The story of Indira Gandhi's Emergency; the beginning
In 1975, Indira Gandhi's Emergency reshaped democracy's fate. This series revisits the drama, defiance, and legacy of a crisis that pushed India to the brink, testing its resolve.Part One: Caged Tigress and a Wounded NationJune 12, 1975 was an extremely hot day, even by Allahabad's searing, humid standards. The courtroom of Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha sizzled with tension, like a pressure cooker ready to burst.advertisementOutside, the streets churned with whispers as a throng of humans waited for the arrival of the most powerful woman in India, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Inside, Raj Narain, the greying socialist who had challenged her, sat with a glint of defiance.
Questions crackled in the cauldron like spicy rumours: Is this her end? Will the Iron Lady be demolished by a stern, unwavering judge who forbade lawyers to rise even when the Prime Minister arrived in the court? If yes, will the rivals pounce on her? India held its breath for answers. Indira Gandhi's fate hung midair with the judge's gavel, which was ready to strike.The Showdown in GujaratIndia was already simmering with dissent and defiance. In January 1974, the Navnirman Andolan erupted in Gujarat. Sparked by a hike in hostel food prices at an engineering college in Ahmedabad, it channelled widespread anger over inflation and food shortages. Corruption charges against Chief Minister Chimanbhai Patel's Congress government fueled the rage. Students boycotted classes, organised strikes, and clashed with police, chanting 'Chiman chor!' (Chiman, the thief!). Protests escalated into riots. Buses were burned, public property damaged and government offices were attacked. By February, over 100 deaths and 1,000 arrests marked the chaos.advertisementIndira Gandhi, the PM who had not wilted under threats from the US and China, defied powerful men like Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, blinked in the staredown with students. The movement's intensity forced Patel's resignation on February 9, 1974, and President's Rule was imposed.The Opposition got a whiff of victory. It was soon on Indira Gandhi's trail.Return of the RevolutionaryMarch 1974, Patna. Enter Jayaprakash Narayan, JP, a 72-year old revolutionary with fire in his eyes. In post-Independence politics, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru reportedly wanted JP in his Cabinet, seeing him as an able deputy. But the austere leader had refused, preferring renunciation over power. But the fast-moving circle of politics brought him back to the fore, pitting him against Nehru's daughter.In Bihar, students mirrored Gujarat's fury, protesting corruption and unemployment. JP, revered for his Gandhian past, saw a nation revolting against Indira's rule, a reminder of the freedom movement but against their own rulers. On April 8, he joined their cause, christening it the Total Revolution.'We must cleanse the system,' he declared at a Patna rally, his voice rising over the hum of an excited crowd. Indira dismissed him as a relic, but the people hailed him as Loknayak.advertisementWith a confrontation building up, Indira Gandhi resorted to the tested technique of diversion through patriotism.Tremors in the DesertMeanwhile, on May 18, 1974, Pokhran: A desert tremor shook the world as the Buddha Smiled, India's first nuclear test at Pokhran in Rajasthan. Politically, it was a triumph for Indira Gandhi, boosting her image as a decisive leader. It rallied national pride, temporarily deflecting criticism amid rising unrest from the Navnirman Andolan and JP's Total Revolution. However, the euphoria was short-lived, as opposition parties, including Jan Sangh, accused Indira of using the test to distract from domestic failures.Economically, the test strained an already fragile economy grappling with inflation. Global sanctions followed, with the US and Canada halting nuclear cooperation, limiting access to technology and foreign aid, which deepened economic woes.As inflation soared past 25%, food shortages hit harder. In villages, people queued for hours for rationed grain. In cities, housewives protested empty markets. The nuclear glow couldn't mask the hunger in the streets. Nationalism went out of the window as hunger knocked at the door.Another crisis was waiting to tap the anger.Anger on the RailsIn June 1974, trains stopped chugging, and engines fell silent. George Fernandes, a socialist maverick who was known to be so busy that he didn't even comb his hair, unleashed a railway strike that paralysed India. As president of the All India Railwaymen's Federation, he rallied millions of workers to halt trains for 20 days, demanding better wages amid crushing inflation. Stations emptied, goods rotted, and the economy staggered.advertisementThe government struck back with arrests. Fernandes went underground, turning into a fugitive hero. The momentum was building up, India was on the cusp of an uprising.In Bihar, JP's movement gained steam. He formed the Bihar Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti, uniting students and activists. His rallies drew thousands. In his speeches, he called for a revolution: 'This government is corrupt, immoral. Rise against it!'In Delhi, Indira's son was rising. Sanjay Gandhi, her brash heir, scoffed at the protests. But the crowds told a different story.JP toured India, his frail frame rising in defiance. 'This is a fight for democracy,' he roared in Bombay, drawing cheers from students and workers alike.On March 6, 1975, JP led a massive march to Parliament, a sea of protesters demanding Indira's resignation. He urged police and bureaucrats to defy 'immoral' orders, a direct challenge to the state. Indira, watching from her office, felt the walls closing in.advertisementA Resounding DefeatApril 1975, Gujarat: The Janata Front, backed by JP, swept Gujarat's state elections. The Congress, led by Indira Gandhi, won 75 of 182 seats, losing 65 from 1972. The Janata Front, a coalition of Congress (O) –the rebel faction– Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Bharatiya Lok Dal, and Socialist Party, secured 86 seats, forming the government with support from Kisan Mazdoor Lok Paksha. Babubhai Patel became Chief Minister on June 15. It was a humiliating blow, a sign of the nation's anger and mood for change. Indira's grip was slipping. The template for the future was set.A Legal TangleIn Allahabad High Court, Raj Narain's case against Indira was waiting for the climax. In the 1971 General Elections, Indira Gandhi won from the Rae Bareli Constituency in Uttar Pradesh by a margin of 1,11,810 votes over her nearest rival Raj Narain, backed by the Samyukta Socialist Party. Raj Narain challenged the outcome, citing misuse of official machinery and corrupt electoral practices.His lawyer, Shanti Bhushan, argued Indira's campaign had used government resources, including her aide Yashpal Kapoor, who hadn't properly resigned as a gazetted officer before campaigning. Some called it a minor oversight, but the challenger stuck to his guns, demanding the election be declared null and void.advertisementAll Rise: Indira FallsJune 12, 1975, Allahabad: Justice Sinha's verdict landed like a guillotine: challenge upheld, election is void. As the crowd stared in disbelief, Justice Sinha delivered the killer blow. Finding Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices, he barred her from contesting for six years. With one stroke of the pen, he had dislodged Indira Gandhi, and ordered her into political hibernation for six years.The news spread like wildfire. In Patna, JP called it 'a triumph of justice.' In Delhi, opposition leaders planned their next move. Indira called it a conspiracy. Sanjay urged decisive action. Outside, protests swelled. In retaliation, crowds gathered to support Indira Gandhi. The nation shivered in fear of turbulence and conflict.The Countdown Begins in DelhiOn June 15, JP demanded Indira's resignation at a Delhi rally. On June 20, Indira rallied her supporters at the Boat Club, vowing to fight. On June 24, the Supreme Court granted a partial stay. Indira Gandhi could remain PM but not vote in Parliament. JP upped the ante, announcing a nationwide agitation. He thundered, 'Singhasan khali karo.' (Vacate the throne).Indira Gandhi was being pushed deeper into a cage. No one expected the Iron Lady to yield without a fight. On June 25, India was to learn about Indira Gandhi's resolve to push the boundaries of the battle with chilling consequences.Next: Indira Strikes Back: The Dawn of EmergencyTrending Reel
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
39 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Have started to focus on specific issues rather than on parties as institutions': Tharoor
Have started focusing on specific issues and outcomes rather than on parties as institutions, said Congress MP Shashi Tharoor while refusing to comment on the issues going on within the party regarding his stance on Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Tharoor, who was in Ahmedabad, made these remarks on the sidelines of an event at the Ahmedabad Management Association (AMA) on Saturday. Tharoor, who recently led an all-party delegation on Operation Sindoor against Pakistan and has faced cryptic reactions from his party leaders for his praise of the PM, told ANI: 'I am not going to get into political issues here. If there are issues to discuss, they would be discussed privately, and when the time comes, I shall do so.' In a conversation on 'Diction, discretion and diplomacy' at AMA, Tharoor said that he had started to focus on specific issues and outcomes 'rather than on parties as institutions or structures of election winning'. In a session with AMA's Programme Committee Chairman Jainil Shah, Tharoor said, 'The only reason to be in politics is to have a vision of a better society, a better country and a better future for your land; Otherwise why bother?… I have begun, in my own ways as a politician, to focus on specific issues and outcomes rather than on parties as institutions or structures of election winning and so on; I've fought and won four elections… I'm proud to say but at the same time, that can't be the only purpose'. Talking about his recent visit in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, Tharoor said:'In other places, we actually were able to get some very high-placed people to say not only that they respected and supported India's right of self-defence, but they actually commended the restrained manner of our response, that we could have been much worse…So I would say that, by and large, they were all very understanding.' 'But I would usually end by conveying that they should not be surprised that if this (terrorist attack) happens again, we too would do this again… And I believe we left everybody in no doubt about our feelings and our intentions,' he added. Speaking about the Emergency imposed by the erstwhile Congress government 50 years ago, Tharoor said that it made him change the decision on taking the UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) exams for a job in the foreign services. He said that when the Emergency was declared, he was in Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy studying International Affairs on a scholarship in 1975. Tharoor said that he had a roommate who worked as a journalist and continued to 'moonlight' as one and would bring 'reams of telex stories' on the happenings in India. 'It was deeply shaking and chastening to watch what was happening in India …I felt that somehow I really couldn't imagine I could serve a government that could do this to our people and to our democracy,' the MP said. Recalling his first connection with Gujarat, he shared details about how both of his sisters were chosen as the Amul baby for the dairy co-operative's advertisement campaign in the 1960s. With PTI inputs
News18
an hour ago
- News18
How Emergency '75 Tried To Distort The Constitution Of India
It was this provision that the then-President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed depended upon while proclaiming the Emergency on the night of June 25, 1975. 'Internal disturbance" lent itself to a wide-ranging interpretation, including political and civil society movements. The original article contained no proviso that the proclamation of the emergency should be restricted to only affected parts of India. Thus it was proclaimed for the whole of India, even if that were not necessary. Also, in a glaring lapse of parliamentary procedure, President Ahmed's proclamation preceded the cabinet meeting approving the emergency. The proclamation of emergency, Kuldip Nayar informs, was signed at 11.45 pm on June 25, 1975. Indira Gandhi decided to call the meeting of the cabinet at 6 pm on June 26 after returning from the Rashtrapati Bhawan (The Judgement: Inside Story of the Emergency in India, P. 39-41). The proclamation was placed before the cabinet that met at 1, Safdarjung Road—the Prime Minister's official residence—for ex-post facto approval. The arrest of the opposition leaders, as well as the journalists, had gone on with ruthless efficiency in the intervening period. Article 352 has been altered since then, raising the constitutional bar against the sweeping imposition of emergency countrywide as in 1975. Paradoxically, even Indira Gandhi's government has a role in it through the 42nd amendment of the Constitution (1976). The 44th amendment brought in by the Janata Party's government (1978) further conditioned the imposition of emergency. Thus, from the constitutional viewpoint, the imposition of emergency became more difficult. Further, Article 359, which was related to the suspension of the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III during emergencies, no longer applied to Articles 20 and 21. This meant that the constitutional provisions with regard to protection in respect of conviction of offences, and protection of life and personal liberty, could not be abridged under any circumstances (even if other fundamental rights are suspended under emergency). These changes will be described ahead. II The events described as the causes of the Emergency '75, e.g. students' movement spearheaded by Jay Prakash Narayan, the Allahabad High Court's judgment declaring Indira Gandhi's election from Raebareli parliamentary constituency (1971) as void, etc, were at best immediate causes. Immediate causes only ignite the stockpile of explosive materials already present. The underlying cause of the Emergency '75 was Indira Gandhi's authoritarian style of functioning, which she equated with efficiency. This imbalanced the harmony conceived by the framers of the Constitution, between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. However, a more impersonal reading of the situation was that it represented a 'mid-life crisis of the Constitution" itself. Advertisement Indira Gandhi prioritised directive principles over fundamental rights. She vouched for 'parliamentary supremacy" in sorting out constitutional provisions (which, according to her, impeded the development of India) over judicial interpretation. She felt 'parliamentary supremacy" was necessary to prevent the Constitution from becoming atrophied. Parliament of India must have unlimited authority to amend the Constitution with a two-thirds majority as and when needed. There was a sudden acceleration in Constitution amendments during her second tenure. During the first two decades of its operation, the Constitution had been amended on 23 occasions. The Constitution (Twenty-third Amendment) Act, 1969, was notified on January 23, 1970, and came into force the same day. There was no other amendment during the rest of the year, which also witnessed the premature dissolution of the Fourth Lok Sabha. In the Fifth Lok Sabha elections, 1971, Indira Gandhi returned with a huge mandate. During this tenure, which included the Emergency '75 period, the Constitution was amended on 19 occasions. advetisement Her magnum opus enactment was the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, which had often been described as a mini-Constitution. Several of its unwelcome provisions were later neutralised through the 43rd and 44th amendments brought by the Janata Party government. Indira launched her strike with the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1971, which was later passed as the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. Herein, her target was the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the IC Golaknath and Ors v State of Punjab (1967) that had denied Parliament the right to amend the Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution even while exercising its powers under Article 368. It was the first time that any authority had held that any portion of the Constitution was impervious to amendment. Indira Gandhi naturally did not appreciate this judicial embargo and wanted to get rid of it at the earliest. However, she could not have the last laugh in the matter. advetisement In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court laid down the concept of 'basic structure" of the Constitution that exercised a cap on Parliament's unlimited amending power. In effect, the 24th Amendment made the provisions of Article 13 subject to the provisions of Article 368 as invalid. The apex court held that the whole of Article 31 C, which abrogates for certain purposes the fundamental rights in Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution, is invalid. The court stated that while ordinarily it had no power to review a constitutional amendment, it could do so if the amendment destroyed or damaged the basic structure of the Constitution. Basic feature, however, is not a finite or quantifiable concept but depends on the merit of the case. III Less than five months after the Emergency '75 had been declared–on November 10, 1975–the Supreme Court constituted a 13-judge bench to hear a plea of the Government of India that the Keshavananda Bharati verdict should be overruled. It was evidently a quid pro quo by Chief Justice AN Ray, who had been elevated to the top position by Indira Gandhi, by superseding three senior-most judges, who resigned in protest (April 1973). Legal luminary Nani A Palkhivala filed a petition against this government plea on the ground that the Keshavananda Bharati judgment was delivered by a full bench of the Supreme Court with proceedings lasting for five months. It would set a wrong precedent whereby even this full bench's judgment might be reconsidered by another full bench in future. Moreover, the time was least opportune, when fundamental rights of the citizens stood abrogated, there was no effective opposition inside Parliament, and most important leaders of the opposition parties were languishing in jail. Nobody could write or speak anything in public that was not acceptable to the government (We, The People P. 187). Due to Palkhivala's forceful advocacy, the bench was dissolved within two days of argument, though nothing was reported in the media due to censorship. Yet, it was a victory, no doubt, which saved the prestige of the judiciary. Having failed to regain unlimited amending power through the legal route and dissatisfied with the tardiness of the parliamentary process, Indira Gandhi contemplated a change in the form of government. The French system appealed best to Indira. Her notorious younger son, Sanjay, overtly pitched for a presidential system, which gave all the power to one person, without the curb of Parliament (The Judgement, P. 114). The Swaran Singh Committee was set up by the AICC to consider suitable changes in the Constitution. Swaran Singh, the former external affairs minister, came out with proposals for extensive changes in the Constitution. 'It would have been worse if I were not there," Swaran Singh later told Kuldip Nayar, 'we buried the presidential system once and for all" (The Judgement, P. 148). The Swaran Singh Committee proposals became the basis of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1976, which, on enactment, became the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. It was an extensive piece of legislation that sought to (a) amend the Preamble (inserting the expression Socialist Secular) and the Seventh Schedule in addition to around 36 separate articles (b) substitute four articles with new ones, (c) insert two new Parts viz. IVA and XIVA and eleven new articles. Palkhivala describes the legislation as a 'devastating attack on the Constitution". It is a pity that the exercise was undertaken under the guise of the Emergency. When the Janata Party came to power as a result of the Sixth Lok Sabha elections, 1977, it enacted the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, and the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, which aimed at reversing many of the capricious and detrimental amendments. By a legislative 'surgical strike", to use a present-day popular phrase, the Janata Party government removed the root cause of confusion that had exposed fundamental rights to repeated parliamentary assaults. The 44th amendment did away with 'Article 31: Compulsory Acquisition of Property" in Part III (Fundamental Rights). The Right to Property to another part of the Constitution viz. Part XII thus making it a legal right. The presence of Right to Property (which was actually about land acquisition by the government) in Part III had actually made Fundamental Rights unsafe. The problem was fixed for all times to come. This churning led to an important result. The imposition of emergency under Article 352 became more difficult and conditional. Both Indira Gandhi and the Janata Party contributed to the process. The 42nd amendment made it possible, or desirable, that any emergency was restricted to the affected parts of India rather than being imposed on the whole of India as provided in the original Constitution. The 44th amendment replaced the word 'internal disturbance" with 'armed rebellion". Thus, any civilian protest movement, even if it became violent, could not be used as an excuse to impose emergency. Article 352 (1) now reads as – 'If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India or any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression, or armed rebellion, he may, by Proclamation, make a declaration to the effect in respect of whole of India or such part of the territory thereof as may be specified in the Proclamation. Through the 44th amendment, it now became necessary for both Houses of Parliament to approve the emergency by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting before the expiration of one month of Proclamation. Previously, the approval was by simple majority before the expiration of two months. Soli Sorabjee, the then Additional Solicitor General of India, made an insightful observation on the abnormalities in Indira Gandhi's approach to the Constitution amendment. Appearing on All India Radio Spotlight programme on September 23, 1978, Sorabjee stated: 'Our Constitution conceives of the State as existing for its citizens and not the citizens for the State. It recognises the infinite worth of every individual soul because it believes that in a world of variables, it is the individual alone who is timeless. Accordingly, our Constitution ordains that justice — social, economic and political, be achieved without stifling basic freedoms and the dignity of the individual. In other words, without depriving the people of India of their basic human rights." This priceless statement of Soli Sorabjee should be remembered by every government as the key to our constitutional ethos.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Nothing unusual in Rath continuing for 2nd day: Min
Bhubaneswar: Rath Yatra in Puri turned into a political battleground with the govt and opposition locking horns over the annual event after pulling of chariots was stopped on Friday following massive surge in crowd. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The journey to Gundicha Temple resumed on Saturday. While BJD president and former chief minister called for "deep introspection" by the govt, former Odisha Congress president Prasad Harichandan sought judicial inquiry into the alleged "mismanagement". Law minister Prithiviraj Harichandan in turn accused the opposition of politicising the sacred event. "I don't want to speak about people resorting to dirty politics on Mahaprabhu. They have insulted the Lord with so many deviations in the past," Harichandran said, indirectly referring to inadequacies when BJD and Congress governed the state. Defending the delay in the chariots reaching the Gundicha Temple, Prithiviraj said it was nothing unusual. "Most years, the chariots are pulled on the second day as well. There are very few examples of Lord Jagannath's rath reaching the Gundicha Temple on the first day," he said. In contrast, Naveen expressed concern over the event's management. Highlighting past incidents, the former CM pointed to last year's mishap when Lord Balabhadra's idol slipped during the Adapa Bije Pahandi. This year, he noted, "Nandighosh rath (chariot of Lord Jagannath) was still standing at the Singhadwar till 7:45pm, only to move a few metres before the day ended", leaving devotees "disenchanted and disillusioned. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now " Calling for introspection, Naveen wrote on X, "May Mahaprabhu Jagannath forgive all those responsible for the terrible mess that has overshadowed this divine festival this year." Pressing for a judicial probe after Niladri Bije, Prasad said the chariots seem to have been halted to accommodate corporate honchos. He also questioned the alleged issue of cordon pass to a woman friend of a blogger, who has come under scanner for suspected ISI links.
