50 Years Since Emergency: How The Israel-Arab War Shook Indira Gandhi's Hold On Power
Last Updated:
During the Yom Kippur War, India's dependence on oil imports led to a severe economic crisis, triggering rampant inflation and a sharp rise in prices of essential commodities
On June 25, 1975, India entered a controversial phase in its democratic journey as the government declared a state of Emergency, triggering sweeping changes to its political and constitutional framework. Fifty years later, the move remains a subject of debate and reflection. What led a democratically elected Prime Minister to impose such extraordinary measures on the country's institutions and civil liberties continues to prompt critical examination.
According to political experts, the central figure in this period was then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, whose hold on power faced persistent challenges amid the political turbulence of the 1970s.
Many political commentators believe the roots of the Emergency can be traced back to 1973, with the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War between Israel and the Arab nations. Although this conflict was geographically distant from India, its repercussions were felt deeply as oil prices surged globally. India, heavily reliant on oil imports, plunged into an economic crisis, causing rampant inflation and skyrocketing prices of essential commodities. Everyday items, including petrol, bus fares, and electricity rates, became unaffordable.
Student Movements In Gujarat And Bihar
Economic discontent first erupted in Gujarat with the 'Nav Nirman Movement' in January 1974, where students took to the streets of Ahmedabad protesting against inflation, corruption, and chaos. The movement gained momentum across the state, eventually leading to the resignation of Gujarat Chief Minister Chimanbhai Patel.
Simultaneously, the student unrest spread to Bihar, where increased college fees and bus fares ignited existing frustrations with inflation. On March 18, 1974, thousands of students marched in Patna from Patna Science College to the Assembly, resulting in violent clashes and an atmosphere of tension.
Was JP's 'Total Revolution' The Turning Point Before The Emergency?
The public discontent found direction and leadership under Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), a senior freedom fighter, Gandhian thinker, and moral figure, who on June 5, 1974, called for a 'Total Revolution' from Patna's Gandhi Maidan. JP's movement transcended issues of inflation and corruption, becoming a significant socio-political campaign advocating for radical reforms in education, administration, and politics. This movement united youth, students, intellectuals, and opposition parties alike.
Did The Court Verdict Push Indira Gandhi To Declare Emergency?
The movement's impact resonated nationwide, and on June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court invalidated Indira Gandhi's election from Rae Bareilly, citing corrupt practices and disqualifying her from contesting elections for six years.
This legal blow amplified opposition voices, jeopardising Indira Gandhi's political position. In response, JP urged the army and police to disobey unlawful orders, prompting Indira Gandhi to declare an Emergency on the night of June 25.
According to political commentators, the Emergency was not merely a political manoeuvre but a consequence of the economic, social, and global upheavals of the period.
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
The silence of the reels: Why Hindi cinema never faced the Emergency
Power games: The few filmmakers who did deal with the subject, either directly or indirectly, faced bans and attacks For an industry that prides itself on chronicling the nation's struggles, Hindi cinema's silence about the Emergency is more revealing than any film could ever be. The 21 months between June 1975 and March 1977, when Indira Gandhi suspended civil liberties, censored the press, and jailed thousands without trial, were arguably the most consequential in India's modern political history. Yet, in the decades since, Hindi cinema—the self-appointed mirror of Indian society—has barely mustered a smudge to reflect it. This conspicuous absence did not arise from creative oversight or timidity alone. In the early decades of Independence, popular cinema was never truly free. Nehruvian socialism shaped public policy and the ideological contours of the industry. The so-called golden triumvirate—Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor, Dev Anand—crafted personas that echoed Pandit Nehru's vision of the self-sacrificing, morally upright everyman. Dilip Kumar's dialogue seemed like leftovers from Nehru's speeches, Dev Anand's rebellious charm served the establishment's romantic socialism, and Raj Kapoor's everyman heroes peddled idealism to the masses. Such intimacy with power set the template. The state could inspire cinema, but never the other way around. When that same state turned authoritarian, the industry found itself unprepared and unwilling to challenge it. In the Emergency years, the machinery of coercion extended directly into the corridors of Bombay. V C Shukla, Indira's information & broadcasting minister, became infamous for exerting his influence over the film industry. Wielding the Maintenance of Internal Security Act like a scythe through the industry, the political establishment wasn't breaking new ground—it was merely weaponising an existing dependency. Kishore Kumar, the mercurial genius whose voice had soundtracked a generation's dreams, was banned from All India Radio and Doordarshan for refusing to perform at a Youth Congress rally. Dev Anand, tricked into attending a Sanjay Gandhi event and asked to praise his 'dynamism', found his films blacklisted when he refused to comply. When he sought an explanation from the I&B Minister, he was told with chilling matter-of-factness that it was 'a good thing to speak for the govt in power.' Shatrughan Sinha , then one of cinema's busiest stars, saw his films banned for the cardinal sin of supporting Jayaprakash Narayan. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Most Unwelcoming Countries in the World, Ranked BigGlobalTravel Undo Gulzar's 'Aandhi', merely suspected of drawing inspiration from Indira Gandhi's life, while most argued it'd taken a few chapters from the life of Tarkeshwari Sinha, was banned for the duration of the Emergency, releasing only after the Janata victory restored a semblance of democratic normalcy. 'Maha Chor' starring Rajesh Khanna casually inserted a 'Vote for Congress' graffiti into a musical sequence. Most telling was the fate of Amrit Nahata's 'Kissa Kursi Ka', a political satire that dared to mock the Emergency's absurdities. All prints of the film were destroyed allegedly by Sanjay Gandhi at a factory in Gurgaon. This was not subtext—it was brazen collusion between art and authority. Yet what happened after the Emergency lifted reveals the true depths of the industry's moral bankruptcy. When the time came to reckon with the period—its absurdities, its tragedies, its moral squalor—Hindi cinema fell silent. There was an almost immediate return to sycophantic normalcy. Feroz Khan's 'Qurbani' (1980), the biggest hit of the year when Indira Gandhi returned, opened with a short film eulogising Sanjay Gandhi, narrated by Khan himself as he dedicated his film to the memory of the 'Prince' and bowed in reverence to the 'Mother'. If films between 1977 and 1980 did not address the Emergency, to expect that to happen after Indira Gandhi returned would perhaps be hoping for a miracle. This wasn't just political calculation—it was the instinctive reaction of an industry that had learned to worship power. Some filmmakers attempted to address the Emergency but it was often through the refuge of allegory—Hrishikesh Mukherjee's 'Kotwal Saab' and 'Khubsoorat' chose not to cast a direct look; the latter managed to justify the Emergency as a necessary evil. Mukherjee's 'Naram Garam' gave Hindi cinema's smartest comment on the era in the form of a nervous joke — Om Prakash, told to hurry because of some emergency, haplessly comments, 'Phir se?' While not Hindi cinema, Satyajit Ray's 'Hirak Rajar Deshe' and Jabbar Patel's 'Jait Re Jait', used the same route. Parallel cinema, too, largely skirted the challenge and despite their social conscience, filmmakers preferred the microcosm to the macro. Over the years, some films such as 'Ghashiram Kotwal' based on a Vijay Tendulkar play and directed by K. Hariharan, Mani Kaul, Kamal Swaroop, Saeed Mirza were cited as a film about the Emergency. However, it was written in 1972 as a response to the rise of a local political party in Maharashtra. There are structural reasons for this reticence. Hindi cinema has always struggled with ambiguity, preferring neat endings where heroes redeem all. The Emergency, by contrast, offered no catharsis—only a nation capitulating to authoritarianism without resistance. The definitive Emergency film still eludes the screen even as we enter the fiftieth year of the Emergency. The exceptions remain sparse: Sudhir Mishra's 'Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi' would not arrive until 2005, nearly three decades later. Even then, it couched its indictment within the personal journeys of three idealistic young people, careful not to indict the broader complicity of society. Even today the few who try to confront the past are harassed —Madhur Bhandarkar's 'Indu Sarkar' provoked shrill attacks and legal threats simply for attempting a fictionalised retelling. The Emergency may have ended in 1977, but its most lasting victory was psychological: the creation of a cultural establishment that polices itself more effectively than any censor ever could. Perhaps it was simpler to pretend nothing happened. After all, if cinema cannot process a trauma, maybe the nation never really did. (Chintamani is a film historian and author)
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
On Nitish turf, Chirag set to sharpen ‘new leadership' pitch, step up ‘Bahujan outreach'
Barely three weeks after Union minister Chirag Paswan stirred Bihar politics by announcing that he would contest in the upcoming state Assembly polls, the LJP (Ram Vilas) president is going to step up pressure on ally JD (U) by holding a rally in Rajgir – in Nalanda district, the home turf of Chief Minister and JD(U) supremo Nitish Kumar – on Sunday. The LJP (RV) has dubbed its Rajgir meeting 'Bahujan sankalp samagam', where Chirag would focus on 'Bahujan' and 'nav netritva' (new leadership) in a bid to expand his party's base beyond Paswans – the Scheduled Caste (SC) group to which he belongs – to other Bahujan communities. While both Nitish and Chirag are key allies of the BJP-led NDA, their relations have been strained, with the LJP(RV) chief now positioning himself for a larger role in Bihar politics. For the last couple of months, the LJP (RV) has engaged in posturings in what has been seen as its bid to get a sizeable number of seats to contest in the Assembly polls due in October-November this year. While senior partners, BJP and JD(U), are likely to contest from about 100 seats each in the elections to the 243-member House, the LJP (RV) and other junior NDA allies – including Union minister Jitan Ram Manjhi's Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular) and former Union minister Upendra Kushwaha's Rashtriya Lok Morcha – have also been attempting to claim larger shares in seat-sharing. In the Lok Sabha polls, the LJP(RV) had won five seats out of five it was allotted by the NDA out of the state's 40 seats. For the Assembly polls, the NDA leadership has yet to kickstart the seat-sharing negotiations among its allies. Chirag, 42, now clearly seems to be looking to take centrestage in Bihar politics with his party calling for a 'new leadership' in the state. At the LJP(RV)'s June 8 rally in Arah, Chirag had announced that he would contest the 'Assembly polls from any seat people would want him to contest from'. At the Rajgir meeting, he is expected to push for 'Bihar's leadership for Bahujans', especially for the SCs which account for 19.65% of the state's population. Paswans make up about 5.33% of the state's population. The LJP (RV)'s Jamui MP Arun Bharti, who is also Chirag's brother-in-law, said, in a social media post, on the eve of the Rajgir event: 'Though Bahujan samaj has a huge population, it has been kept out from leadership role. The social group which is the biggest was shown/ treated as the smallest one. But, not any longer. From land of Rajgir, we are going to make an important announcement – Bahujan will no longer be a crowd but a voice. They will not just vote but lead. Bahujam Sankalp Samagam is not a cultural event but a political clarion call. We are gathering at Rajgir to fight on our terms, choose our leadership. Our leader will be Chirag Paswan.' Of late, Chirag has entrusted Bharti to play a major role in his party for working out its poll strategies. After the LJP(RV) chief's decision to take the plunge in the Assembly polls, RJD leader and Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Tejashwi Yadav asked him to clear the air if he 'wanted to become Bihar CM'. 'Let him (Chirag) say it clearly, it will give clarity to NDA and INDIA bloc,' Tejashwi said. An LJP (RV) leader told The Indian Express: 'As of now, we are engaging in intense posturings to get a good number of seats for the upcoming polls. We also want winnable seats. With five MPs, we are the BJP's third most important NDA ally at the Centre. If a party like HAM (S) with one MP can ask for 40 seats, how many should we ask for with that calculation'. In the 2020 Assembly polls in which the then undivided LJP had contested alone, the party had got 5.66% votes while winning just one seat. On the LJP(RV)'s 'Bahujan outreach and new leadership call', another party leader said: 'Bihar politics has been undergoing a churn and a new political order will emerge sooner or later. Chirag will play a key role in that process, more so with Nitish Kumar seen to be walking into the sunset of his long political innings.' Santosh Singh is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express since June 2008. He covers Bihar with main focus on politics, society and governance. Investigative and explanatory stories are also his forte. Singh has 25 years of experience in print journalism covering Bihar, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. ... Read More
India Gazette
2 hours ago
- India Gazette
Congress must clarify whether they support or oppose Emergency: Karnataka LoP R Ashoka
Mysuru (Karnataka) [India], June 29 (ANI): The Leader of Opposition in Karnataka Assembly R Ashoka on Saturday demanded that the Congress party clearly state its position on the Emergency imposed by former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975, accusing the party of evading accountability for one of the darkest chapters in Indian democracy. Speaking at an event in Vijayanagar, Mysuru, marking the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, Ashoka urged Congress to apologise to the people and address the injustices of that period. 'If Congress leaders have any respect for the Constitution, they should apologise to the people. During the Emergency, lakhs of people were jailed, and many freedom fighters died in prison. Congress has not provided any answers for this. They should at least clarify whether they support the Emergency. It is not right to evade the issue. In these 50 years, no Congress leader has admitted that the Emergency was wrong,' Ashoka said, emphasising the need for transparency and accountability. Ashok recounted the circumstances leading to the Emergency, alleging that Indira Gandhi imposed it to retain power after a court ruling cancelled her membership due to electoral fraud. 'When a court ruled that Indira Gandhi had committed electoral fraud, leading to the cancellation of her membership, she imposed the Emergency to retain her position as Prime Minister. Congress leaders created an atmosphere where 'India is Indira'. When it became clear that nothing was above the Constitution, Indira Gandhi took such steps and even amended the Constitution,' he claimed. The Opposition Leader shared personal experiences of the Emergency, noting his own imprisonment along with other BJP leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani. 'During that time, leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani were imprisoned. I, too, was in Bengaluru jail for a month. Back then, saying 'Indira' would lead to arrests by the police. They arrested and beat me, my brother, and MLA Suresh Kumar. I was a college student at the time,' he recalled. Ashok also targeted Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, questioning his silence on the Emergency and challenging the narrative of an 'undeclared emergency' under the current union government. 'Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who claims to be a patriot, should speak on this issue. He should answer what the so-called progressives were doing back then. Those who claim to have fought for independence did not participate in any struggle. The Congress of that time is different from today's Congress, which is a fake Congress. They are all loyal to one family, and saluting that dynasty has become a habit for today's leaders,' he said. He further criticised Congress for amending the Constitution during the Emergency and for its treatment of BR Ambedkar, contrasting it with the BJP's actions. 'They criticise that the BJP will change the Constitution, but it was Congress that amended the Constitution for the Emergency. They treat BR Ambedkar as their family property. When Ambedkar died, they didn't provide space for his memorial. Space was given only when members of Indira Gandhi's family died. When the BJP came to power for the first time, Ambedkar was awarded the Bharat Ratna. These facts must be told to the people,' Ashoka asserted. (ANI)
