• QUESTION: The Government of India has made June 25th the ‘Constitution Murder Day’ to commemorate the days of the Emergency. How should we look at the Emergency in the present Indian context?  – Gilson Jacob
• ANSWER: Saji Mathew Kanayankal CST

The announcement of the Union government on the 50th year of the Emergency that June 25 will be considered “Constitution Murder Day” to commemorate the severe hardships endured during the Emergency has many edges. It can be seen as a confrontation of the opposition to defend their ‘Jai Samvidhan’ slogan. The words of the Home Minister Amit Shah who described the Emergency as a ‘dictatorial’ act that stifled Indian democracy, may prompt us to rethink about the Emergency and its shadow in the Indian scenario.

A state of Emergency has been declared three times in the history of India based on Article 352 of the Constitution, which permits the president to declare an Emergency if there is a grave threat to the security of the country whether by “external aggression or war” and “internal disturbance.” The first instance was the India-China war in 1962 and the Emergency was between 26 October to 21 November 1962 and the second instance was between 3 to 17 December 1971 during the Indo-Pakistan war and the third one was between 1975 – 1977 due to the political instability of the then ruling Congress government under the leadership of Mrs Indira Gandhi. The 44th Amendment Act 1978, mandates a written request by the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister for the declaration of Emergency with the approval of both houses of Parliament and it expires after one month if not approved within that time by both houses.

EMERGENCY AND THE AUTHORITARIAN REGIME

When we speak of the Emergency, usually we speak only on the third, because of its implementation and impacts. The then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed proclaimed a state of national Emergency on the advice of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 25 June 1975.

Though the reasons for the Emergency were multifaceted like political, social and legal, the verdict of Allahabad High Court of 12 June 1975, that convicted Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of electoral malpractices and debarred her from holding any elected post was the immediate reason for its announcement. Apart from it, the students’ Navnirman agitation in Gujarat, Jayaprakash Narayan’s (JP) movement in Bihar, the Railway strike spearheaded by George Fernandes in 1974, the Congress’ defeat in the Gujarat elections to a five-party coalition and the opposition rally at the Ramlila Ground in Delhi on 26 June 1975, put Mrs Gandhi in a tight spot which triggered the imposition of Emergency. There were many dissenting voices within the party against the idea of the Emergency, but all were silenced or threatened and some loyalists like D.K. Baruah, the then Congress President and Siddhartha Shankar Ray, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, advised Mrs Gandhi to go ahead with the measures.

“When we look at the Indian political scenario
after a half century of the Emergency,
we can perceive creeping of the same
authoritarianism with several new phenomena.
While Indira combined authoritarianism with
family politics, now, Narendra Modi combines
authoritarianism with a devotion to
Hindu majoritarianism, observes
Ramachandra Guha, the well-known historian.”

The twenty-one month duration of the Emergency was a dark phase of Indian democracy during which the Prime Minister and her loyalists governed the country through despotic means, which were notoriously infamous for the manipulation of power. During this period lakhs of people, especially the opposition leaders were jailed, many leaders as well as officials were suspended, many constitutional rights like fundamental rights under Article 14, Article 21 and several clauses of Article 22 of the Constitution were suspended, power was centralised, the voice of all kinds of dissent were silenced, and, above all, the rights of freedom of press was suppressed in whatever way possible. The Rajni Kothari, a Civil rights stalwart gives a summarised picture of the Emergency; “It was a state off-limits, a government that hijacked the whole edifice of the state, a ruling party and leader who in effect treated the state as their personal estate. It was the imposition of a highly concentrated apparatus of power on a fundamentally federal society and the turning over of this centralized apparatus for personal survival and family aggrandisement. It was one big swoop overtaking the whole country spreading a psychosis of fear and terror…”

Among many restrictions and regulations, the way Mrs Gandhi treated the media was notoriously insane. Most of the mainstream newspapers and magazines were under the wrath of the Emergency. According to the Home Ministry, in May 1976, almost 7,000 journalists and media personnel were arrested. However, after twenty-one months, on January 18, 1977, Mrs Indira Gandhi called for general elections which was held between March 16 to March 20 and the Emergency was lifted on March 21, 1977. As everybody expected, Indira lost power and the opposition of the Janata alliance came into power.

AUTOCRACY AND CHALLENGES TO THE SECULAR FABRIC

When we look at the Indian political scenario after a half century of the Emergency, we can perceive creeping of the same authoritarianism with several new phenomena. While Indira combined authoritarianism with family politics, now, Narendra Modi combines authoritarianism with a devotion to Hindu majoritarianism, observes Ramachandra Guha, the well-known historian. He describes Narendra Modi as a “putative dictator” who has “authoritarian instincts” and “dictatorial tendencies.” To prove it, Guha uses many instances of the last ten years of tenure of Mr. Modi. “While the imposition of the Emergency was brutal and sudden, the processes of neo-Emergency are far more insidious, systematic and systemic,” says, M G Devashayam, a former Army and IAS officer and coordinator of the Citizen’s Commission on Elections.

Unlike the time of Indira, the secular fabric of India is highly challenged during this neo- Emergency era. In his recent talk on “Are we back to democratic politics? Reading the implications of Verdict 2024” Yogendra Yadav states that “India became a textbook example of competitive authoritarianism.” During the last ten years, a mix of competitive authoritarianism and non-theological majoritarianism crept into every sphere of the Indian administrative system. Though the country has not officially declared a theocratic regime, for all practical purposes it follows majoritarianism. We can see many symptoms of this competitive authoritarianism mixed with theocratic ideals in our country.

“Though the Constitution enshrines secularism,
ensuring that all religions are treated equally by the state,
the reign of majoritarian politics erodes
these secular principles by promoting
the interest of the majority religion.
It thus undermines the pluralistic ethos of
Indian democracy, which is based
on the coexistence and equal treatment of
diverse groups.”

The rise and spread of Hindu nationalism, which emphasises the primacy of Hindu culture and values; cultural homogenization, wherein the norms, languages and practices of the majority culture are as the national standard potentially sidelining the diverse cultural practices of minority groups; and social exclusion and discrimination against minority communities are the vivid signs of majoritarianism in India. In the ten years that Narendra Modi has been in power, religious minorities, particularly Muslims, have been pushed ever further to the margins of Indian politics. They face endemic discrimination in everyday life, on the street, in the marketplace, in schools, hospitals, and offices. BJP MPs and ministers mock and taunt Indian Muslims through bigotry and hate speech regularly and their messages are amplified on WhatsApp and YouTube by their supporters. Many liberal intellectuals and journalists were killed and some were imprisoned. Cow vigilantes are roaming in the streets attacking and killing animal traders and meat eaters. Textbooks and history lessons are being rewritten to indoctrinate schoolchildren and common folk with hostility towards fellow citizens who are not Hindus.

Many events of the previous government hinder the rights of the minorities in India, like the repeal of Article 370 in Kashmir, the introduction of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Though the Constitution enshrines secularism, ensuring that all religions are treated equally by the state, the reign of majoritarian politics erodes these secular principles by promoting the interest of the majority religion. It thus undermines the pluralistic ethos of Indian democracy, which is based on the coexistence and equal treatment of diverse groups. In the words of Mr M G Devashayam; “We are living in times when bigotry and communal hate are no more an exception but have become an institutional norm and state project; when ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic values’ have become a farce.”

DISMANTLEMENT OF THE REPUBLIC

Another serious observation of the contemporary Indian political scenario is the fading of democratic credentials, which was evident during the last few years. An observation of Yogendra Yadav on it is thought provoking. According to him, the first Republic of India inaugurated on January 26, 1950 came to an end around 2019. In what we had in the last election was not an election at all, but a plebiscite. “It was about getting public approval on dismantling our Republic. This election was not about the BJP or the NDA. It was about the Supreme Leader [Mr. Modi] seeking unconditional approval for his regime through ‘Modi ki guarantee’…”  This phenomenon of the plebiscite is not just an Indian reality, it happens in many parts of the world as Russia, Turkey, and many other countries. “Since this was a controlled election, money, media and the Modi myth did work and they managed to salvage the BJP’s numbers, unlike the 1977 general election,” Yadav observes, “We are poised at a very critical moment in the history of our country. We are in the no man’s land between the First and the Second Republic of India which makes the situation so critical and fraught with danger.” Many political analysts like Ramachandra Guha, Parakala Prabhakar, and Prasanth Bhushan have also shared the same segments of thoughts. However, during the last election, the people of our nation strongly expressed their resentment of India’s democratic backsliding and refused to accept the mythification of one person, one power and one authority.

Similarly, we can observe weakening of democratic institutions in India during the last few years. Even though the judiciary tries to keep its independence to a certain extent, most democratic institutions function in favour of unitary authoritarianism. Most of us are familiar with the works of ED, CBI and other agencies, who use their power to target the opposition leaders but shun the corruptive deeds of the members of the ruling party and their alliance. Among many, the worst is the performance of the Election Commission, who scheduled the elections at the convenience of the Prime Minister’s campaigning. Apart from denying many rights of the opposition leaders, they were hounded in whatever way possible.

PROSTRATION OF THE MEDIA

“When asked to bend you crawled” was the famous comment of Mr LK Advani to the press after the Emergency. Censorship was one of the most insidious weapons used by Indira Gandhi against media. Though there is no direct censorship today, many journalists and media outlets are facing direct or indirect pressure from the government which includes threats of legal action, raids, or denial of access to government information and events. The defamation and sedition laws are targeted to the journalists who publish investigative reports on issues contrary to majoritarian interests. They also face threats, harassment or physical violence from extremist groups and an atmosphere of fear, silence and repression is created. Media regulatory bodies are also being influenced by majoritarian interests, leading to biased enforcement of regulations and punitive actions against dissenting voices. Online trolling, cyberbullying, abuse, and threats are commonly used to intimidate journalists, particularly those covering minority issues or criticizing majoritarian policies.

“Today for some TV channels it is sadly a case of when asked to crawl, they prostrate!”  was one of the interesting tweets I recently noticed. This illustrates the current position of most of our media. Media, the fourth pillar of democracy and its watchdog should be uncompromisingly vigilant for transparency and accountability in governance. When the government functions for the common good of the country, they have the responsibility to support it. However, when the policies of the government harm the fundamental ethos of the country, it is their duty and responsibility to bring them into the daylight. But today most of the media in India function simply as a mouthpiece of the ruling party. Their biased coverage, underreporting and misreporting exacerbate social divisions and tensions which lead to marginalization and disenfranchisement.

What we need today is proper training for journalists to uphold high ethical standards and resist pressures to self-censorship. When the core principles of democracy, pluralism, and social justice are threatened, they should be learned to address these issues with courage, wisdom and true patriotism. They must bring diverse voices of the country into the mainstream. Civil society organizations can play a critical role in advocating for press freedom and raising awareness about the challenges faced by journalists so that they should be courageous enough to stand beyond all kinds of challenges and threats to yield themselves to theocratic majoritarianism. Civil society advocacy, institutional support, legal reforms and international pressure may help them to stand without fail. To present the diverse voices of Indian society and the dissent of the people the press should remain free and independent. It is their duty to keep the secular ethos of our country and save our Republic and the Constitution from ruin.