Emergency was a 'nasty affair': Gopalkrishna Gandhi
Speaking on 'A Name Inherited, a Voice Earned: Walking the Delicate Path between Legacy and Self' at the 9th edition of the Mysuru Literature Festival 2025 here on Saturday, Gandhi said Rajiv Gandhi had the courage to openly acknowledge his disapproval of the Emergency, something a few in his position would have dared.
'He said in Parliament that the Emergency should not have happened. I choose to remember the Emergency not only for what it was, but for the way it was resisted by people with tremendous guts. I don't see the need to simply condemn everything Indira Gandhi did. What stands out is the silent, brave resistance across the country, people going to jail without fanfare. My brothers — Rajmohan and Ramaswamy -- attended a meeting at Raj Ghat with special permission.
When Kriplani rose to address the gathering, the police raided it, arresting everyone present, even those with no connection to the meeting, and put them in jail. My brothers were among those arrested but were released by evening on Indira Gandhi's orders, knowing their detention would have international repercussions,' he said.
He praised the extraordinary courage of those who opposed the Emergency. 'The Emergency can happen again, anywhere in the world. We need that same guts everywhere to speak out against authoritarianism and supremacism,' he said.
Gandhi also shared that three people who profoundly shaped his thinking and world view were classical singer M S Subbulakshmi, independence activist Jayaprakash Narayan, and his grandfather C Rajagopalachari.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
24 minutes ago
- The Print
Terrorists behind Pahalgam attack identified, could be eliminated soon, says J&K L-G Manoj Sinha
'Terrorism has been the state policy of Pakistan, and it is in the DNA of Pakistan…since inception, it has used a terror policy post-1947, to attack Jammu & Kashmir. The recent attack was by the design and intention of Pakistan, too,' Manoj Sinha said. On the motive behind the attack, Lt. Governor Sinha said that it was to 'create communal divide and disrupt peace of state and business activity, so that Pakistan can again start recruitment of handlers'. New Delhi: The security agencies have identified the terrorists behind the 22 April Pahalgam attack, and soon, will eliminate them, Manoj Sinha said, speaking on the occasion of his completion of 5 years as the Lt. Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, at a function in Gandhi Smriti, Delhi, Wednesday. However, 'the people of Kashmir showed up and demonstrated how fed up they were with terror', he added. 'They want peace and prosperity.' Two days ago, the L-G stunned the state, saying it was a 'security failure' that led to the deaths of 26 innocent people in Pahalgam. 'What happened in Pahalgam was very unfortunate. Innocent people were killed. I took full responsibility for the incident, but it was undoubtedly a security failure,' Manoj Sinha said. Calling Pakistan the 'biggest enemy of humanity', he said that the 'global powers will have to end terrorism from Pakistan; it is the duty of the global powers'. 'Pakistan does not want prosperity in Jammu and Kashmir; our neighbour does not like peace in Kashmir. But there is a change brewing in the state, and local people have realised that their destiny and prosperity lie with India and in peace'. Quoting a Gandhi speech, Sinha said, 'Gandhi wanted peace and prosperity in Jammu & Kashmir. He once said that if one has to choose between cowardice and violence, the way is violence. And, when Pakistan disturbed the peace in Kashmir, Gandhi said our Army should move forward and defeat the enemy.' In 1924, the late Mahatma Gandhi said, 'My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can prefer only violence to cowardice; shunning non-violence is the summit of bravery.' Without directly saying it, Manoj Sinha cited the Gandhian philosophy as the context of the subsequent Indian attack on Pakistan. At the event, Vijay Goel, the Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti Vice-Chairperson, delivered a brief speech. He said, 'Like Gandhi, Modi is bringing peace and prosperity in Jammu & Kashmir'. Elaborating on the Kashmir situation since he had assumed the L-G role in 2020, Sinha said, 'Kashmir's economy has doubled. A Kashmir bank, specifically Jammu & Kashmir Bank, was running at a loss of Rs 1,300 crore, but today its profit margin stands at Rs 1,700 crore. Roughly 2.38 crore tourists visited Kashmir last year, and builders constructed 5,000 new hotels. A 1.5 lakh crore highway project is under construction here. A Tiranga Yatra took place in the village of Burhan Wani.' During the Lok Sabha and assembly elections, the state was peaceful, he said. 'Not a single incident happened, and there was no question about election integrity. Forget firing, not a single pebble was thrown. Currently, people are enjoying nightlife, and children are going to school.' Operation Sindoor, Manoj Sinha said, showed that if anybody has bad intentions towards India, the country will give a befitting reply. He added that the most striking part of the operation was how the Army made use of India-made drones and other indigenously produced defence equipment to attack Pakistan. 'Prime Minister Modi has said categorically that Operation Sindoor has not ended, and if any misadventure takes place, it will be treated as an act of war,' he added. Discussing his efforts for establishing normalcy in J&K, L-G Sinha said, 'The incident of throwing stones has become history, the recruitment of handlers by Pakistan is minimal. Earlier, it recruited 150 locals, but last year, there were only six such cases, and this year, it was only one case. Radicalisation has stopped.' NIA officers showing no mercy to terrorists and public support for peace, and a change in their outlook were critical in bringing normalcy, he added. 'After abrogation of Article 370, the Prime Minister desired peace in the state, and my vision was clear on how to have peace and prosperity in the state—peace is not for buying but for establishing,' Manoj Sinha stated. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also read: 'Some screamed with every thud, others prayed'—J&K residents recall night of Operation Sindoor
Scroll.in
3 hours ago
- Scroll.in
A new book examines whether Hindu nationalists supported the Zionist project to occupy Palestine
The geopolitical reconfigurations following the end of the First World War had a profound impact on independence and nationalist movements across the globe. India was no different. The Indian National Congress, under the leadership of Gandhi, saw the events of the First World War, the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Caliphate and the establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922 as further reasons to repudiate British rule. It also helped initiate closer ties with Muslims in India and the assertion of an anti-imperial agenda. In Palestine, Zionism had arrived. Palestinians were increasingly displaced, excluded from employment opportunities and denied entry into Jewish-only trade unions. As the continuous flow of Jewish refugees from Europe increased, the rate of dispossession of Palestinians only increased. The programme of building a Jewish state brought together Jews (as well as dispensationalist or Christian Zionists) of various persuasions and motivations. The movement spawned political, cultural and labour Zionism (and later revisionist Zionism), each with its own idea as to the character of this future state. However different these might have been, Zionism in totality agreed that this future state would need to have a Jewish majority and, therefore, establishing it was ultimately predicated on the act of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The political project went against Orthodox Jewish beliefs, but it nonetheless proceeded. However, political Zionists were so detached from the sentiments of the Jewish polity that they expressed an openness to a 'homeland' in Argentina or Uganda before this matter was put to rest. Once the political project was endorsed, it wasn't long before the Bible was used as 'proof' that Jews belonged in Palestine. And in keeping with the peculiarities of the time, the Zionists reframed their movement as one befitting a 'national liberation movement'. India was the crown jewel of the British Empire, and Zionists paid attention to both the art and literature that emerged from India, as well as the mass mobilisations that threatened the British Empire. However, it was Hindu nationalists who felt an immediate kinship with the Zionist movement. They saw no contradiction in admiring the European fascist movements that targeted European Jews as well as the Zionist project that looked to revitalise the Jewish race by building an exclusive homeland for the Jewish people. The support of European powers for a Jewish state in the Middle East turned a colonial matter into a civilisational conquest. The subtext now was that 'Israel was a device for holding Islam – and later the Soviet Union – at bay,' Edward Said wrote. Herzl, the writer Abdul-Wahab Kayalli argued, had routinely portrayed Zionism 'as a political meeting point between Christianity and Judaism in their common stance against Islam and the barbarism of the Orient'. Unsurprisingly, in India, Hindu nationalists saw 'the Jewish question' in Europe as 'the Muslim problem' in their own backyard. 'India's Muslims are on the whole more inclined to identify themselves and their interests with Muslims outside India than Hindus who live next door, like Jews in Germany,' Savarkar said in a speech in December 1939. For Hindu nationalists, their support for both fascism in Europe as well as Zionism won them admirers among the right wing in Europe and helped them recast themselves as adjacent to the global racial elite. In Har Bilas Sarda's book, Hindu Superiority: An Attempt to Determine the Position of the Hindu Race in the Scale of Nations, the famous Indian judge writes that his effort to glorify the Hindu past was not meant to 'run down any creed or nationality […] it may be remarked that the evils of the rule of the Afghans, Turks, and others were due not to the religion they professed but by their ignorance and backwardness in civilisation'. It is precisely this invocation of a racial, civilisational and cultural superiority and the adoption of a very European tradition of pathologising Muslims as a backward and problematic minority that has lured Hindu nationalists and supremacists towards European ethno-fascism. For Hindu nationalists and supremacists, the comparison with Zionism, then, was not incidental. It merely represented an exchange in a large, and longer, conversation between Judaism and Hinduism, as 'two age-old civilisations'. Hindutva's affinity for the Zionist search for a homeland spoke to their interactions across the centuries. Hindutva's construction of the Hindu proto-race (as 'insider') in opposition to Muslims (as ultimate 'outsider') through a focus on religion, culture and philosophy was a marker of 'civilisation'. In other words, Hindutva held that the people of India were all fundamentally Hindu and that Hinduism was ultimately their race-culture. It also determined who could be part of the nation. As academic Satadru Sen argues, both Zionism and Hindutva developed 'an interest in deploying the language and imagery of a racialised people whose health was both a scientific and a political problem'. Golwalkar, in particular, was caustic and influential when he articulated the place of 'the other' in his book We or Our Nationhood Defined: 'All those not belonging to the national ie, Hindu Race, Religion, Culture and Language, naturally fall out of the pale of real 'National' life.' There were other similarities in the religious ethos of both Judaism and Hinduism, which right-wing proponents latched on to, too. Both Jews and Hindus purportedly rejected conversion and were unenthused by the proselytising habits of others (Christians and Muslims). This underscored the aforementioned anxiety of racial 'contamination' or being demographically overrun by Muslims or Arabs or Palestinians. This concern is foundational to racial superiority as purported by both Zionists and Hindu nationalists. The duo also found symmetry in the vigour of the religion itself. While Hinduism was about seeking eternal enlightenment, Judaism could be characterised as a journey 'to search after the knowledge of God'. These similarities became the religious backbone for building ties between the political projects of Hindutva and Zionism, which relied on myth-making as a form of statecraft. But the relationship didn't happen immediately. With the labour Zionist movement becoming the dominant stream in Palestine, Zionists reached out to the presiding movement in India: the INC and Gandhi. For labour Zionists, Gandhi represented a version of Hinduism that appeared to match their egalitarian vision of Zionism, being still in denial over the actions of the Haganah or militia. The Hindu nationalists, however, chose to understand Zionism in its totality. It is no surprise that Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the father of revisionist Zionism, or the right-wing version of Zionism that rejected labour Zionism's 'negotiation' in the Holy Land, wrote his manifesto, The Iron Wall, in 1923, the same year that Savarkar published his treatise on Hindutva. Unlike labour Zionists, Jabotinsky was blunt about his ambitions. Hindu nationalists, too, saw the full project, understood the implications and imbibed the values. Jabotinsky argued that only the complete disenfranchising of Palestinians would convince them to accept the Jewish settlers: Culturally they [the Palestinian Arabs] are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. On the 'Arab Question', Jabotinsky argued: 'Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.' Jabotinsky and Zionist revisionists accused labour Zionists of attempting to obscure what they all fundamentally agreed was a colonial project in Palestine. Likewise, for Hindu nationalists, the INC's 'policy of appeasement' delayed the inevitable: the creation of a majoritarian Hindu state. Philosophically, Hindutva was fundamentally anti-Muslim. The 'Hindu' identity was built almost entirely in opposition to Muslims, even placed ahead of the struggle for independence. So much so that some of Hindutva's early ideologues extricated themselves from the larger Indian struggle for independence. In theory, Zionism shared the imperial methodology of dispossession and settlement with European colonisers, including the British, as it shared with Afrikaner 'puritans' the bigoted policy of separate development exercised under apartheid South Africa. But it also resonated in the anxieties of Muslims in colonial India, who, fearing Hindu majoritarianism and their position of 'minority', began to conceptualise a separate polity of their own. It is this fear of Hindu majoritarianism that culminated in the formation of the idea of Pakistan, prompting some to suggest that Israel and Pakistan, both formed on the basis of religion, were kindred spirits, too. Other scholars argued that traces of labour Zionism, often depicted as the dominant strain of the ideology, could be found in the socialist, internationalist agenda of the Nehru government as well. These were all political movements in the making, laden with contradiction and opportunism. However, the comparisons between Zionism or Israel with both Nehru-led India and the project of Pakistan are simplistic and incomplete. For starters, the Indian struggle for freedom against the British, as flawed and contradictory as it might have been, cannot be compared with the Zionist so-called struggle for independence from the British. Through the auspices of the Balfour Declaration, it was the British who had demarcated Palestine for the Zionist settler-colonial project in Palestine in the first place. As early as 1931, it was clear that all Zionists 'concurred ideologically with the principle of Jewish sovereignty over all Palestine', Zeev Tzahor writes. If anything, labour Zionism functioned as a Trojan horse for settler colonialism. They held disagreements on strategy, on timing, on language, but 'there was no difference between our militarists and our vegetarians', as Jabotinsky put it. The comparisons with Pakistan, too, are inadequate; beyond the similar predicament that both Jews in Europe and Muslims on the Indian subcontinent faced in becoming a minority in the modern nation-state, there aren't many similarities. Pakistan was not designed to be a settler-colonial imperial outpost as the Zionist state was envisioned. The territorial lands that would ultimately make up Pakistan – as fluid as they may have been – still had geographic contiguity with the regions in which Muslims were a majority. This was the territorial demand of the founders of the Pakistan movement. They did not have extra-territorial ambitions, nor did they seek to make all of the Indian subcontinent into Pakistan. They were, primarily, concerned with questions of power sharing among Hindus and Muslims after the departure of the British. In addition, Muslims were not settlers in Pakistan, nor did the Pakistan movement seek to replace existing Hindu and Sikh minority communities with Muslims, although the violence at the time of Partition caused a refugee crisis across both India and Pakistan. While Pakistan was initially conceived of as a Muslim homeland, within a few months it was evident that Pakistan – unlike the Zionist state – was not invested in settling Muslims from around the world (or even North India) in the nascent nation. The settler constitution of Zionism is integral to its ideology; this was not the case with Muslim nationalism on the Indian subcontinent. Furthermore, the Zionist project was much more invested in a mythical history, a trait it shares with Hindutva rather than the founders of the Pakistan movement. In other words, symmetries will exist; some imagined, others more fanciful. However, when it comes to Hindu nationalism and the complete project of Zionism – be it cultural, political, labour or revisionist – the two ideas share more than symmetry. They share kinship. And their differences aside, the pursuit of consolidating dominion to create unified states with a single culture and identity predicated on erasing the 'other' is what ultimately defines their kinship.
Hindustan Times
12 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Rare Mahatma Gandhi oil portrait sold for ₹1.75 crore at UK auction: 'Testament to Gandhi's power'
A rare oil portrait of Mahatma Gandhi, believed to be the only one he sat for the artist to paint, has fetched triple its estimate at 152,800 pounds or ₹1.75 crore in a Bonhams auction in London. The portrait artist, Clare Leighton, was introduced to Gandhi when he visited London in 1931(Bonhams) The painting, which had never before been offered at auction, had been on offer for an online auction with a guide price range between 50,000 and 70,000 pounds and was the top lot of the Travel and Exploration sale, which concluded on Tuesday. The portrait artist, Clare Leighton, was introduced to Gandhi when he visited London in 1931 to attend the Second Round Table Conference. "Thought to be the only oil painting of Mahatma Gandhi, which he sat for, this was a very special work, which had never before been offered at auction,' said Rhyanon Demery, Bonhams Head of Sale. "Completed in London by the artist Clare Leighton, mainly known for her wood engravings, this work was a testament to Gandhi's power to connect with people far and wide, and presented a lasting document of an important moment in history,' she said. The portrait remained in the artist's collection until her death in 1989, after which it was passed down through her family. 'It is no wonder that this work sparked such interest across the globe,' added Demery. At the time of painting it, Leighton was in a relationship with the political journalist Henry Noel Brailsford. A passionate supporter of Indian independence, Brailsford had travelled to the country in 1930, later publishing the book 'Rebel India' in support of the Indian independence cause, the year he first met Gandhi at the Round Table Conference. Bonhams said that it was through this connection that Leighton was introduced to Gandhi. She was one of the very few artists admitted to his office and was allowed to sit with him on multiple occasions to sketch and paint his likeness, the auction house revealed. In November of 1931, Leighton showcased her portrait of Gandhi in an exhibition at the Albany Galleries in London. Journalist Winifred Holtby attended the opening and wrote about the event in her column for the trade union magazine 'The Schoolmistress', stating; 'Members of Parliament and ex-Members, artists, journalists and art critics, stood among exquisite Indian women in bright saris, and the dignified figures of some of the chief Hindu representatives at the Conference. Mrs Naidu, the statesman-poet, was there... and Sir Purshotamdas Thakurdas, one of the Mahatma's colleagues." Gandhi himself did not attend the party, but it was noted that he was vitally present in the works on display, which included the portrait of him in oil. Describing the painting in more detail, Holtby stated at the time: "The little man squats bare-headed, in his blanket, one finger raised, as it often is to emphasise a point, his lips parted for a word that is almost a smile. That is very much as I saw him when he came as guest to a big luncheon in Westminster at which I was present a little while ago. 'He was the political leader there, the subtle negotiator, the manipulator of Congress, the brilliant lawyer, the statesman who knows just how to play on the psychology of friends and enemies alike." The following month, Gandhi's personal secretary Mohadev Desai wrote a letter to Leighton, a copy of which is attached to the backing board of the portrait. It reads: "It was such a pleasure to have had you here for many mornings doing Mr Gandhi's portrait. I am sorry I didn't see the final result, but many of my friends who saw it in the Albany Gallery said to me that it was a good likeness. I am quite sure Mr Gandhi has no objection to its being reproduced." There does not appear to be any record of Leighton's oil portrait of Gandhi being exhibited again until 1978, when the Boston Public Library staged an exhibition of Leighton's work. However, according to the artist's family, the portrait was thought to have been on public display in 1974 when it was attacked with a knife by a person. A label attached to the backing board confirms that the painting was restored in 1974 by the Lyman Allyn Museum Conservation Laboratory.
