 1973. Rising unemployment and inflation further fuelled public discontent and political opposition. These growing pressures, coupled with Mrs Gandhi's sense of personal insecurity and legal setbacks – particularly the threat of losing her Lok Sabha membership – contributed to the decision to impose Emergency. In essence, the Emergency of 1975 was declared due to a combination of political, social, and economic factors. The government invoked Article 352 of the Constitution, which permits the declaration of an Emergency in the event of war, external aggression, or internal disturbance. The official justification cited threats to national security and public order, leading to the suspension of fundamental rights and the concentration of power in the executive. Exposing the political dynamics that led to the Emergency, A K Gopalan, leader of the CPI(M) group in the Lok Sabha, stated during the debate on the Statutory Resolution for Approval of the Emergency proclamation on July 21, 1975:'The warning given by our Party about the rise of the tendency towards totalitarian and one-party dictatorship over the last three years has proved true with the sudden declaration of the new Emergency.'He went on to say that this abrupt move by the ruling party to extricate itself and its leader from a deepening personal and political crisis was a sign of weakness, not strength. It was designed to crush opposition voices and people's movements. He also exposed the false narrative that this Emergency was aimed against the extreme Right and Left adventurists. The inevitable followed, and the Congress, along with Indira Gandhi, could not avert political defeat. The eighteen-month Emergency has gone down in contemporary Indian history as a grave aberration and a sordid disruption of democracy. A broad coalition of forces ensured the restoration of democracy following the 1977 Lok Sabha elections. Today, Narendra Modi invokes the Emergency era, describing its imposition on June 25, 1975, as a 'black spot on the Constitution' of India. He has declared, 'These 50 years since the Emergency remind us to protect our Constitution and democracy with pride. The countrymen must resolve that such a travesty will never be allowed to happen again. We commit ourselves to ensuring a vibrant democracy and fulfilling the common man's dreams as outlined by the Indian Constitution.' However, this posturing is increasingly turning into a great hoax – an attempt to camouflage the RSS-BJP's own most obnoxious assault on Indian democracy, as it has unfolded over the past eleven years. Looking back fifty years later, the Emergency can be seen as the first major onslaught on India's democratic system – one that severely curtailed civil liberties and democratic rights. But it is a mistake, as many tend to do, to draw a direct comparison between the Emergency of 1975 and the present situation. The past decade under Modi is often referred to as an 'undeclared Emergency,' but such a comparison is misplaced on several counts. The current scenario has emerged against the backdrop of a global resurgence of the ultra-right, amidst a changed correlation of political forces in favour of imperialism. This phase has ushered in an era of finance capital driven global economies, marked by sharp inequality, rampant unemployment, and overwhelming corporate dominance. Accompanying this are unprecedented levels of identity-based polarisation and a relentless hate campaign, fostering the 'othering' of fellow citizens in both economic and social spheres. Thus, the present assault on democracy and constitutional principles is far more insidious. It has led to the rise of institutionalised authoritarianism – or what some observers term 'electoral autocracy.' In the Indian context, this authoritarian shift has been spearheaded by the RSS, injecting the toxic ideology of Hindutva, which seeks to fundamentally transform the very idea of India. This idea of India – born from the anti-colonial struggle – was anchored in a democratic, secular, socially just, and federal republic. The current onslaught is therefore more pervasive and stifling, aimed at dismantling the foundational principles of Indian citizenship. In hindsight, the 1975 Emergency now appears almost amateurish compared to the full-fledged authoritarianism we are experiencing today. While the current regime may seem harder to dislodge, the experience of fighting back against the Emergency in the 1970s should inspire confidence. A people united, with the will to resist the pernicious ideology of the RSS and reclaim democracy, can still meet and overcome today's challenge. (IPA Service)


Dubai Eye
a day ago
- Dubai Eye
Trump says leaders of India and Pakistan 'decided' to end conflict
In a first, US President Donald Trump has admitted that "two very smart" leaders of India and Pakistan after they "decided" to end the conflict, without mentioning the US role in the mediation talks. It comes after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi dismissed the US role in ending conflict with Pakistan during a call with Trump on Tuesday. "PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-U.S. trade deal or U.S. mediation between India and Pakistan," Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, said in a statement. Trump was hosting Pakistan's army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir at the White House on Wednesday when he spoke about the ceasefire. "Two very smart people decided not to keep going with that war; that could have been a nuclear war," he told reporters. The lunch meeting was the first time a US president had hosted the head of Pakistan's army, widely regarded as the most powerful figure in the country, at the White House unaccompanied by senior Pakistani civilian officials. Trump said he was honoured to meet Munir and that they had discussed Iran, which he said Pakistan knew better than most. Pakistan's military said in a statement that the two discussed trade, economic development, and cryptocurrency during the two-hour meeting and also exchanged views on tensions between Israel and Iran. "President Trump expressed keen interest in forging a mutually beneficial trade partnership with Pakistan based on long-term strategic convergence and shared interests," the army said. The meeting represented a major boost in US-Pakistan ties, which had largely languished under Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden. Asked earlier what he wanted to achieve from meeting Munir, Trump told reporters: "Well, I stopped a war ... I love Pakistan. I think Modi is a fantastic man. I spoke to him last night. We're going to make a trade deal with Modi of India. "But I stopped the war between Pakistan and India. This man was extremely influential in stopping it from the Pakistan side, Modi from the India side and others," he said. "They were going at it - and they're both nuclear countries. I got it stopped." The heaviest fighting in decades between India and Pakistan was sparked by an April 22 attack in Indian Kashmir that killed 26 people. New Delhi blamed "terrorists" backed by Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denies. Pakistan has previously said the ceasefire happened after its military returned a call the Indian military initiated.


Arabian Post
a day ago
- Arabian Post
Trump urges swift House approval of GENIUS stablecoin law
U.S. President Donald Trump has appealed directly to the House of Representatives to pass the GENIUS Act—a bipartisan stablecoin regulation bill cleared by the Senate—without any amendments or delays, stressing that it will position the country as the 'undisputed leader' in digital assets. The Senate passed the bill on 17 June with a decisive 68‑30 vote, supported by senators from both parties. It introduces stringent rules for stablecoin issuance, including full backing of coins with liquid reserves and monthly disclosures of reserve compositions, alongside audit and Treasury oversight provisions. Trump openly praised the legislation, calling it 'pure genius' and urging House Republicans to advance a 'clean' version so it reaches his desk before Congress breaks for its August recess. Major market players reacted positively. The approval spurred significant gains in related equities: shares of Circle Internet, issuer of the USDC stablecoin, surged between 16% and 27%, reflecting investor optimism for regulatory clarity and mainstream token adoption. ADVERTISEMENT The GENIUS Act's framework mandates that only permitted issuers—such as banks or federally approved payment companies—may issue stablecoins for U.S. users. It requires a one‑to‑one reserve ratio in U.S. dollars or Treasuries and monthly public disclosures about reserve composition. Additionally, it introduces safeguards for consumer protection and bankruptcy protocols prioritising stablecoin holders. Large issuers will have to undergo annual audits, and the bill prohibits stabilecoin ownership by Congress members, though it excludes the President and Vice President. While Trump's endorsement reflects his broader pro-crypto pivot—underscored by investments like Bitcoin, policy appointments, and support from his digital-assets advisory council—critics have flagged potential conflicts of interest. Trump and his family hold substantial stakes in crypto ventures including World Liberty Financial and its USD1 stablecoin, having earned tens of millions in 2024. Critics stress that exemption of the President from the bill's conflict-of-interest ban leaves a loophole that some fear could be exploited. Senators on both sides celebrated the bill. Republican sponsor Bill Hagerty described it as a 'paradigm-shifting development' that moves the U.S. toward global leadership in crypto. Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott described it as 'the most significant digital assets legislation ever to pass the U.S. Senate'. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent projected that the bill could expand the stablecoin market to $3 trillion‑plus by decade's end. Nonetheless, the path ahead is not without hurdles. Some Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley and others, raised objections during Senate negotiations, warning the bill could grant a 'super‑highway for corruption' and fails to curtail potential for big tech firms entering the stablecoin market. Senate negotiators incorporated numerous amendments to secure support, but key concerns remain unresolved.