The Films That Shook The Emergency: How Satire Put Sanjay Gandhi Behind Bars
New Delhi: In 1975, India slipped into one of the darkest chapters of its democratic journey. The Emergency, declared by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, brought with it a ruthless suppression of dissent.
In this turbulent atmosphere, Sanjay Gandhi emerged as a powerful person, his name tied to a trail of allegations – forced sterilisations, direct interference in government functioning and the controversial Maruti project. But amid all the chaos and legal battles, it was a film that finally led to his imprisonment.
'Kissa Kursi Ka'
Then Member of Parliament Amrit Nahata dared to make a political satire called 'Kissa Kursi Ka'. It poked fun at the establishment and caricatured Sanjay Gandhi and his coterie.
The film never saw the light of day. Instead, the negatives were seized and burned, allegedly on Sanjay Gandhi's orders. The Shah Commission, formed post-Emergency to investigate abuses of power, found him guilty.
A court convicted him. Jail followed. The sentence was eventually overturned, but the damage had been done. Satire had cracked the shield of political impunity.
The film had powerful symbolism. Actor Shabana Azmi played the silent and suffering public. Utpal Dutt embodied the manipulative godman. Manohar Singh portrayed a politician intoxicated with power. More than a movie, 'Kissa Kursi Ka' was a cinematic rebellion.
'Nasbandi'
Two years later, another filmmaker took the risk. In 1978, I.S. Johar released 'Nasbandi', a spoof on Sanjay Gandhi's controversial sterilisation drive. It featured lookalikes of major Bollywood stars.
The songs were razor-sharp in their criticism. One of them, sung by legendry Kishore Kumar, questioned the very soul of democracy: ' Gandhi tere desh mein, ye kaisa atyachar .'
The song disappeared from All India Radio. Kumar had earlier refused to perform at a Congress rally. That one act of defiance had cost him dearly.
Another song from the movie, sung by Manna Dey and Mahendra Kapoor, asked, ' Kya mil gaya sarkar Emergency laga ke? '
These tracks echoed the voice of a stifled nation.
'Sholay'
Even India's most iconic film was not spared. In its original version, 'Sholay' ended with Thakur killing Gabbar Singh using boots spiked with nails. Censors rejected the ending. The board did not want to glorify vigilante justice.
Director Ramesh Sippy fought to retain the original climax. He lost. The scene was reshot. Sanjeev Kumar returned from the Soviet Union just for that. Even Ram Lal's scene – where he hammers nails into the boots – was removed. The censors thought his eyes reflected rebellion.
'Sholay' was released on August 15, 1975. What hit theatres was not the film Sippy had envisioned.
'Aandhi'
Gulzar's 'Aandhi' stirred further controversy. The story resembled the life of Indira Gandhi. Audiences drew parallels. The government responded with a ban. The Emergency had no tolerance for metaphors.
Dev Anand's Political Detour
Some from the Bollywood took it beyond the screen. Dev Anand did not stop at protest. He founded his own political outfit – National Party of India. A massive rally at Shivaji Park followed.
In his autobiography, he wrote of feeling hounded by those close to Sanjay Gandhi. His act of defiance came with risk. But he never backed down.
Cinema in Chains
The Emergency redefined how India looked at cinema. Films were no longer entertainment alone. They became vessels of protest and tools of resistance. Satire turned into a weapon.
Despite all the accusations against him, Sanjay Gandhi went to jail because of a reel. That singular fact underlined the power of storytelling.
Decades later, those films still speak. 'Kissa Kursi Ka', 'Nasbandi', 'Aandhi' and 'Sholay' – each of them captured a moment of resistance. They remind India of a time when humour frightened the powerful, a lyric became a threat and a scene could be a revolution.
Cinema bled in those years. But it also fought back. And won.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
CM: BJP govt outperformed Cong in 18 mths
Jaipur: Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Sharma Saturday said his govt performed better than the previous Congress regime led by Ashok Gehlot, describing the difference as "sleight of hand and magic" versus "working with honesty and hard work. " Speaking at the 29th state-level Bhamashah award ceremony at a private school in the city, Sharma backed his claims of better governance with statistics. "What the Congress govt couldn't achieve in five years, our govt accomplished in just one-and-a-half years," he said. The chief minister reeled off achievements, especially in education and welfare schemes. He said the current BJP govt has distributed 10 lakh bicycles in the 18 months of its tenure, outpacing the previous govt's distribution of 10.3 lakh during their five-year term. On skilling the youth, the BJP govt has trained over 3 lakh persons, compared to the Congress govt's 2.35 lakh in five years, he claimed. The student scooter distribution scheme has also seen marked improvement, with about 30,000 scooters distributed by the current administration against 6,400 in previous Congress govt's first 18 months and about 21,000 in their full term. Sharma also highlighted the successful distribution of tablets and laptops to over 88,000 students by his govt. "The opposition leaders find it very difficult to hear when the comparison is made," Sharma remarked, adding that his cabinet ministers, MPs, MLAs and public representatives deserve recognition for their hard work.
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
RSS to Raj Bhavan via Goa BJP, now amid ‘Bharat Mata' image row—tracing Kerala Governor Arlekar's journey
At the heart of the controversy is an image of Bharat Mata holding a saffron flag, widely used by the RSS as a symbol of nationalism. However, the Kerala governor, who was associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) from his early days, is now facing allegations from both the ruling Left Democratic Front and the opposition Congress-led United Democratic Front of turning the Raj Bhavan into RSS office. Thiruvananthapuram: A strong advocate of the Konkani language and credited with making the Goa Assembly the first paperless legislature in the country, Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar is known for contributing significantly to the Bharatiya Janata Party's growth in his home state and achieving several firsts. While the governor insists on paying floral tributes to the image at every official event, including the ones conducted in the Raj Bhavan, the LDF and UDF see this as an attempt to convert the governor's official residence into RSS office. The issue escalated Thursday when Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan wrote to Arlekar, objecting to the use of the image at official events. Kerala Higher Education Minister R. Bindu Thursday accused him of attempting to popularise the 'RSS' Bharat Mata concept'. 'The governor is carrying along with him an image of the RSS version of Bharat Mata wearing a silk saree and holding a saffron flag, which is not accepted in independent India. It should be seen as a ploy to get wider acceptance for the RSS' Bharat Mata concept,' she told mediapersons. However, a senior official at the Raj Bhavan said the current issue was being blown out of proportion for political interests and asserted that Arlekar does not seek to create controversies. He added the governor has made it clear there will be no compromise on the Bharat Mata image. 'He is concerned about the row, but not worried about it,' the official told ThePrint. 'What image should be put up in the Raj Bhavan is decided by others. He is not asking anyone else to do the same or to pay floral tributes to the image.' 'He has been extending his hand to the state… If certain forces don't want that, what can he do,' the official said, adding the issue cannot be compared to typical tussles between Centre-appointed governors and opposition-led states because Arlekar has not hesitated to fulfil his Constitutional duties. 'There are no pending bills with him, nor has he failed in his constitutional duties,' the official said, adding Arlekar enjoys a good rapport with the Centre. Credited with BJP's growth in Goa Arlekar, 71, who was associated with the RSS from his early days, played a significant role in strengthening the BJP in Goa, working closely with former chief minister and Union minister, the late Manohar Parrikar. 'The BJP was not that strong in Goa initially. In 1991, a few people, including Parrikar and Arlekar, joined the BJP from the Sangh and started working to strengthen the party base. Arlekar contested the 1991 Lok Sabha elections but didn't win. In 1994, we won four out of 40 seats in the Assembly. It was historic. In 1999, it became 10,' Sadanand Tanavade, a former Goa BJP president and a close friend of Arlekar, told ThePrint. Tanavade added that Arlekar's popularity also grew during his days in active politics as he led several agitations against then ruling Congress' alleged corrupt practices. Arlekar officially joined the BJP in 1989 and served the organisation in various roles since then. His father Vishwanath Arlekar was a state president of the Jan Sangh, the BJP precursor. Although he lost in his first attempt, Arlekar was elected MLA in 2002. In 2012, he was elected the speaker of the Goa Assembly and served for three years. 'He was the first speaker who ran the Assembly entirely in Konkani. He used to speak entirely in Konkani when he was presiding over the Assembly,' Tanavade said. He also oversaw the transition of the Assembly proceedings to paperless, the first such initiative in an Indian state. Tanavade said Arlekar was close to the party high command while in active politics and would always remain content with whatever responsibility the party assigned him and never lobbied for any post. 'He is a nice, down-to-earth person. He's a very good speaker. He can talk about anything, especially national integrity. His first priority is the nation,' Tanavade said. In 2021, Arlekar was appointed the Governor of Himachal Pradesh, and in 2024, he became the Governor of Bihar before being sworn in as Kerala Governor on 2 January 2025. The image controversy and more On the Republic Day this year, Arlekar praised Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan for his clear vision for the state's development and expressed pride in the state. Their apparent bonhomie suggested a peaceful relationship between the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led state government and the Raj Bhavan, a welcome change from what it was when Arlekar's predecessor Arif Mohammed Khan was in office. However, the situation changed in earlier this month, 5 June to be precise. On Environment Day, Agriculture Minister P. Prasad boycotted an event at the Raj Bhavan over the display of a Bharat Mata portrait. Later, on 19 June, General Education Minister V. Sivankutty boycotted the Scouts and Guides Rajya Puraskar award ceremony, leaving the Raj Bhavan shortly after extending his wishes to the children and condemning the display of the image. The tussle escalated Wednesday as members of the CPI(M)'s Students Federation of India and the Congress' Kerala Students' Union protested outside the Kerala University where the governor had attended an event organised by a right-wing group that displayed the controversial image. The protests led to clashes as RSS-BJP supporters opposed them. About a month ago, Arlekar triggered a row by nominating 10 deans to the Kannur University, all from outside the university, in direct violation of the university statutes, which stipulate that deans must be professors from the university's own departments. Of the 10 people nominated, six were from institutions funded by the Union government, and the rest from outside the state. Subsequently, the Kannur University syndicate passed a resolution against the move. In December last year, while serving as Bihar governor, Arlekar sparked a row by saying that the British rulers left India not because of the freedom satyagraha but because they saw arms in the hands of native people. The comment drew criticism from opposition leaders who claimed the comments disrespected freedom fighters. Kerala BJP leader Anoop Antony Joseph claimed the ruling CPI(M) is trying to make it into controversy to distract from 'anti-incumbency' sentiment in the state and its loss in the recent Nilambur bypoll. 'It's also part of appeasement politics by both the LDF and UDF. The LDF doesn't have any development to show in the upcoming polls. So, it's easy for them to resort to religious appeasement. We saw the same in Nilambur by both LDF and UDF,' he told ThePrint. (Edited by Ajeet Tiwari) Also Read: 'Bharat Mata' portrait pits LDF against Kerala Governor, again. 'Turning Raj Bhavan into party office'
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
WASHINGTON : The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Donald Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6-3, could allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country -- even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to immigrants without legal status or foreign visitors without green cards could be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable Novelodge Undo The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Live Events But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the "imperial presidency." Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department 's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that "we are all afraid" of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that "district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors" of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not "carefully heed this court's guidance" and act within limits, "this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene." In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship," she wrote. "Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing "legalese," she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. "In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law -- and it must," she wrote before striking a cautionary note. "Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law," she added. "By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law." But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. "Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote. "No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation -- in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
