Chapter 6 The Crisis Of Democratic Order

Background To Emergency

Following the changes in Indian politics since 1967, Indira Gandhi had emerged as a highly popular and dominant leader. This period was also characterised by increasingly bitter and polarised party competition. Tensions escalated between the government and the judiciary, with the Supreme Court ruling against several government initiatives as unconstitutional. The Congress party viewed the Court's stance as anti-democratic and an obstacle to pro-poor welfare programs. Opposition parties accused the Congress of personalising politics and turning governmental authority into personal power. The split within the Congress party further intensified divisions between Indira Gandhi and her opponents.

Economic Context

Despite the Congress's 'garibi hatao' (remove poverty) slogan in the 1971 elections, the country's social and economic conditions did not improve significantly after 1971-72. The **Bangladesh crisis**, with millions of refugees, strained India's economy. The subsequent war with Pakistan led to the US cutting off aid. Globally, oil prices soared, causing a sharp increase in commodity prices (23% in 1973, 30% in 1974), resulting in high inflation and hardship.

Industrial growth was low, and unemployment was high, especially in rural areas. The government froze employee salaries to cut expenditure, increasing dissatisfaction. Monsoon failures in 1972-73 caused an 8% decline in agricultural output. This created a general atmosphere of dissatisfaction, which opposition parties effectively used to organise protests.

Student unrest, present since the late 1960s, became more pronounced. Marxist groups (Marxist-Leninist or Naxalites), who rejected parliamentary politics and advocated armed struggle, also increased activities, particularly in West Bengal, facing stringent government suppression.

Gujarat And Bihar Movements

Students' protests in Gujarat and Bihar, both ruled by the Congress, significantly impacted state and national politics. In January 1974, Gujarat students agitated against rising prices (food, cooking oil, essentials) and corruption. Major opposition parties joined, making it widespread. This led to President's rule and demands for fresh state legislature elections.

**Morarji Desai**, a key figure in Congress (O) and rival of Indira Gandhi, announced an indefinite fast demanding fresh elections, which were eventually held in June 1975, resulting in Congress defeat.

In March 1974, Bihar students protested similar issues (prices, food scarcity, unemployment, corruption). They invited **Jayaprakash Narayan (JP)**, who had retired from active politics, to lead. JP accepted, conditional on the movement remaining non-violent and expanding beyond Bihar, giving it national appeal. People from all backgrounds joined. JP demanded the Bihar government's dismissal and called for **‘total revolution’** in all spheres to achieve true democracy. Protests (bandhs, gehraos, strikes) followed, but the government refused to resign. (Quote on 'Sampoorna Kranti' slogan).

The movement began influencing national politics as JP sought to spread it. Simultaneously, railway employees called a nationwide strike (May 1974) led by George Fernandes, threatening to paralyse the country and highlighting worker rights issues. The government declared the strike illegal, arrested leaders, and deployed security forces; the strike ended after 20 days without settlement. (Source on Railway Strike of 1974 details the strike).

JP led a people's march to Parliament in 1975, a large rally supported by non-Congress opposition parties (Jana Sangh, Congress (O), Bharatiya Lok Dal, Socialist Party). These parties projected JP as an alternative to Indira Gandhi. However, his ideas and protest methods faced criticism. Both Gujarat and Bihar agitations were seen by Indira Gandhi as anti-Congress and aimed at her leadership, viewing the movement as motivated by personal opposition.

Conflict With Judiciary

This period saw significant differences between the government/ruling party and the judiciary. Conflicts arose over constitutional issues regarding Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights and curtail the right to property. The Supreme Court ruled against Parliament's ability to amend basic features of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati Case).

Tensions escalated due to two developments: 1) After the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973), the government appointed a junior judge (Justice A. N. Ray) as Chief Justice of India, superseding three senior judges who had ruled against the government's stand. This politically controversial appointment mixed constitutional interpretations with political ideologies. 2) People close to the Prime Minister advocated for a 'committed' judiciary and bureaucracy loyal to the executive/legislature's vision. The confrontation reached a climax with the Allahabad High Court ruling invalidating Indira Gandhi's election.

Committed Judiciary And Bureaucracy

The phrases ‘committed judiciary’ and ‘committed bureaucracy’ as used in this context likely mean that judges and government officials should be loyal not just to the Constitution and laws, but to the political vision and agenda of the ruling executive and legislature. This implies that their decisions and actions should primarily align with the government's policies and objectives, rather than being purely based on legal principles or independent administrative discretion. It suggests a demand for loyalty to the ruling party's ideology rather than independent functioning within constitutional and legal frameworks.

Declaration Of Emergency

On 12 June 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court declared Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha invalid based on an election petition alleging she used government servants in her campaign. This ruling meant she was no longer legally an MP and could not remain PM without being re-elected within six months. The Supreme Court granted a partial stay on 24 June, allowing her to remain an MP but not participate in Lok Sabha proceedings.

Crisis And Response

The stage was set for a major political confrontation. Opposition parties, led by Jayaprakash Narayan, demanded Indira Gandhi's resignation and organised a massive demonstration in Delhi's Ramlila grounds on 25 June 1975. JP called for a nationwide satyagraha and urged the army, police, and government employees to disobey "illegal and immoral orders," threatening to paralyse government activities. The political mood turned strongly against the Congress.

The government's response was swift. On 25 June 1975, citing a threat of internal disturbances, the government declared a state of emergency under **Article 352** of the Constitution (allowing Emergency on grounds of external threat or internal disturbance). Prime Minister Indira Gandhi recommended it to President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, who issued the proclamation immediately. Key opposition leaders were arrested overnight, and electricity to newspaper offices was disconnected. The Cabinet was informed only after these actions had taken place on the morning of 26 June.

Technically, the declaration was within the government's powers under the Constitution, which grants special powers during Emergency, including suspending federal distribution of powers and concentrating power with the Union government, and curtailing Fundamental Rights.

Consequences

The declaration of Emergency abruptly halted the agitation. Strikes were banned, many opposition leaders were jailed, and the political atmosphere became tense but quiet. The government used special powers to suspend press freedom, imposing **press censorship** (newspapers needed prior approval for publication). Organisations like RSS and Jamait-e-Islami were banned, and protests/public agitations were disallowed.

Crucially, during Emergency, fundamental rights stood suspended, including the right to move courts for their restoration. The government extensively used **preventive detention**, arresting thousands based on apprehension of potential offense, without informing them of reasons or grounds. Many habeas corpus petitions were filed, but the government claimed it wasn't necessary to disclose grounds. In April 1976, the Supreme Court overruled High Courts, upholding the government's plea and stating that during Emergency, the state could deny citizens' right to life and liberty, making it a controversial judgment that closed doors of judiciary for citizens.

Dissent and resistance occurred: many political workers went underground, organising protests. Newspapers like Indian Express and Statesman protested censorship with blank spaces. Magazines closed down. Journalists were arrested. Some writers returned awards in protest. However, open defiance was generally rare. The Parliament amended the Constitution, stating PM, President, VP elections couldn't be challenged in court. The **42nd Amendment** (passed during Emergency) made sweeping changes, including extending legislative duration from five to six years (intended to be permanent) and allowing election postponement by one year during Emergency. This meant elections due in 1976 were postponed to 1978.

Lessons Of The Emergency

The Emergency exposed both the weaknesses and strengths of India's democracy. While some viewed it as a temporary suspension of democracy, normal functioning resumed quickly. A key lesson is that dismantling democracy in India is extremely difficult. It also highlighted ambiguities in Emergency provisions (now 'internal' Emergency requires 'armed rebellion' and written Union Cabinet advice) that have since been rectified.

The Emergency made citizens more aware of the value of civil liberties. The judiciary became more active in protecting civil liberties post-Emergency, a response to its perceived inability to do so during Emergency. This period also saw the rise of civil liberties organisations.

However, the Emergency period raised unresolved issues. The tension between routine democratic government and continuous political protests remains. What is the right balance, and what are the limits to protest? The implementation of Emergency through police/administration, which became politically vulnerable, also exposed systemic weaknesses that persisted.

Emergency As Vaccination

The experience of Emergency, while painful and causing hardship, can be seen as strengthening India's democratic foundations by highlighting the value of civil liberties and prompting checks against the abuse of power. The clear anti-Emergency verdict in the 1977 elections showed that voters severely punish perceived anti-democratic governments, reinforcing democratic accountability. This perspective frames the Emergency as a harsh but ultimately reinforcing experience for Indian democracy.

Politics After Emergency

The most lasting lesson of the Emergency was demonstrated in the **1977 Lok Sabha elections**. Announced after 18 months of Emergency, leaders were released, leaving little time for opposition preparation. Major opposition parties united to form the **Janata Party** under JP's leadership. Some Congress leaders opposing Emergency also joined, or formed separate parties that later merged with Janata.

The Janata Party's campaign framed the election as a referendum on Emergency, focusing on its non-democratic nature and excesses. Public opinion, influenced by arrests and censorship, was against Congress. Janata's formation prevented non-Congress vote splitting, posing a tough challenge for Congress.

The results were surprising: Congress suffered its first Lok Sabha defeat, winning only 154 seats with less than 35% votes. The Janata Party and allies won 330 seats (Janata Party itself 295), securing a clear majority. In north India, there was a massive wave against Congress; it lost all seats in Bihar, UP, Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, and nearly all in Rajasthan and MP. Indira and Sanjay Gandhi were defeated.

The cartoon depicts the outcome of the 1977 election, portraying the defeat of Indira Gandhi and the Congress party. The figures standing with the common man, including Jagjivan Ram, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, and Atal Behari Vajpayee, represent the leaders of the newly formed Janata Party and its allies who won the election, signifying the public mandate against the Emergency and in favour of the opposition.

However, Congress wasn't defeated everywhere; it retained seats in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa, and swept southern states. This regional variation was partly because Emergency's impact (forced relocations, sterilizations) was concentrated in the north. Also, long-term changes in north Indian politics, like the middle castes shifting support, contributed to the anti-Congress wave and made Janata Party a platform for these groups. The 1977 elections were about Emergency and broader political realignments.

Janata Government

The Janata Party government that came to power was not cohesive. Stiff competition for PM post existed among Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, and Jagjivan Ram. Morarji Desai became PM, but power struggles continued. (Oath taking photo shows JP, Kripalani, Desai, Vajpayee).

Opposition to Emergency held Janata together briefly. Critics noted its lack of direction, leadership, and common programme, and inability to significantly change policies. The party split, and Desai's government lost majority in less than 28 months. A government led by Charan Singh formed with Congress support, but Congress withdrew support after 4 months. Fresh elections were held in January 1980.

In the 1980 elections, Janata Party suffered a comprehensive defeat, particularly in north India. Congress led by Indira Gandhi returned to power with 353 seats, almost repeating its 1971 victory. This showed voters punish unstable and quarrelsome governments.

Legacy

The 1980 victory was not just a return of Indira Gandhi; the party system had changed. Since 1969, Congress shed its umbrella character, identifying as socialist and pro-poor. Its success relied on sharp social/ideological divisions and Indira Gandhi's appeal. Opposition parties increasingly relied on 'non-Congressism' and avoiding vote splitting, crucial in 1977.

The welfare of backward castes gained prominence. 1977 election results and subsequent state elections saw backward caste leaders play important roles in non-Congress governments in the north. The Mandal Commission was appointed by the Janata government to address reservations for 'other backward classes'. This marked a change in the party system, with the politics of backward castes becoming significant.

The Emergency period (1975-77) can be seen as a constitutional crisis (battle over Parliament-Judiciary jurisdiction) and a political crisis (suspension of democracy by a majority government). It showed that while makers of Constitution trusted parties to abide by democratic norms, these were abused. The wide powers given for Emergency were misused, making the political crisis more serious than the constitutional one.

Another issue was the role of mass protests in parliamentary democracy, highlighting tension between institution-based democracy and spontaneous popular participation, potentially due to the party system's inability to incorporate aspirations. This tension manifested in debates around regional identity (next chapter).