Fifty Years After Emergency, The Present Modi Regime's Authoritarianism Is No Less Stifling
By P. Sudhir
It may appear rather unusual to recall the inglorious sequence of events that began at midnight on June 25, 1975, with the declaration of the Internal Emergency.
However, we are reminded of those immortal words of wisdom: 'those who tend to forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.' These words compel us to revisit that dark chapter in the history of Indian democracy.
The late 1960s had dealt a blow to the Congress party's monopoly on power, with opposition parties securing victories in several states. In response, Mrs Indira Gandhi repositioned herself through a series of progressive-sounding slogans such as Garibi Hatao, bank nationalisation, and the abolition of the privy purse. Departing from traditional political practice, she concentrated power in herself, bypassing strong state-level leaders and directly appealing to the masses at the grassroots.
This approach yielded some gains for Mrs Gandhi. However, what truly bolstered her bid for political hegemony was India's intervention in support of the Bangladesh liberation struggle. The eventual establishment of an independent Bangladesh and the decisive defeat of Pakistan significantly enhanced her stature. The presence of the Soviet Union also played a crucial role in deterring potential US intervention aimed at rescuing Pakistan's military regime.
This reinforced Mrs Gandhi's stature and ensured her victory in the 1971 general elections. Nevertheless, this overall picture could not stop the CPI(M), which emerged as the single largest party in the West Bengal Assembly. But, this was not allowed to progress naturally. The 1972 assembly elections were thoroughly rigged, paving the way for nearly half a decade of semi-fascist repression. This period of authoritarianism seamlessly merged with the declaration of the Emergency on the midnight of June 25, 1975.
During much of the Emergency, Gandhi's political opponents were imprisoned, and the press was censored. Over 10,000 political opponents, journalists, and activists were jailed under her regime. Meanwhile, the country was grappling with a series of economic challenges stemming from the recent war with Pakistan, droughts, and the global oil crisis of 1973. Rising unemployment and inflation further fuelled public discontent and political opposition. These growing pressures, coupled with Mrs Gandhi's sense of personal insecurity and legal setbacks – particularly the threat of losing her Lok Sabha membership – contributed to the decision to impose Emergency.
In essence, the Emergency of 1975 was declared due to a combination of political, social, and economic factors. The government invoked Article 352 of the Constitution, which permits the declaration of an Emergency in the event of war, external aggression, or internal disturbance. The official justification cited threats to national security and public order, leading to the suspension of fundamental rights and the concentration of power in the executive.
Exposing the political dynamics that led to the Emergency, A K Gopalan, leader of the CPI(M) group in the Lok Sabha, stated during the debate on the Statutory Resolution for Approval of the Emergency proclamation on July 21, 1975:'The warning given by our Party about the rise of the tendency towards totalitarian and one-party dictatorship over the last three years has proved true with the sudden declaration of the new Emergency.'He went on to say that this abrupt move by the ruling party to extricate itself and its leader from a deepening personal and political crisis was a sign of weakness, not strength. It was designed to crush opposition voices and people's movements. He also exposed the false narrative that this Emergency was aimed against the extreme Right and Left adventurists.
The inevitable followed, and the Congress, along with Indira Gandhi, could not avert political defeat. The eighteen-month Emergency has gone down in contemporary Indian history as a grave aberration and a sordid disruption of democracy. A broad coalition of forces ensured the restoration of democracy following the 1977 Lok Sabha elections.
Today, Narendra Modi invokes the Emergency era, describing its imposition on June 25, 1975, as a 'black spot on the Constitution' of India. He has declared, 'These 50 years since the Emergency remind us to protect our Constitution and democracy with pride. The countrymen must resolve that such a travesty will never be allowed to happen again. We commit ourselves to ensuring a vibrant democracy and fulfilling the common man's dreams as outlined by the Indian Constitution.' However, this posturing is increasingly turning into a great hoax – an attempt to camouflage the RSS-BJP's own most obnoxious assault on Indian democracy, as it has unfolded over the past eleven years.
Looking back fifty years later, the Emergency can be seen as the first major onslaught on India's democratic system – one that severely curtailed civil liberties and democratic rights. But it is a mistake, as many tend to do, to draw a direct comparison between the Emergency of 1975 and the present situation. The past decade under Modi is often referred to as an 'undeclared Emergency,' but such a comparison is misplaced on several counts.
The current scenario has emerged against the backdrop of a global resurgence of the ultra-right, amidst a changed correlation of political forces in favour of imperialism. This phase has ushered in an era of finance capital driven global economies, marked by sharp inequality, rampant unemployment, and overwhelming corporate dominance. Accompanying this are unprecedented levels of identity-based polarisation and a relentless hate campaign, fostering the 'othering' of fellow citizens in both economic and social spheres.
Thus, the present assault on democracy and constitutional principles is far more insidious. It has led to the rise of institutionalised authoritarianism – or what some observers term 'electoral autocracy.'
In the Indian context, this authoritarian shift has been spearheaded by the RSS, injecting the toxic ideology of Hindutva, which seeks to fundamentally transform the very idea of India. This idea of India – born from the anti-colonial struggle – was anchored in a democratic, secular, socially just, and federal republic. The current onslaught is therefore more pervasive and stifling, aimed at dismantling the foundational principles of Indian citizenship.
In hindsight, the 1975 Emergency now appears almost amateurish compared to the full-fledged authoritarianism we are experiencing today. While the current regime may seem harder to dislodge, the experience of fighting back against the Emergency in the 1970s should inspire confidence. A people united, with the will to resist the pernicious ideology of the RSS and reclaim democracy, can still meet and overcome today's challenge. (IPA Service)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
14 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
'Not our war': US lawmakers attempt to rein in potential strikes on Iran
Two US lawmakers in the House of Representatives have teamed up to introduce a bipartisan resolution that would compel President Donald Trump to seek congressional approval before ordering air strikes on Iran. US military engagement, alongside Israel against Iran, is largely assessed not only to lead to Iranian retaliation against US assets in the region, but also to potential US entanglement in yet another years-long war in the Middle East. Trump, in all three of his campaigns for the White House, ran on a no-to-war platform. Now, he is reportedly weighing whether to drop a 30,000-lb "bunker-buster" bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility. Republican Thomas Massie, a staunch anti-interventionist, and Democrat Ro Khanna, a progressive whose district encompasses Silicon Valley, are hoping to amass support from both parties for a vote on a war powers resolution next week. "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States," Massie said in a statement. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war." In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Khanna said while he believes it's in the interest of US national security for Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon, "I don't believe that will be achieved by the United States getting dragged into a war with Iran." Both the United Nations' nuclear watchdog and the US intelligence community have said Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon. When pushed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on why taking out a hidden nuclear facility - using a bomb no other country but the US has - would not be a good thing, Khanna pointed to a litany of unknowns. "We don't know how deep underground Iran actually has those bombs. We do not know how much - spread out - Iran has that capability, and we do not know how quickly they would be able to rebuild, given that they have the centrifuges and the know-how, [and] the estimates range from one to three years," Khanna said. "There has to be a diplomatic solution," he added. Trump was in the middle of a months-long negotiation with Iran towards a new nuclear deal, much like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that he pulled out of in 2018, when Israel began air strikes on Tehran one week ago. Some of the president's most famous and most loyal supporters on the Make America Great Again (MAGA) circuit have made it clear this week that they believe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to lure the US into a war that is none of Washington's business. 'De-escalatory vehicle' Massie and Khanna's resolution follows a similar move in the Senate by Democrat Tim Kaine, who ran for the vice presidency on the Hillary Clinton ticket in 2016. That resolution, also utilising the War Powers Act, demands a debate in the upper chamber and a vote on any US military engagement in Iran. Both votes are likely happening next week. On Thursday, Trump announced that he could take up to two weeks to decide on direct US engagement in Israel's war, but many suspect strikes could come as early as this weekend. 'We want to put every single member of Congress on public record of where they stand specifically on war with Iran' - Cavan Kharrazian, Senior policy advisor, Demand Progress The 1973 War Powers Act allows any senator to introduce a resolution to withdraw US armed forces from a conflict not authorised by Congress. The legislative branch, which acts as the country's purse, is also supposed to be the one that declares war, not the executive. But since the 9/11 attacks in particular, the foggy nature of the so-called "war on terror" has enabled the White House to call the shots, especially as Washington has carried out air strikes in countries from Somalia to Pakistan without an official declaration of war. "Presidents have consistently said that the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional infringement on the executive branch's powers," Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy with the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), told Middle East Eye. "What we've seen on the congressional side is really an unwillingness to force these votes in debates [and] use the mechanisms and procedural tools inside the War Powers Act, because it's just a little bit easier... these [lawmakers] would rather just let the executive branch do what it does and not have to be on the record," he added. Congress has recently twice been able to successfully push through a war powers motion - during the first Trump administration on Yemen in 2018, and again on Iran in 2020 - but the president vetoed the resolutions. So what's the point? "What's important with these resolutions is that we want to put every single member of Congress on public record of where they stand specifically on war with Iran," Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy advisor with Demand Progress, told MEE. Demand Progress, as well as FCNL, have been lobbying lawmakers on Capitol Hill to publicly take an anti-war stance along with other civil society organisations. "It's become extremely popular to criticise past disasters like the Iraq War... [and this vote] will now be an opportunity to show whether they're willing to act when it counts," Kharrazian said. And in spite of Trump's past vetoes, there was in fact no further escalation with Yemen or Iran at the time, making a war powers resolution a "de-escalatory vehicle that can help pump the brakes and prevent full escalation and full US involvement in a war of choice," Tayyab told MEE. Pressure A survey conducted by YouGov, an international online research data and analytics technology group, asked on 17 June whether US strikes on Iran would make America safer. The largest portion, 37 percent of the 3,471 US adults polled, said the country would be "less safe". Around a quarter of respondents each said they are "not sure" or that the country would "neither" feel safer or less safe. Only 14 percent said the US would be safer if the US joined Israel's war. Another poll published by The Washington Post on Wednesday found that almost half of the 1,008 Americans it surveyed oppose US strikes on Iran, with that figure dwarfing the number of people who do support military action. Trump is not looking at a green light from the public. Trump promised not to go to war. His most ardent supporters want him to keep his word Read More » That said, there is an undeniably influential pro-war bloc in Washington that has been pervasive regardless of the president and party affiliation. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) and Christians United For Israel (Cufi) are among the leaders in this regard. Since Israel attacked Iran, Aipac has pushed for House Democrats, some of whom have shown scepticism, to issue statements saying that they stand with Israel. It has also shown particular animosity toward one Republican, Massie, who put forward the resolution of the war powers in the House. Earlier this year, an Aipac affiliate group proclaimed that 'Israel, the Holy Land, [is] under attack by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Congressman Tom Massie" for his numerous votes against US military aid packages for Israel. "I mean, the pressure is real. We know neoconservatives, the pro-Israel lobby, they're leaning incredibly hard in this moment. They've leaned incredibly hard on every single moment this has come up," Kharrazian told MEE. "We're not naive on the pressures that are against us [but] from [this] past election, we've seen a tidal shift in the narrative and opposition to endless wars in a way that we haven't seen before. So we're really excited for this," to build anti-war momentum, he said. Advocacy groups are also contending with Trump's billionaire donors. Among the top five is Israeli-born Miriam Adelson, whose Adelson Foundation has also bankrolled organisations such as Birthright Israel and Friends of the IDF. "One thing that's not talked about enough is just the forces of Christian Zionism," Tayyab told MEE. "I think some of those groups believe that this is part of just some end times prophecy, which, despite how you know how off the wall it seems, it is a driving force for a lot of the decisions that are being made." That sentiment was perhaps most famously on display earlier this week when former Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson asked Republican Senator Ted Cruz about why he supports Israel. "I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things," Cruz said. Cufi is holding its annual summit in the US capital at the end of June.
Gulf Today
16 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Maersk halts stops in Israel's Haifa due to Iran-Israel conflict
Danish shipping giant Maersk announced on Friday that it was temporarily suspending vessel calls in Israel's Haifa port due to the country's conflict with Iran. Maersk said it made the decision after "careful analysis of threat risk reports in the context of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, specifically regarding the potential risks of calling Israeli ports and the ensuing implications for the safety of our vessel crews". "At the moment we are not experiencing further disruptions to our scheduled operations in the region," it added in a statement. The conflict erupted a week ago when Israel launched air strikes on Iran, saying its arch foe was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. The Danish company said it had not experienced any further disruptions to its scheduled operations in the region. Haifa port, which was privatized in 2022, is owned 70% by India's Adani Ports while the remaining 30% is held by Israel's Gadot Group. Adani Ports is the ports operating arm of Adani Group, led by billionaire Gautam Adani. Including Haifa port, the company operates four ports outside Indian waters. A spokesperson for the Adani Group did not immediately respond to Reuters' email and text messages requesting comment. Israel has been hitting Iran from the air since last Friday in what it describes as an effort to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran has denied plans to develop such weapons and has retaliated by launching counterstrikes on Israel. On Thursday, Iran's Revolutionary Guards said it had launched combined missile and drone attacks at military and industrial sites linked to Israel's defence industry in Haifa and Tel Aviv. Agencies
The National
16 hours ago
- The National
Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has. The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war. This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress. Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel. Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent. "There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York. Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well. "It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war. It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war. Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran. In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran. Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms. Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them. "These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely." So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court. Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
