
Fifty years of the Emergency – remembering the darkest chapter
Keshav Upadhye, a young, dynamic and prominent face, has been working with the Bharatiya Janata Party for over two decades. In 2014, the then state president Devendra Fadnavis had appointed Upadhye as the spokesperson in his team. Owing to his journalistic background and better understanding of the socio-economic issues of the state, Upadhye made a mark as a spokesperson in a short span. He articulates the views of the party and aggressively defends the party on various platforms including the Marathi and Hindi national news channels. Keshav Upadhye worked for the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and after completing his degree in Journalism from Ranade Institute, Pune, he began his career as a journalist with daily Pudhari, Loksatta and Mumbai Tarun Bharat. Knowing the pulse of the news, he writes on varied topics and on various platforms like the newspapers, blogs and other social media platforms. He was involved in two study groups formed by the Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini in 2006 to study the naxalite movement and its adverse impact on the development of Chhatisgarh. The Prabodhini later published this report. He was also a part of the Prabodhini's fact-finding committee formed to study the Solapur riots. LESS ... MORE
25th June, 1975…. A black day in the history of independent India. India became independent from the clutches of British rule in 1947. Three years later, the republic of India was formed on the basis of the Constitution. The darkest chapter called Emergency began in the same year when the republic of India was celebrating its Silver Jubilee. This chapter stifled the freedom of expression of Indian citizens, but more than that, it also became a witness to horrific abuse of power by the government. The Emergency was imposed on the country within just 13 days after the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha from Raebareli constituency in 1971 was declared void by the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, Jagmohanlal Sinha.
All the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution to common citizens and newspapers were curtailed. The excessive suppression by the government machinery was so horrific that even the British would be ashamed. There was no social media or internet in those days. The two state-owned media platforms, Akashvani and Doordarshan, were the only source of information. Doordarshan had just started, so its reach was limited.
Not even a single line of news regarding opposition meetings, demonstrations or speeches held against the Emergency was reported by these state owned platforms. The Indira Gandhi government ensured that no news against the government reached the public by censoring newspapers. Even the British, who had a pride that the Sun never sets on the British Empire, had to leave India. Destiny made even Indira Gandhi pay the price for imposing the Emergency. But by then Indian people had suffered a lot because of one individual's lust for power. That period made Indians understand how great the value of freedom of writing and freedom of speech is.
The electricity to all newspaper offices in Delhi, the capital of the country, was cut off before the President signed the ordinance of Emergency. All important leaders of opposition including the leaders of Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Socialist party were arrested immediately. Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi, two key players of the Emergency, knew exactly what they wanted to do during the Emergency. Mrs Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency fearing that the court verdict would force her to give away her Prime Ministerial post. The entire nation witnessed the cruel dictator in Indira Gandhi in the form of horrific abuse of power during that period. The dictatorship was so terrible that newspapers had to show every single line to the government officials. Newspapers could not be sent for printing without approval of government officials.
Government officials would only allow newspapers to be printed after ensuring that not a single word has been written against Mrs Indira Gandhi or Emergency. The censorship was imposed on the freedom of press to prevent information about the cruel acts committed during the emergency from reaching the common people. Even artists, actors were hit by this dictatorship. Songs of Kishore Kumar, who refused to sing a song praising the Emergency, were banned from broadcasting on Akashvani and Doordarshan. Notices were sent to Kishore Kumar through the Income Tax Department. But Kishore Kumar still did not succumb. Dev Anand was also harassed in many ways because of his refusal to issue a statement in support of the Emergency.
Barbaric acts were committed in the form of forced sterilization while carrying out a family planning campaign aimed at controlling the country's population. Government officials were given the target of family planning surgeries. Many unmarried men were also forcibly sterilized to achieve this target. Journalists and intellectuals also remained silent against the torture during the Emergency. Opposition party workers were being imprisoned without enquiry. Even many senior leaders of Congress like Yashwantaro Chavan, Babu Jagjivan Ram, Brahmananda Reddy did not dare to utter a single word against Indira Gandhi.
The proposal to impose a state of emergency was sent to the President for signature without seeking an approval of the Union Cabinet. But Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Jana Sangh ran a nationwide campaign without paying any heed to Indira Gandhi's suppression. Thousands of swayamsevaks of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh staged protests against the Emergency across the country without fearing imprisonment. Thousands of people lost their jobs, their lives were shattered due to this. More than 10 lakh people were arrested across the country. Family members of senior socialist leader George Fernandes were severely harassed as the police failed to trace him. Police force was used extensively to suppress voices against the Emergency. Even elderly leader like Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan, who led the fight against Mrs Indira Gandhi, was not spared from imprisonment.
Indian people experienced the Emergency for 21 months, i.e. from June 25, 1975 to March 21, 1977. Karnataka actress Snehalatha Reddy died due to torture during the Emergency. A law like 'MISA' was passed to arrest opposition party workers and leaders. Renowned director and writer Gulzar's film Aandhi was banned because the heroine's costume resembled that of Indira Gandhi.
All the brutality was avenged by the voters in the 1977 Lok Sabha elections. By defeating Congress along with Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi, voters brought about a bloodless revolution. The new generation must know this dark history and therefore the events of that period should be reminded. Rahul Gandhi, grandson of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, keeps on whining in the name of the constitution. But while citing the Constitution, he does not remember the torture of the common man during the Emergency by his own grandmother. The public memory is very short and therefore even the common man has to be reminded again and again of what happened during the Emergency. But Indian democracy emerged victorious after whatever Indian people had endured during that period. There is no doubt that the fight waged by the Indian people to defend the Constitution will be recorded in golden letters in Indian history.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hashtags

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


Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
Are filmmakers being silenced by Arbitrary Censorship?
In a democratic nation where freedom of speech and artistic expression are considered fundamental rights, a string of recent incidents involving the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has stirred fresh debate around censorship and creative liberty in Indian cinema. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The two most prominent cases—Janaki V/S State of Kerala and Sitaare Zameen Par—highlight a concerning trend: creators are being forced to make politically and religiously motivated changes, often with little or no formal communication, just to get their films cleared for release. A Name That Sparked Controversy The Malayalam courtroom drama Janaki V/S State of Kerala starring and Union Minister was denied censor clearance at the last minute despite being scheduled for release on June 27. The issue? The protagonist's name—Janaki. According to the CBFC, the name, which is another widely accepted form of Goddess Sita, was deemed inappropriate for a female character portrayed as a victim of assault. This sudden decision, lacking any formal written notice or show-cause, drew immediate criticism. FEFKA (Film Employees Federation of Kerala) general secretary B Unnikrishnan during his conversation with The Times Of India asked . 'Many Hindu names are derived from deities—will they all face censorship?' Unnikrishnan, noting that his own telefilm with a character named Janaki had previously passed CBFC approval. This isn't the first time such censorship over character names has occurred. Director M B Padmakumar faced similar pushback over a character named Janaki in his film Token Number. In that case, the CBFC had suggested replacing the name with 'Jayanti' or 'Krishnan'—names that lacked the supposed divine association and only when the name was changed to Jayanti was the film approved for screening. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now CBFC's Micro-Management of Creative Choices If Janaki V/S State of Kerala presents a case of religious sensitivity gone awry, the CBFC's treatment of Sitaare Zameen Par, starring and , showcases an even broader issue—political influence creeping into creative decisions. Bollywood Hungama in its report stated that after being unhappy with the cuts suggested by CBFC's Examining Committee the film was eventually reviewed by the Revising Committee, headed by Vaman Kendre. Their suggestions involved the following changes Replace "Businesswoman" with the gender-neutral "Businessperson." Replace 'Michael Jackson' with the generic term 'Lovebirds.' Remove a visual element tied to the word 'Kamal' (interpreted as a reference to the lotus, the BJP party symbol). Most notably, include a quote by Prime Minister Narendra Modi after the opening disclaimer These demands raise an uncomfortable question: since when did CBFC's role extend to prescribing political messages in fictional narratives? Adding a quote from a sitting prime minister turns it into an ideological imposition. Despite these interventions, Sitaare Zameen Par was eventually granted a U/A 13+ certificate, and the film released on June 20. But at what cost to artistic autonomy? Are Certain Narratives Being Silenced? With growing examples of this kind of interference, one must ask: will upcoming films that delve into sensitive mythological or historical subjects also face similar scrutiny? A case in point is Nitesh Tiwari's Ramayana, starring as Lord Ram and Sai Pallavi as Goddess Sita. The story of Ramayana is inherently complex and filled with emotionally intense sequences—Sita's abduction by Ravana, her Agnipariksha (trial by fire), and her eventual abandonment by Ram despite being pregnant with Luv and Kush. These episodes are not only central to the plot but also deeply embedded in Indian cultural memory. Will the CBFC now raise objections to how Sita's trials are depicted? Will they argue that showing her as a victim undermines her divinity? If using a name like Janaki is already contentious, what of a film that retells her entire journey, including the injustices she faced? This isn't just hypothetical—it's a very real concern in today's political and social climate, where identity, religion, and ideology intersect more than ever before. In the words of the late Satyajit Ray, 'Cinema's job is not to provide answers, but to ask the right questions.' It's time the CBFC remembered that.


Hans India
21 minutes ago
- Hans India
Congress Condemns Trump's Iran Airstrikes, Criticizes Modi Government's Silence
The Indian National Congress has strongly criticized US President Donald Trump's decision to launch airstrikes against Iran's nuclear installations, describing the military action as contradictory to his previous diplomatic overtures toward Tehran. The opposition party has simultaneously condemned the Modi government for its perceived inaction regarding American bombardments and Israeli military operations in the region. Congress General Secretary for Communications Jairam Ramesh expressed his party's disapproval through social media, emphasizing the urgent need for diplomatic engagement with Iran rather than military confrontation. He characterized Trump's use of American air power against Iranian nuclear sites as undermining the President's own public statements advocating for continued negotiations with the Islamic Republic. The senior Congress leader reinforced his party's position calling for immediate diplomatic intervention and meaningful dialogue with Iran to address escalating regional tensions. He argued that military strikes represent a fundamental departure from peaceful conflict resolution mechanisms that should guide international relations in the volatile Middle East landscape. As persources, Ramesh directed sharp criticism toward the Indian government's response to the unfolding crisis, describing the administration's silence as deeply troubling. He accused the Modi government of failing to condemn or even criticize American bombing campaigns and Israeli military aggression, suggesting that India's foreign policy stance lacks moral clarity during this critical period. The Congress spokesperson extended his critique to encompass the broader humanitarian crisis affecting the region, particularly highlighting what he termed India's "deafening silence" regarding the situation in Gaza. He characterized the ongoing conflict as constituting genocide against Palestinian populations, arguing that the Indian government has failed to take a principled stand on this humanitarian catastrophe. These statements emerged following American military strikes targeting three significant Iranian nuclear facilities located at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The attacks effectively drew the United States directly into the escalating confrontation between Israel and Iran, raising concerns about broader regional destabilization and potential for expanded conflict. Despite the opposition's criticism, Prime Minister Narendra Modi engaged in diplomatic outreach by conducting a telephone conversation with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Sunday. During this discussion, the Prime Minister expressed India's profound concern regarding mounting tensions between Iran and Israel, while advocating for immediate de-escalation of hostilities through peaceful means. Modi emphasized the importance of resolving the crisis through diplomatic channels and constructive dialogue rather than military escalation. In his subsequent social media communication, the Prime Minister detailed their comprehensive discussion of current regional developments and reiterated India's commitment to promoting peace, security, and stability throughout the Middle East. The Prime Minister's diplomatic engagement represents India's attempt to maintain balanced relationships with all parties while advocating for peaceful resolution of conflicts. However, the Congress party's criticism suggests ongoing political disagreement regarding the appropriate level of Indian involvement and public positioning on these complex international issues. This controversy reflects broader debates within Indian politics about the country's foreign policy approach toward Middle Eastern conflicts and the balance between strategic interests and moral positioning on international humanitarian concerns.


Hans India
22 minutes ago
- Hans India
Uttarakhand High Court Suspends Panchayat Elections Due To Reservation Confusion
The Uttarakhand High Court has imposed an interim suspension on the state's forthcoming Panchayati Raj elections, expressing concerns over the government's ambiguous approach to reservation protocols in local governance bodies. In a significant judicial intervention on Monday, the court determined that the state administration had not provided sufficient clarity regarding reservation implementation within panchayat institutions. The bench emphasized that this uncertainty necessitated halting the electoral proceedings until proper clarification could be established. The judicial order emerged just one day following the Uttarakhand State Election Commission's official announcement of the three-tier panchayat election timeline. State Election Commissioner Sushil Kumar had previously declared that voting across twelve districts would occur on July 10, with vote counting scheduled for July 19. The electoral machinery had been set in motion with a comprehensive schedule outlining key dates for the democratic process. Candidate nomination submissions were planned to commence on June 25, with the final deadline for filing papers established as June 28. The verification and scrutiny phase was scheduled between June 29 and July 1, followed by the allocation of election symbols on July 3. Following the commission's notification, the Model Code of Conduct had automatically activated and was intended to remain operational throughout the entire election period until final results were announced. This comprehensive framework governs political activities and ensures fair electoral practices during the campaign period. The court's intervention highlights ongoing challenges in implementing reservation policies at the grassroots level of Indian democracy. Panchayati Raj institutions serve as the foundation of local self-governance, making clear reservation guidelines crucial for ensuring equitable representation across different communities and social groups. The suspension creates uncertainty for thousands of potential candidates and voters across the affected districts who were preparing for the democratic exercise. Political parties and local leaders had begun mobilizing their resources and strategies in anticipation of the announced election schedule. The state government will now need to address the court's concerns by providing unambiguous guidelines on reservation implementation before the electoral process can resume. This development underscores the importance of having well-defined policies in place before initiating any democratic process, particularly at the local governance level where community representation is paramount. The High Court's decision reflects the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that electoral processes adhere to constitutional principles and legal clarity, even if it means temporarily disrupting planned democratic activities to safeguard the integrity of the system.