INDIA: TWENTY YEARS ON, INDIA RECALLS THE EMERGENCY

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

ANALYSIS - PRAFUL BIDWAI

NEW DELHI, Jun 26 1995 (IPS) - EXACTLY 20 YEARS AGO, AT 11.45 P.M. ON JUNE 25, PRESIDENT FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED SIGNED A PROCLAMATION DECLARING THAT “A GRAVE EMERGENCY EXISTS WHEREBY THE SECURITY OF INDIA IS THREATENED BY INTERNAL DISTURBANCES”.

THE PROCLAMATION AUTHORISED THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE PRESS CENSORSHIP, SUSPEND COURT PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES AND SUPPRESS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

IT BEGAN A PHASE OF TYRANNY WHICH INSTITUTIONALISED POLITICAL REPRESSION. MOST INDIANS TODAY SAY THAT AS THEY REFLECT ON THIS 19 MONTH-LONG SPELL OF AUTHORITARIAN RULE, THEY CANNOT BUT FEEL A DEEP SENSE OF EMBARRASSMENT AND SHAME, BESIDE SOME RELIEF THAT THE TOTALITARIAN IMPULSE IN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM IS SO MUCH WEAKER TODAY, ALTHOUGH BY NO MEANS ABSENT.

EMERGENCY RULE SAW THE IMPRISONMENT OF 175,000 PEOPLE — MANY OF THEM FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT THEY WERE POLITICAL LEADERS, TRADE UNIONISTS OR PRIME MINISTER INDIRA GANDHI’S RIVALS IN HER OWN CONGRESS PARTY. THE EMERGENCY ALSO BANNED STREET-LEVEL PROTESTS, AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE INDIAN POLITICAL PROCESS.

IT MEANT FORCED STERILISATION OF MORE THAN A MILLION PEOPLE — A LARGE PROPORTION OF THEM MUSLIMS — IN THE NAME OF RATIONAL POPULATION CONTROL. IT SPELLED A REIGN OF TERROR FOR THE URBAN POOR LIVING IN SLUMS.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WERE FORCIBLY EVICTED IN THE NAME OF URBAN RENEWAL. THIS WAS THE LARGEST INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT IN INDIAN HISTORY. FOR THOUSANDS OF POLITICAL ACTIVISTS, IT MEANT TORTURE, IN SOME CASES, EVEN DISAPPEARANCE.

FOR INDIRA GANDHI, ITS AUTHOR, THE EMERGENCY MEANT A NEW LEASE OF POLITICAL LIFE AFTER HER ELECTION AS A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT WAS DECLARED VOID ON JUNE 12 BY A HIGH COURT WHICH HELD HER GUILTY OF ELECTORAL MALPRACTICE. IMPOSING EMERGENCY RULE WAS GANDHI’S WAY OF DEFYING THE COURT RULING.

THE COURT VERDICT CAME AMIDST UNPRECEDENTED SOCIAL AND POLITICAL TURMOIL, CHANNELLED INTO ENERGETIC MOVEMENTS AGAINST CONGRESS GOVERNMENTS IN NEW DELHI AND ALSO IN MANY STATES, IN PARTICULAR BIHAR IN THE EAST AND GUJARAT IN THE WEST.

THE UNREST WAS THE RESULT OF POPULAR DISGUST WITH ELITIST ECONOMIC POLICIES THAT BETRAYED GANDHI’S ELECTORAL PROMISE OF ‘GARIBI HATAO’ (ABOLISH POVERTY), AND THE PUBLIC’S GROWING IMPATIENCE WITH CORRUPTION.

THE PERIOD 1973-75 SAW SURGING PROTESTS BY INDUSTRIAL WORKERS AND PEASANTS AGAINST INFLATION, THEN RUNNING AT 20 PER CENT A YEAR. A COUNTRYWIDE RAILWAY STRIKE IN MAY 1974 WAS AN EXPRESSION OF THIS.

INDIRA GANDHI TRIED TO CONTROL THE THREAT FIRST THROUGH MANIPULATION AND CO-OPTATION OF HER OPPONENTS, BUT SOON RESORTED TO OUTRIGHT REPRESSION IN THE NAME OF ‘ORDER’ AND ‘DISCIPLINE’.

THE EMERGENCY INSTITUTIONALISED THIS AND FORCIBLY SUSPENDED THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF DEMOCRACY, REPLACING POLITICIANS AT THE DISTRICT AND STATE LEVEL INCREASINGLY WITH DESPOTIC BUREAUCRATS.

THOUGH GANDHI PROFESSED TO SPEAK IN THE NAME OF THE POOR AND EVEN INCORPORATED A 20-POINT PROGRAMME THAT INCLUDED PROGRESSIVE MEASURES LIKE THE ABOLITION OF BONDED LABOUR, IT REMAINED LARGELY UNIMPLEMENTED. THE REGIME WAS ESSENTIALLY ANTI-POOR AND TURNED PARTICULARLY VICIOUS IN 1976 WITH THE ENTRY OF GANDHI’S SON, SANJAY, INTO ACTIVE POLITICS.

SANJAY, A RUFFIAN WHO LOVED TO WIELD THE BIG STICK, ADDED HIS OWN FOUR-POINT PROGRAMME WITH AN EMPHASIS ON BIRTH CONTROL (READ, FORCED STERILISATION) AND BETTER ENVIRONMENT (READ, FORCED RESETTLEMENT).

ALTHOUGH SANJAY GANDHI HELD NO OFFICIAL POSITION, HE ARBITRARILY TRANSFERRED HUNDREDS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND CONGRESS PARTY FUNCTIONARIES, REPLACING THEM WITH HIS OWN CRONIES.

HE ALSO LAUNCHED HIS OWN VERSION OF MCCARTHYISM WHICH CURED THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA, TILL THEN A SUPPORTER OF THE EMERGENCY, OF ITS ILLUSIONS. BY EARLY 1977, THE EMERGENCY REGIME RESEMBLED A BRUTAL, CRUDE TINPOT DICTATORSHIP BASED ON DYNASTIC RULE.

THE INDEPENDENT AND FREE PRESS WAS A MAJOR TARGET OF THE EMERGENCY REGIME. IT WAS SUBJECTED TO COMPREHENSIVE PRE-PUBLICATION CENSORSHIP. THISKJV WAY IN STRANGLING THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF WHICH THE PRESS IS A COMPONENT IN INDIA.

AFTER INITIAL QUIESCENCE, THERE WAS WIDESPREAD PROTEST AT THIS REPRESSION, ESPECIALLY BY INDEPENDENT GROUPS AND SECTIONS OF THE CENTRE-LEFT. MEANWHILE, THE RIGHT, IN PARTICULAR PREDECESSORS OF THE HINDU MILITANT BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY (BJP), SIGNED GOOD BEHAVIOUR BONDS TO SECURE THEIR RELEASE FROM JAIL.

BUT THE REGIME SOON BECAME A VICTIM OF ITS OWN POLICY OF THROTTLING THE PRESS. IT BEGAN TO BELIEVE THAT ITS POLICIES WERE TRULY POPULAR. GANDHI CONVINCED HERSELF IN EARLY 1977 THAT SHE WOULD WIN A GENERAL ELECTION AND CALLED ONE.

THE ELECTORATE DELIVERED A SOUND THRASHING TO THE CONGRESS REDUCING ITS STRENGTH FROM 350 TO 153 SEATS IN THE 543-MEMBER LOWER HOUSE.

THE EMERGENCY HOLDS A NUMBER OF LESSONS. THERE CAN BE NO SHORTCUT TO STABILITY AND ORDER WHICH BYPASSES DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY.

THE POLITICIAN, SO LONG AS HE OR SHE IS ELECTED, IS VASTLY PREFERABLE TO THE BENEVOLENT BUREAUCRAT, HOWEVER EFFICIENT. THE PUBLIC INTEREST CAN BE BEST ADVANCED THROUGH AN INCLUSIVE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, HOWEVER CHAOTIC AND DISORDERLY.

THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A FREE, INDEPENDENT PRESS. WELL KNOWN ACADEMIC PROFESSOR AMARTYA SEN’S THESIS THAT THIS PRESS PLAYED A CRUCIAL ROLE IN PREVENTING LARGE-SCALE FAMINES IN INDIA (UNLIKE IN CHINA), MUST BE EXTENDED TO COVER POLITICAL FREEDOM AS WELL.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT LESSON IS THAT THE WEST, FOR ALL ITS PROTESTATIONS ABOUT DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS, CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO OPPOSE OR CRITICISE AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES IN INDIA.

THE AMBASSADORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN WERE NOT ONLY FULLY RECONCILED TO THE EMERGENCY, BUT JUSTIFIED IT. U.S. AMBASSADOR WILLIAM B. SAXEBE TOLD WASHINGTON THAT GANDHI WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO STOOD BETWEEN INDIA AND CHAOS.

HE WAS ESPECIALLY CLOSE TO SANJAY GANDHI, WHOSE MARUTI CAR COMPANY HE HAD HELPED BY ARRANGING A COLLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER.

ULTIMATELY, IT IS ORDINARY PEOPLE, NOT THE ELITE, WHO DEFEATED THE EMERGENCY.

TODAY, THE AUTHORITARIAN IMPULSE IS MUCH WEAKER, BUT IT IS NOT NON-EXISTENT. A RECENT DEBATE ON THE REPRESSIVE TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES ACT SHOWED THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUENCY THAT FAVOURS THE ABRIDGMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS — IN THE SUPPOSED INTEREST OF THE NATION.

THIS IS STRONGLY REPRESENTED IN THE BJP, AS WELL AS THE CONGRESS. SO LONG AS A CRAVING FOR ORDER AND DISCIPLINE EXISTS AMONG THE ELITE, AND THE AUTHORITARIAN TEMPTATION REMAINS, INDIANS HAVE TO BE WATCHFUL.