The Emergency and its external dimension

The pain inflicted by the 21-month Emergency rule in India on its body politic and its people continues to hurt even after 50 years. The domestic dimensions of the Emergency have been discussed at length. A recent study by Srinath Raghavan ably explores its structural dimensions – of the gradual evolution of a powerful executive, creeping encroachments on freedoms and rights and authoritarian tendencies of governance — that have been building for long. However, Indira Gandhi's oft repeated allegations about the role of 'foreign hand' (of the United States of America) in destabilising her government have often skipped rigorous scrutiny. Her political opponents, many media commentators, and even serious historians like Ramchandra Guha and Bipin Chandra have dismissed these allegations in want of hard, concrete evidence, as a pretext to justify her authoritarian streak. This was also the position of the various US official organs, as expected.
The prevailing intellectual narrative clearly underlines that transformational changes in developing countries result from a conscious or coincidental coalition of domestic and external forces. Over the years, many new archives have opened and the present ruling dispensation in New Delhi has brought the issue back to the forefront of India's political dynamics. The narrative of the US pushing Indira Gandhi towards the Emergency decision and supporting the peoples' uprising against its repressive regime deserve a second dispassionate look. This may be done at three levels.
First, regime change, through covert as well as overt means, against Communist/ socialist or Left-oriented governments in Latin America (Chile) and Asia (Iran) has been an integral part of the toolkit of US policy since the Cold War years. According to American scholar Lindsey O'Rourke, the US carried out 64 covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989. Another scholar, David S Levins (2020), claims that the US carried out the largest number of foreign electoral interventions during 1946-2000. The use of covert operations for regime change in developing countries brought about extensive criticism of the US's democratic credentials, forcing the US Congress to appoint The Church Committee to investigate the matter. In its report in 1976, this Committee came down heavily on CIA operations and blamed it for having a worldwide network of several hundred individuals to have access 'to a large number of news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial publishers and media outlets' for covert operations.
Secondly, at the regional level in South Asia, the US National Security Council's policy document, NSC 98/1, was adopted by President Truman in January 1951. It asked US policy in the region to take 'more frequently accept calculated risks' in ensuring that the Communist (as also, socialist and Communist supported) governments did not remain in power. Only such governments were acceptable that 'would assist the United States and its allies to obtain the facilities desired in the time of peace or required in the event of war'.
The Nixon (1969-1974)-Kissinger (1969-1977) team of the US had a strong focus on South Asian regimes in its endeavour to cultivate China and isolate the Soviet Union. Between 1975 and 1977, major developments took place in South Asia. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (1975) in Bangladesh and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1977) in Pakistan were deposed brutally by military regimes. Sheikh Mujib's Bangladesh in 1971 had emerged in strategic defiance of the US, and Bhutto had defied the US on the nuclear issue. Bhutto's daughter, Benazir, was reported to have disclosed Kissinger's threat in November 1976 to Bhutto to make a horrible example of him if he pursued the nuclear path. Nepal (Zone of Peace, 1975) and Sikkim (the American queen of the Chogyal sponsored independent status, 1974-75) had explicit support from the US so as to distance them from India.
Lastly, at the bilateral level, Indira Gandhi's 'foreign hand' paranoia was a reflection of these regional developments. She had the worst of relations with the Nixon-Kissinger team both on the Bangladesh (1971) and the nuclear (implosion, 1974) issues. It was problematic for the US establishment that Indira Gandhi, whom the CIA supported in dethroning the Communist regime in Kerala in late 1950s, was during 1967-69, leaning on the Indian Communists in her struggle for power within her own party. The CIA activities during Indira Gandhi's regime had become so unacceptable even to the US embassy in New Delhi that ambassador Patrick Moynihan had to ask the state department to withdraw CIA operations.
The imposition of Emergency was publicly disapproved by the US state department and American media. The US secretary of state Kissinger in his memo to President Ford in September 1975 said that the Emergency had discredited Indian democracy, adding, 'We should avoid any overt involvement that could confirm her allegations of foreign subversion'. Did this imply that covert operations to subvert the Emergency could go on? The post-Emergency regime was headed by Morarji Desai, who American journalist Seymour Hersh alleged was a CIA mole in Indira Gandhi's cabinet. Desai fought a libel case in the US against Hersh unsuccessfully. President Carter visited India in January 1978 to acclaim the post-Emergency regime, and asked Prime Minister Desai to desist from the nuclear path.
Thus, there are ample leads at all the three levels to revisit the question of the 'foreign hand' and see if it had any links with the popular protests. British scholar Paul Garr in his study, Spying in South Asia (2024), says that Indira Gandhi's 'foreign hand' was an exaggeration sometimes, but her fears about the CIA were 'genuine' and valid. Our reliance only on the structural theories and Indira Gandhi's authoritarianism do not explain her decision to end the Emergency, as also how she managed to stage an impressive electoral comeback in less than three years.
SD Muni is professor emeritus, JNU, former ambassador and special envoy, Government of India. The views expressed are personal.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

32 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Fortress America: India's gateway to global innovation

Donald Trump's return to the White House has reignited familiar fires: nationalist trade wars, stricter immigration, and a cold shoulder to international students and tech collaboration. But beneath the surface of this hardline resurgence lies a quiet irony—by closing its doors, America may be opening new ones elsewhere. For India, this is not just an economic opportunity. It's a strategic moment to step into the vacuum and shape the next wave of global innovation. President Trump's administration has wasted no time reviving key pillars of his earlier term. America First has been rebranded with more teeth; targeted tariffs, especially against Chinese goods, are rising again. Restrictions on H-1B and student visas have returned with greater stringency. And a more aggressive tech decoupling policy is cutting Chinese companies out of critical supply chains, export channels, and research collaborations. The implications are profound. The US, long considered the epicentre of global talent and innovation, now seems poised to push some of that talent away. Already, we are seeing signals of a shift. Canada, Europe, Australia, and even Southeast Asian nations are wooing researchers, startups, and students displaced by the US's policies. The idea of a multipolar innovation ecosystem—where talent circulates more freely between regional hubs—is gaining momentum. Could this shift be a setback for America? Certainly. But for countries willing to build infrastructure, offer opportunity, and remain open, it is a moment of rare global realignment. India finds itself at the right place, with the right potential and if it plays wisely, with the right timing. First, consider talent. Tighter US visa policies could slow the brain drain. Thousands of engineers, researchers, and students who would have flocked to American universities or Silicon Valley may now look for alternatives. If India can offer a stable, aspirational home for research and entrepreneurship, many may choose to stay or return. Second, consider higher education. American universities are becoming less accessible for international students. India, already one of the largest sources of global student migration, has an opportunity to strengthen its domestic institutions and build international collaborations. NEP 2020's push to allow foreign universities in India and encourage global partnerships is suddenly more relevant than ever. Third, technology. The decoupling from China has created demand for trustworthy, democratic partners in semiconductors, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and electronics. India's production-linked incentive (PLI) schemes, partnerships with Taiwan and Japan, and its growing digital public infrastructure can position it as a serious alternative manufacturing and innovation hub. Fourth, investment. Global capital is seeking new homes away from the geopolitical crossfire. India, especially with its demographic dividend, maturing startup ecosystem, and digital scale, could attract investors once bound for the US-China corridor. If India is to seize this moment, it must focus strategically. Areas with the highest potential include: None of this will happen by default. India must act decisively and deliberately. That means: This is a moment to reform not just policy but mindset. It is about treating innovation as a national security and development imperative, not just a private enterprise playground. Trump's America may be looking inward, but the world is still looking for partners, collaborators, and leaders. India—young, ambitious, and increasingly digitally integrated—has the chance to answer that call. If we miss it, we may not get another chance like this in decades. If we rise to it, we won't just benefit from America's retreat. We will lead where others step back. This article is authored by Ananya Raj Kakoti, scholar, international relations, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Hindustan Times

36 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

US visa policy and rise of new academic orders

President Donald Trump's second-term administration has embarked on a dramatic overhaul of the US foreign student visa regime, signaling a new phase in the country's immigration and education policy. These changes, announced over the first half of 2025, represent the most extensive rollback in decades of America's role as the global leader in higher education. From suspending new visas for certain universities, including a brief ban targeting Harvard, to implementing sweeping social media surveillance, the administration has shown a clear intent to politicise and securitise student inflows. What was once a meritocratic and relatively open system has now become fraught with ideological scrutiny and administrative unpredictability, transforming the landscape of global higher education and prompting shifts that could redefine international academic mobility for years to come. In June 2025, the Trump administration issued a proclamation temporarily barring new F, M, and J visas for students attending institutions deemed non-cooperative or ideologically problematic, with Harvard being controversially singled out. The justification cited concerns over national security, political activism, and infiltration by hostile actors. This move was paired with the rollout of aggressive new vetting procedures that compel foreign applicants to disclose social media handles and online activities, with discretionary visa rejections being issued for applicants expressing views contrary to what is now labelled 'American constitutional values.' Students from China, particularly in STEM fields, have been disproportionately affected, with additional scrutiny being directed at those with links to Chinese government-affiliated institutions. Similarly, pro-Palestinian activism has been flagged by visa officers as a potential basis for denial or revocation. These developments have introduced a chilling effect among aspiring international students. The US, long considered the apex destination for higher learning, innovation, and research collaboration, is no longer viewed as a predictable or safe environment by a growing number of students and their families. Universities in the US are already experiencing a downturn in international applications, with early 2025 data showing declines in graduate STEM enrollments from key countries such as India, China, and South Korea. Academic institutions reliant on foreign students for tuition revenue and research output are sounding alarms about future financial instability and diminished global competitiveness. Top-tier US universities face mounting legal challenges against the administration's policies, but the political messaging has been unmistakable: Foreign students are now a strategic filter point in America's broader ideological recalibration. As the US tightens its doors, other nations are positioning themselves to benefit from this vacuum. Canada has enhanced its immigration-to-education pipeline, streamlining pathways for international students to attain permanent residency. Australian universities have revived aggressive outreach programmes, while the United Kingdom, in its post-Brexit realignment, is offering more flexible visa norms and post-study work options. Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Scandinavian countries are scaling up English-language graduate programmes, many with substantially lower tuition costs and a less adversarial immigration regime. These countries are not merely alternative destinations; they are increasingly perceived as stable, inclusive, and academically dynamic, providing an environment of intellectual freedom and cross-cultural engagement that is no longer guaranteed in the US. India, in particular, is uniquely positioned to gain from the evolving global realignment of educational flows. As a major source of international students and a rising knowledge economy, India can leverage the moment to become both a sending and receiving hub. Indian students, who traditionally gravitated toward American universities for STEM and management studies, are now exploring options in Europe and Asia. Meanwhile, India's top-tier institutions such as the IITs, IIMs, and new central universities can attract talent from neighboring countries and the Global South by promoting transnational academic programs, English-language instruction, and competitive research opportunities. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 already envisions India as a global study destination, and this geopolitical opening provides the momentum to actualise that vision. Furthermore, as Indian diaspora students face uncertainty abroad, New Delhi can deepen its education diplomacy and build new regional education corridors aligned with its strategic interests in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific. This moment also signals a potential shift in the geography of elite academia. For over a century, the Ivy League has functioned as a quasi-sacred brand in global education combining prestige, wealth, and influence. Yet prestige is not immutable. As US universities become embroiled in political policing and uncertainty, top students and faculty may pivot toward emerging centers of academic excellence. Universities in Canada, Australia, Germany, and Singapore are already attracting scholars with robust funding, transparent governance, and academic freedom. Institutions such as the University of Toronto, ETH Zurich, the University of Melbourne, and the National University of Singapore are being considered serious alternatives to their American counterparts, particularly for research-intensive programmes. While it is difficult to replicate the financial endowments and alumni networks of Ivy League institutions overnight, global alternatives are maturing rapidly. These universities are developing their brand equity through Nobel-calibre research, global partnerships, and diaspora-driven innovation. Some countries are even pursuing the creation of transnational education cities such as Education City in Qatar or the Knowledge Hub in Egypt designed to host world-class institutions under one roof. Over the next decade, these emerging ecosystems may not just rival, but in some cases outpace the traditional Ivy League in specific fields such as artificial intelligence, clean energy, and public health. Other nations, particularly those with stable democratic systems and global academic ambitions, are rising to fill the void. They stand to gain not only economically, but in soft power and human capital. India, with its vast educational network and strategic positioning, can also emerge as both a beneficiary and a bridge in this realignment. And as new academic superclusters gain ground globally, the mythos of the Ivy League will increasingly share the stage with new contenders. The US, once the undisputed beacon of global scholarship, is now at risk of becoming just another gatekeeper in a world where academic excellence knows no borders. This article is authored by Gunwant Singh, scholar, international relations and security studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

The Wire

an hour ago

• The Wire

As Trump Mulls Iran Intervention, MAGA Is Angry

Weeks after his with Elon Musk, US president Donald Trump is now facing unprecedented backlash from other erstwhile admirers – influential figures in the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement. Trump has invited the wrath of his most reliable support bastion over a likely US military intervention in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. On Tuesday, Trump made an early exit from the G7 meeting in Canada, leading to many including the French president Emmanuel Macron to speculate that he is working on a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. However, Trump had other plans. He and said that he's working on something even bigger. The same day Trump announced on his Truth Social account that 'we have total control over Tehran's skies.' In a series of follow-up posts, Trump demanded a ' total surrender ' from Tehran whose ten million residents he had told to leave the city a day earlier. He also said that the plan to assassinate Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei was not off the table. On Wednesday, however, he seemed to backtrack slightly, making his stand ambiguous. 'I may do it. I may not…Nobody knows what I am going to do,' he said at a White House event. And yesterday (June 19), he said that he will decide in two weeks. But Trump's initial plan of directly getting involved in Iran militarily and then the eventual suspense over the course of his actions haven't gone down well with many in his own support base – popular traditionalist influencers and media figures who had rallied behind his MAGA politics. Conservative influencer and author Charlie Kirk wrote on X, 'No issue currently divides the right as much as foreign policy.' Kirks suspects that a US intervention in Iraq would cause a massive rift among MAGA. It could 'disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency,' he wrote. Consider what Trump's former campaign strategist Steve Bannon told Tucker Carlson on the Bannon War Room podcast to contextualise why MAGA – a term that has also come to mean his support base – is upset with Trump. Bannon said the three prominent promises from Trump in the run-up to his election were to 'stop the forever wars, seal the border and deport the illegal aliens invading our country, and redo commercial deals around trade and bring back high value manufacturing jobs.' He added that all three promises are being broken. Carlson has been even more unrelenting. His defiant opposition to an American military intervention in Iran is receiving tens of millions of views and is slowly turning into a headache for Trump who called Carlson '' in a post on Truth Social and later said, 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people can watch.' , 'The real divide isn't between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it – between warmongers and peacemakers. Who are the warmongers? They would include anyone who's calling Donald Trump today to demand air strikes and other direct US military involvement in a war with Iran.' Carlson's most significant intervention till now is his viral takedown of Senator Ted Cruz. In an interview on the Tucker Carlson Network, he asked Ted Cruz, a staunch supporter of US intervention, to point out the ethnic mix of Tehran. The senator had no answers. He asked Cruz the total population of Iran. Cruz couldn't answer this as well. At one point, Tucker mocked a rather clueless Cruz for saying the US is bound by the Bible to protect Israel to which Carlson sarcastically asked if the Biblical reference to Israel is the same as the modern Israeli state run by Netanyahu. 'Yes,' Cruz replied. Carlson also asked Cruz if he agreed that Iran was going to assassinate Trump to which Cruz replied, 'Yes, but they don't have good hitmen.' Carlson received flak from Trump and other influential MAGA supporters like influencer Laura Loomer who said, 'The Muslim Brotherhood, HAMAS, and foreign lobbyists are now all defending @TuckerCarlson and Iran…You can tell a lot about a man by the people who come to his defense and the company he keeps.' She accused Carlson of being funded by Qatar, a charge Carlson's team called a lie. She threatened to snitch on influencers criticising Trump and personally deliver such screenshots to the president. But Carlson has received support from many MAGA influencers. Alex Jones, the host of the infamous show InfoWars wrote, "Trump attacking @TuckerCarlson for not supporting a new WORLD WAR is not something any sane person should support! This is the stuff NIGHTMARES are MADE of…' Podcaster Theo Von who has hosted Trump on his show and 'anti-woke' YouTuber Candace Owens have spoken against intervention too. Von said that Israel 'cannot be trusted." Owens said, 'the same people say Iran can't have a nuke because they are religious fundamentalists are the same people who hold the heretical belief that we must support Israel's non-stop campaign of murder, blackmail, land theft bombing & starvation of the innocent because 'God will bless those who bless the 1948 created nation of Israel'.' In a separate post on X alleging US involvement in Iran, she wrote, 'Aaron Bushnell self-immolated back in 2024 to alert the American people to the fact that our military was involved in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. He committed suicide to reveal that truth.' Although there are republican senators like Majorie Green Taylor, Josh Hawley, and Rand Paul who've disapproved of Trump's intervention in Iran, the backlash from influencers is more significant for two reasons. First, Trump came to power arguing that the big media – TV and newspapers – is compromised and serves the agenda of 'forever wars.' Musk has repeatedly said he bought X to break the cycle of media control. In the run-up to his election, Trump appeared on several podcasts and online spaces with the same people who are now criticising him. While the likes of Loomer have defended Trump, more and more loyalists are jumping ship over Iran. Interestingly, Musk has neither expressed support nor opposed Trump's comments this time. But his old tweets against wars and US intervention in West Asia have resurfaced. This week US vice-president J.D. Vance announced to his four million followers on X that he's moving to Bluesky, X's rival platform in the US, which Vance said 'has become the place to go for common-sense political discussion and analysis.' Earlier, in a long post on X, Vance defended Trump and said that he's shown great restraint. He said, 'Having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.' Replying to Vance, the former UFC champ and MAGA supporter Sean Strickland , 'We want you to run for president. If you go through with this and tow () the line, you will lose all support.' Amid escalating opposition and the fear of yet another 'forever war' spilling across West Asia, Trump has backed down from his initial suggestion of a likely US military intervention in Iran. However, can the possibility of a US intervention still be ruled out? It's hard to predict what happens next but we'll get the answers soon. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.