Menu Top


The Crisis of Democratic Order (The Emergency)

The Crisis Of Democratic Order

The period leading up to and including the Emergency** (1975-1977) in India is often referred to as a Crisis of the Democratic Order**. This was a time when democratic institutions and norms faced severe strain due to political polarization, social unrest, economic difficulties, and a perceived overreach of executive power.

It culminated in the suspension of fundamental rights and democratic freedoms, raising fundamental questions about the nature and resilience of Indian democracy.


Background To Emergency

The declaration of Emergency in June 1975 was preceded by a series of events and circumstances that created a climate of political instability and social unrest.

Economic Context

The period leading up to the Emergency was marked by significant economic challenges:

  • High Inflation: Inflation rates were very high, eroding the purchasing power of the common people.
  • Economic Slowdown: The economy faced a slowdown, partly due to the costs of the 1971 war and the refugee crisis, and partly due to global economic factors like the oil crisis of 1973.
  • Agricultural Distress: Droughts and crop failures in the early 1970s further exacerbated economic hardship, especially in rural areas.
  • Unemployment: Rising unemployment, particularly among educated youth, fueled discontent.

These economic issues led to widespread public dissatisfaction and protests against the government.


Gujarat And Bihar Movements

The growing discontent manifested in widespread popular movements that directly challenged the ruling Congress government, particularly in the states.

The Naxalite Movement

Originating in the late 1960s, the Naxalite Movement** represented a radical left-wing peasant and tribal uprising in certain parts of India, notably West Bengal.

  • Ideology: Inspired by Mao Zedong's ideology, Naxalites advocated for armed revolution to overthrow the existing socio-economic and political system.
  • Protests: They engaged in peasant uprisings, land seizures, and attacks on landlords and government officials.
  • Government Response: The government responded by banning Naxalite organizations and taking strong measures to suppress the movement, viewing it as a threat to law and order.

Railway Strike Of 1974

A major nation-wide strike by railway workers in 1974, led by George Fernandes, further highlighted the widespread discontent and the power of organized labour.

  • Demands: The workers demanded better wages and service conditions.
  • Government Response: The government declared the strike illegal, arrested thousands of workers and leaders, and used repressive measures to break the strike.
  • Impact: The strike and its suppression demonstrated the deep divisions within society and the government's resolve to maintain control, even at the cost of democratic freedoms.

Gujarat And Bihar Movements

In 1974-75, significant anti-government movements emerged in Gujarat and Bihar:

  • Bihar Movement: Led by Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), this movement called for widespread social, economic, and political reform. It aimed to create a 'total revolution' and criticized the corruption and authoritarian tendencies of the Congress government. Students, farmers, and workers participated.
  • Gujarat Movement: Similar to Bihar, this movement also protested against corruption, high prices, and food shortages, demanding the dissolution of the state assembly.

These movements mobilized millions of people against the Indira Gandhi government, increasing political polarization.


Conflict With Judiciary

During this period, there was a growing conflict between the executive (led by Indira Gandhi) and the judiciary**:

  • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Supreme Court, in this landmark judgment, ruled that Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution but could not alter its "basic structure." This decision limited Parliament's power and was seen as a check on the executive's potential to undermine constitutional principles.
  • Judicial Independence: Indira Gandhi's government was perceived as wanting to curb the judiciary's independence, particularly after the court's rulings that went against the government's interests.
  • Appointment of Judges: Appointments of judges and the supersession of senior judges were seen as attempts by the executive to influence the judiciary.

This conflict contributed to the perception that the government was undermining democratic institutions.


Declaration Of Emergency

The culmination of the political crisis was the declaration of an emergency.

Crisis And Response

The Immediate Trigger: The Allahabad High Court Judgment (June 1975):

  • Unpopular Judgment: The Allahabad High Court declared Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha from Rae Bareli in 1971 invalid on grounds of electoral malpractice.
  • Resignation Demand: The opposition, led by Jayaprakash Narayan, demanded her resignation.
  • Legal Recourse: Indira Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision but allowed her to continue as Prime Minister as an MP until the legal process was complete.
  • Emergency Declaration: Instead of resigning, Indira Gandhi advised President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to declare a national emergency on the grounds of "internal disturbance." This was done on the night of June 25, 1975.

Key Actions during Emergency:

  • Suspension of Fundamental Rights: The government suspended the right to move courts for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Articles 19 and 21).
  • Arrests: Thousands of opposition leaders, political activists, trade unionists, and critics of the government were arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
  • Censorship: Strict censorship was imposed on the press, and media reporting was heavily controlled.
  • Parliamentary Proceedings: Parliamentary proceedings were also affected.

Consequences

The Emergency had profound and often negative consequences for citizens and democratic processes.

Demolitions In Turkman Gate Area, Delhi

During the Emergency, the government undertook a controversial urban "beautification" and "slum clearance" drive. In Delhi's Turkman Gate area, police resorted to forced demolitions and evictions of people living in slums, allegedly with excessive force. This action was widely criticized for its insensitivity and human rights violations.

Custodial Death Of Rajan

The custodial death of P. Rajan, a student from Calicut University in Kerala, during police interrogation in police custody became a stark example of the excesses committed during the Emergency.

  • Arrest: Rajan was arrested along with other students and trade union leaders during the Emergency.
  • Torture and Death: Evidence later emerged that he was tortured in custody, leading to his death.
  • Judicial Intervention: Rajan's mother filed a habeas corpus petition, and the Kerala High Court ruled that Rajan had indeed died in police custody due to torture. This judgment was a significant blow to the government's claims that all actions were lawful during the Emergency.

Such incidents highlighted the arbitrary use of power and the violation of civil liberties.


Controversy Regarding Emergency

The Emergency period remains a subject of intense debate regarding its justification, implementation, and legacy.

Was The Emergency Necessary?

Supporters of the Emergency, primarily Indira Gandhi and her faction, argued that it was necessary to:

  • Restore Law and Order: To counter the widespread political instability, protests, and Naxalite activities that threatened the country.
  • Implement Economic Reforms: To push through necessary economic policies without obstruction from opposition parties and agitators.
  • Strengthen National Unity: To curb fissiparous tendencies and maintain the integrity of the nation.

Critics, however, argue that the Emergency was an unnecessary authoritarian measure, an abuse of power, and a direct assault on democratic rights and civil liberties. They contend that the government's actions were driven more by a desire to cling to power than by genuine threats to national security.

What Happened During Emergency?

During the 21-month period of the Emergency:

  • Suspension of Civil Liberties: Freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and movement were curtailed.
  • Political Arrests: Thousands of political opponents and critics were imprisoned without trial.
  • Censorship: The media was heavily censored, and information flow was tightly controlled.
  • Suppression of Dissent: Any form of protest or opposition was brutally suppressed.
  • Constitutional Amendments: Several amendments were made to the Constitution (like the 42nd Amendment) to increase the power of Parliament (and the executive) and curtail judicial review, effectively undermining checks and balances.
  • Sterilization Drive: A controversial family planning program, which included forced sterilizations, was implemented, particularly in certain urban slum areas.

Lessons Of The Emergency

The Emergency period offered critical lessons for Indian democracy:

  • Resilience of Indian Democracy: Despite the suspension of rights, democratic values and institutions proved resilient. The judiciary, though under pressure, made some crucial rulings. Citizen resistance, though often suppressed, persisted.
  • Importance of Civil Liberties: It highlighted the fundamental importance of civil liberties and fundamental rights, and the need for constant vigilance to protect them.
  • Role of Opposition: The period underscored the vital role of a vibrant opposition and free media in a democracy.
  • Constitutional Safeguards: It emphasized the need for strong constitutional safeguards against the arbitrary use of power and the importance of judicial review.
  • Public Awareness: It demonstrated that the Indian public, despite widespread poverty and illiteracy, values democratic rights and would eventually react against authoritarianism.
  • Electoral Reckoning: The Emergency ultimately led to a powerful electoral backlash against the Congress party.

Politics After Emergency

The end of the Emergency in 1977 led to a dramatic shift in India's political landscape.

Lok Sabha Elections, 1977

When Indira Gandhi lifted the Emergency and called for elections in March 1977, the opposition parties united to form a single front:

  • Janata Party: The main opposition parties (including the Jana Sangh, the socialist parties, the old Congress (O), and the BLD) merged to form the Janata Party. Jayaprakash Narayan played a key role in bringing them together.
  • Anti-Congress Wave: The elections saw a massive anti-Congress wave due to the excesses of the Emergency. The Janata Party campaigned vigorously on the platform of restoring democracy and civil liberties.
  • Congress Defeat: The Congress party suffered a humiliating defeat, losing power at the Centre for the first time since independence. Indira Gandhi herself lost her seat from Rae Bareli.

Janata Government

The Janata Party formed the government at the Centre, with Morarji Desai becoming the first non-Congress Prime Minister of India.

  • Challenges: The Janata government faced internal contradictions and leadership struggles due to the disparate nature of the parties that formed it.
  • Short-lived Rule: It could not maintain its unity for long and split within a couple of years, leading to the fall of the government.

Legacy

The Emergency and its aftermath left a lasting legacy:

  • Consciousness of Civil Liberties: It raised public awareness about the importance of civil liberties and the fragility of democratic institutions.
  • End of Congress Hegemony: It demonstrated that the Congress party was not invincible and that democratic opposition could emerge and defeat the ruling party.
  • Lessons for Future Governance: It served as a warning against authoritarian tendencies and the need for robust checks and balances in a democracy.
  • Constitutional Amendments: The actions taken during the Emergency prompted subsequent governments to introduce constitutional amendments to prevent similar occurrences, such as strengthening the independence of the Election Commission and limiting the scope of emergency powers.