Rekha Chowdhary
With four decades having passed since India was placed under Internal emergency, it might be interesting to revisit the period and understand the context in which Indian democracy got derailed and also analyse its implications. Though it was on June 25, 1975 that emergency was declared, the circumstances that led to it were put in place a few years earlier than that. To understand these circumstances, one has to go back to 1969 when the Congress was split and the Congress (I) emerged on the scene. The Congress (I) or the Congress led by Indira Gandhi, though now seen as a party in continuity with the Indian National Congress that had been in existence since the period of the national movement, however, for all practical purposes it had acquired a new political culture.
Before the split of the party, the Congress was controlled by strong coterie of organisational leaders who played significant role in getting Indira Gandhi selected as the leader of the party in the Parliament after the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri. Mistaking her to be a pliable and weak person, they had preferred her over Morarji Desai, who was a senior leader of the party but was seen to be very strong and stubborn. Split of the party was a result of the desire of these organisational leaders to indirectly exercise power by controlling the Prime Minister and Indira Gandhi’s struggle to search her own political space.
The political insecurities that Mrs. Gandhi faced during this pre-split period affected her style of politics in the post-split period. The Congress that she led in the decade of 1970 was a party over which she had complete control. In fact, it was through her person that the party was now known. The Indira Congress as it was called revolved around her personality. It was her charisma and her personal appeal to people that won her party the support of the people. The Congress (I) went on to record a big victory during the 1971 elections mainly because Indira Gandhi was at the helm of affairs and people identified with her. This was the time when her aura had started increasing and she was becoming larger than life. Rather than her being dependent on the party, her party was now dependent on her as she alone was the vote catcher. She could make direct contacts with the people, mesmerise them and make them believe that she was a leader that they could repose their trust. Her stature had increased after the India-Pakistan war of 1971and the creation of Bangla Desh. She was seen as the assertive, dynamic and bold leader who could move the country and the world!
With the increase in her stature, her authority increased manifold. It was in this process of her increased personal authority that the Congress as as an institution lost out. What suffered in the process was the internal democracy of the party – no more internal elections; no significant leader coming from the grass roots; no factionalism in the party and no dissent or debate within. The organisational leaders including the party president were hand picked by Indira Gandhi and so were the other leaders and the Chief Minsters of the Congres-run states. With so much personal stamp of Indira Gandhi in the running of the party and the government, it was inevitable that the sycophancy overtook everything and Deviant Barua who was the Congress President came up with the slogan in 1974 that ‘Indira is India and India is Indira’.
Much before emergency was imposed, the symptoms of increased power of the Prime-Minister vis-a-vis the parliamentary institution were quite visible. So disproportionate was the power of the Prime Minister vis-a-vis other institutions that many started comparing it with that of the President in the Presidential form of the government and naming it as Prime Ministerial system of government. The comparison with the Presidential form of government was inevitable due to various ground level situations. These included, a) the informally direct vote for the Prime Minister rather than for the Parliament in 1971. Though people voted to elect the MPs but it was the vote for Indira Gandhi; b) the disproportionate power of the PM vis-a-vis her cabinet making it resemble more like the cabinet of the President in the Presidential system rather than than the cabinet in Parliamentary system where Prime Minister at best is first among equals; c)the insignificance of the Parliament and its inability in checking the power of the executive.
Following the judgement in Allahabad High Court against her election as Member of Parliament in 1971, Indira Gandhi could have resigned and could have easily gained the sympathy of people. However, she chose the path of imposing Emergency citing the national interest. The concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and her ‘kitchen cabinet’ was further increased during the next nineteen months. The democratic institutions and processes were further eroded during this period. With the leaders of the opposition parties jailed and the censor being imposed on the press, there was no channel for articulation of dissent. Not only the Cabinet colleagues of the PM were the mute spectators to whatever was happening, even the Parliament was made to follow the PM. It was in this situation the forty-second amendment was passed which introduced significant changes in the Constitution of India. Meanwhile, efforts were also made to make the Supreme Court pliant and an idea of having a ‘committed’ (as opposed to ‘independent’ judiciary was floated.
It is really a wonder that Indian democracy emerged almost unscathed after Emergency was lifted. While the opposition leaders inspired by Jai Prakash Narain had much to contribute in saving the democracy, these were the so called illiterate, poor and rural voters who actually helped restore democracy back to its feet. While the small middle class of that time was quite happy with the efficiency and order that was maintained during the emergency (they were happy that trains were running in time and the government employees were found sitting on their desks!); it was the poor and vulnerable people who had to face the brunt of the authoritarian policies of the state. They were the ones who had to bear the impact of the forced sterilisation and the drives initiated by the administrators to clean the cities of the slums. Hence they voted en masse against the government. It was in this election that not only the country but the Congress in general and Indira Gandhi in particular learnt the power of the sovereign voters. No political party has been able to take the voters for granted since 1977.
(Feedback welcome at
rekchowdhary@gmail.com)
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel