Never Again: Why The Emergency Must Remain In Our Collective Memory
Let June 25 stand as a day of national remembrance, a reminder that democracy is fragile, that freedom is precious, and that the cost of silence can be too high
On June 25, 1975, the lights of Indian democracy were abruptly turned off. In a chilling announcement broadcast on All India Radio, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared: 'The President has proclaimed the emergency. This is nothing to panic about."
But panic there was, and for good reason. The declaration of the emergency marked the suspension of fundamental rights, the dismantling of democratic institutions, and the persecution of opposition leaders and ordinary citizens alike. As we observe 50 years of that traumatic chapter in Indian history, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's words resonate deeply: 'The Constitution of India was completely rejected; every part of the Constitution was torn to pieces, the country was turned into a prison, and democracy was completely suppressed."
In the 18th Lok Sabha, Modi urged the nation to take a solemn pledge, 'a resolution of a vibrant democracy," so that such a tyranny never revisits our land. But remembering the Emergency is not just a political ritual; it is a civic duty. It is an obligation we owe to those who resisted, who were jailed, tortured, or silenced, and to future generations, who must know what happens when power becomes absolute.
To institutionalise this collective remembrance, the Government of India has decided to observe June 25 every year as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas.' This symbolic day will commemorate the massive contributions of all those who endured the inhuman pains of the 1975 Emergency. The announcement underlines the national commitment to safeguarding constitutional values and ensuring that history does not repeat itself.
The events leading to June 25, 1975, had been brewing for years. After a resounding electoral victory in 1971 and a triumph in the Bangladesh Liberation War, Indira Gandhi was at the zenith of her popularity. Yet within just a few years, her political base began to erode.
The economy was reeling. High inflation, unemployment, and food shortages had triggered widespread unrest. Students, trade unions, and civil society mobilised against rising authoritarianism. But it was the Allahabad High Court judgment of June 12, 1975, that lit the fuse. The court found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractice and declared her election void, disqualifying her from holding office.
Facing a political and legal crisis, Indira Gandhi acted with calculated decisiveness. On the night of June 25, she advised then-President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to declare a state of emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing 'internal disturbances." Her close aide and then West Bengal Chief Minister Siddhartha Shankar Ray reportedly drafted the request, laying the legal foundation for a move that would bypass Parliament, the judiciary, and the people.
A Nation Held Hostage
The Emergency, which lasted from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, was arguably the most totalitarian phase in the history of independent India. Civil liberties were suspended, fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 were nullified, the press was gagged, newspapers operated under censorship and the power supply to news offices was cut off. Nothing could be published without government approval.
The only television channel, Doordarshan, became the mouthpiece of the ruling regime.
The political Opposition was decapitated overnight. Arrests were swift and sweeping. Jayaprakash Narayan, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Rajnath Singh, Morarji Desai, LK Advani, George Fernandes, and Chaudhary Charan Singh were all jailed. Thousands of student activists, including Arun Jaitley, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Nitish Kumar, and Ram Vilas Paswan, were imprisoned. Countless others went underground or lived in fear.
Under the draconian Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), arrests could be made without a warrant or trial. Sanjay Gandhi, Indira's son, and an unelected power centre, oversaw mass sterilisation drives and slum demolitions that devastated poor communities in the name of urban 'beautification.'
Those who resisted were silenced, often brutally. In jails and police stations, torture became routine. The judiciary too buckled under pressure. In a stunning judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens had no remedy even if illegally detained.
A Personal Account: Voices From The Shadows
Many who lived through the Emergency still bear its scars. A former student activist, then 17, recently recounted how he was arrested, tortured, and jailed for publishing a small underground newspaper supporting JP's movement. 'I shall never forget those dark days," he said, echoing the trauma of thousands who stood up against authoritarianism. He was associated with the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the RSS, one of the few organised forces that resisted the Emergency.
This is not just the story of one person; it is the story of a generation that was robbed of its voice, its rights, and its future for 21 months.
The Aftermath: The People Fight Back
In January 1977, sensing growing unrest and under the illusion that her popularity would secure her return, Indira Gandhi announced fresh elections. But the people of India spoke with resolute clarity. The Congress party suffered a historic defeat. Indira Gandhi herself lost in Rae Bareli to Raj Narain, the very man who had challenged her election.
The Janata Party, a coalition of opposition forces, swept to power. Morarji Desai became the first non-Congress Prime Minister. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act was repealed, and a formal apology was offered to the nation.
LK Advani, then Information & Broadcasting Minister, memorably rebuked the media's role during the Emergency, saying: 'When asked to bend, they were willing to crawl."
The trauma of those months remains deeply embedded in India's democratic memory, a constant warning against unchecked power.
Why Remembering The Emergency Matters Today
As political temperatures rise and ideological battles rage, some may dismiss the Emergency as a relic of the past. But history is not just about what happened; it's about what could happen again. Democracies don't die in a day; they erode when citizens forget how hard they had to fight to preserve them.
The lessons of the Emergency are eternal:
Never take freedoms for granted
Dissent is not sedition; it is the lifeblood of democracy
An independent judiciary and press are non-negotiable
Political power must always be accountable to the people
India is, and must remain, the Mother of Democracy as Speaker Om Birla reminded Parliament. For that, we must nurture constitutional values with unwavering vigilance.
A Call To The New Generation
Prime Minister Modi aptly said, 'The new generation of India will never forget that the Constitution was torn to pieces." But for that to happen, they must be taught in schools, in homes, and in public discourse about those 21 months when the Constitution was suspended and democracy was held hostage.
Let June 25 not pass as just another date in the calendar. Let it stand as a day of national remembrance, a reminder that democracy is fragile, that freedom is precious, and that the cost of silence can be too high.
The government's move to institutionalise June 25 as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas' is a powerful step in that direction. It is more than a symbolic gesture; it is a civic warning and a democratic commitment. It ensures that we, as a nation, do not forget and do not forgive the betrayal of the constitutional order.
As India marches toward its centenary of independence in 2047, the Emergency must serve as a stark cautionary tale. We must renew our pledge not merely to oppose dictatorship, but to champion liberty, protect institutions, and give voice to the voiceless.
top videos
View all
Only then can we truly say ' never again."
The writer is a technocrat, political analyst, and author. He pens national, geopolitical, and social issues. His social media handle is @prosenjitnth. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
About the Author
Prosenjit Nath
The writer is an Indian technocrat, political analyst, and author.
tags :
1975 Emergency indira gandhi
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
June 25, 2025, 08:38 IST
News opinion Opinion | Never Again: Why The Emergency Must Remain In Our Collective Memory
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
8 minutes ago
- India.com
Why is India not falling into the trap of Russia and China..., taking cautious steps while joining RIC because...
Why is India not falling into the trap of Russia and China..., taking cautious steps while joining RIC because… New Delhi: The trilateral forum between Russia, India, and China (RIC) has become the talk of the town in recent days. Moscow is trying to restart the forum, as China has also given its consent. Now, India has to decide. The Indian Foreign Ministry has been very cautious in its statements on this issue. The question arising is: why is New Delhi cautious about forming a trio with Beijing and Moscow, as it already has good bilateral relations with Russia? However, it is not as easy as it looks. Retired Indian diplomat Prabhu Dayal, in his article in Firstpost, stated that the RIC structure has been largely inactive in recent years, and the reason for this is military tension and mistrust between India and China. 'Cold War' Continues India And China Dayal said even after recent agreements, tension will remain on the India-China border. It is to be noted that after the Galwan clash of 2020, the relation of India and China deteriorated further and the situation on the India-China border remains complex. Additionally, the increasing infrastructure development near the border by China is further increasing escalating the tensions. Earlier this year, Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi stated that India will not reduce the number of soldiers deployed on the Line of Actual Control. Years Old Dispute Notably, the India-China conflict has deep historical roots. China's long-time challenge to India's sovereignty over Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh, including its depiction of Aksai Chin as Chinese territory on official maps and its renaming of Arunachal Pradesh as 'Jangnan,' has further escalated the tension. Additionally, China's strategic alliance with Pakistan, which includes military and intelligence support, has just intensified existing tensions, creating a major geopolitical rift between India and China. Support Of Pakistan On International Forums After the Pahalgam terror attack, China provided arms and ammunition to Pakistan like – PL-15 air-to-air missiles. During the recent clashes Beijing also provided air defence and satellite support to Islamabad. Not only that China has always backed Pakistan on the issue of terrorism at international forums such as the United Nations, blocking India's efforts. China vetoed India's UN Security Council resolution to designate five Pakistani individuals as terrorists responsible for attacks on India. India's cautious stance toward China stems from a historical perspective and concerns about China's actions and goals.
India.com
8 minutes ago
- India.com
Trumps Five Jets Remark Sparks Political Row in India; Rahul Gandhi Demands Clarity, BJP Hits Back
New Delhi: A political clash has erupted in India following US President Donald Trump's ambiguous remarks about five jets being downed during Operation Sindoor, India's military response to the April Pahalgam terror attack. The comment has prompted Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi to demand an explanation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while the BJP has accused him of harboring a "traitor's mentality." Trump, speaking at a private dinner on Friday, claimed that five fighter jets were shot down during the operation but did not specify whether the aircraft belonged to India or Pakistan. "Planes were being shot out of the air. Five, five, four or five, but I think five jets were shot down actually," Trump said. Operation Sindoor was launched by India to strike terror infrastructure across nine locations in Pakistan. These included key sites like the Jaish-e-Mohammed headquarters in Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba's base in Muridke. In the aftermath, Pakistan claimed it had shot down multiple Indian jets — including three Rafale fighters, which are among the most advanced aircraft in the Indian Air Force. India acknowledged some losses during the operation but has not disclosed a specific figure. Instead, it emphasized the strategic lessons learned from the mission. "What is important is that, not the jet being down, but why they were being down," said India's Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, while firmly denying Pakistan's assertion that six Indian jets were shot down. He added, "The good part is that we are able to understand the tactical mistake which we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and fly all our jets again, targeting at long range." Following Trump's comments, Rahul Gandhi took to Twitter (X) on Saturday, sharing the video and demanding answers from the Prime Minister. "Modi ji, what is the truth behind the five jets? The country has a right to know," he wrote in Hindi. — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) July 19, 2025 Responding sharply, BJP leader Amit Malviya pointed out that Trump had not specified the nationality of the jets and accused Rahul Gandhi of aligning with Pakistan's narrative. "Rahul Gandhi's mentality is that of a traitor. In his statement, Trump neither took the name of India nor said that those five planes belonged to India. Then why did the prince of Congress accept him as belonging to India? Why did he not accept him as belonging to Pakistan? Does he sympathise more with Pakistan than his own country?" Malviya wrote in a post on X in Hindi. He continued, "The truth is that Pakistan has not yet recovered from Operation Sindoor... but Rahul Gandhi is in pain! Whenever the country's army teaches a lesson to the enemy, Congress gets irritated. Anti-India sentiment is no longer a habit of Congress; it has become its identity. Rahul Gandhi should make it clear - is he an Indian or a spokesperson of Pakistan?"
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC bench to hear Presidential reference on timelines for bills on July 22
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President Press Trust of India New Delhi A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on July 22 the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. According to the cause list posted on the apex court website, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar will be hearing the matter. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised her powers under Article 143(1) and posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The April 8 verdict, passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to the passage of bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent or withholding of assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governor. The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict, which has evoked sharp reactions in the political spectrum. The rules prescribe that the review petitions be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers, while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of the governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for the President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon the governor to exercise constitutional options. The President said that similarly, Article 201, which prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent therefrom, does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court of India. "It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon," President Murmu said while posing 14 questions to the apex court for its opinion. The SC verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which passed the verdict, said that reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" was strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
