Amit Shah and memories of a Gujarat Andolan that inspired JP's campaign against the Emergency
The Navanirman Andolan, launched by the students and middle-class in Gujarat towards the end of 1973, pulled down the state government in a matter of months.
The success of that agitation would go on to spur the successful movement against Emergency that was declared 50 years ago to this day — on June 25, 1975.
Two key leaders involved in the agitation reshaped national politics during the period.
The first was Jayaprakash (JP) Narayan, the Lok Nayak who led the people's movement against then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the Emergency.
The other important figure was Morarji Desai, the leader of Congress (Organisation), which had split from the mother party when Congress (I) was formed.
Morarji went on to become the leader of the Janata Party government that came to power in 1977 after Indira was ousted.
JP came to Gujarat in 1974 after the students approached him to lead the Navnirman Andolan. The Andolan had begun with protests, among other things, against the high food fees at the mess in the Morbi Engineering College. But then it spread and began to be directed against the government of Chimanbhai Patel, the then Chief Minister.
Chimanbhai was forced — by the pressure mounted by the Andolan and its popularity — to resign by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on February 9, 1974.
The movement would inspire JP, who had been wrestling with the problem of how he could mount a serious challenge against the corruption he saw in his home state of Bihar during this period.
"For years I was groping to find a way out. In fact while my objectives have never changed, I have all along been searching for the right way to achieve it. I wasted two years trying to bring about a politics of consensus. It came to nothing...
"Then I saw students in Gujarat bring about a political change with the backing of the people...and knew that this was the way out," he wrote in Everyman's Weekly that came out on August 3, 1974.
The Bihar movement that JP launched, inspired by the Navnirman Andolan, later transformed into the Sampoorna Kranti that forced Indira Gandhi out of power.
Three days after Emergency was revoked, on 24 March 1977, Morarji Desai was sworn in as Prime Minister — at the ripe old age of 81 — the oldest leader to hold the office till date.
Among those who heard stories of those highly-charged days was an 11-year-old Balsevak going by the name of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah.
On June 25, 2025 — the 50th anniversary of the announcement of Emergency — the now Home Minister shared his memories on X.
"I was a Bal Swayamsevak of RSS then and heard firsthand the excesses and injustices during the dark days of Emergency. The memories of that time, though faded as I was very young then — the suppression, the torture, the blatant assault on democratic values — are still vivid in my memories," Amit Shah recounted.
He also expressed his "immense pride in having been associated with a movement that stood up against this tyranny, and with a leader who fearlessly raised his voice to protect Bharat's democracy and its Constitution (Jayaprakash Narayan)," he added.
Shah slammed the Emergency "imposed 50 years ago, by a despotic ruler, whose sole aim was to preserve her dynastic rule".
It "was one of the darkest chapters in India's history", the Home Minister underlined.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
44 minutes 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)
India Gazette
44 minutes ago
- India Gazette
"BJP, Congress often play such tricks": Mayawati on RSS leader's suggestion to remove 'secular, socialist' from Preamble
Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) [India], June 29 (ANI): Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) supremo Mayawati on Saturday lashed out at the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition Congress amid the ongoing controversy over the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's (RSS) general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's pitch to remove 'secular and socialist' from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, saying that both the parties often collude with each other. She said that Congress and the BJP often play such tricks to hide their wrong policies. 'Congress and the BJP often play such tricks to hide their government's wrong policies and to divert people's attention. Both the Congress and the BJP are often in collusion with each other,' Mayawati said in a press conference. She further accused the BJP government at the centre of 'never implementing' the Constitution with honesty. 'For the welfare and well-being of the entire society in the country, Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar has given India the Constitution. The Congress party, while in power, and now the people of the BJP-led NDA government have never implemented it with full honesty and integrity for the crores of people of the country. Both these parties and their supporters have also made many unnecessary changes in the Constitution from time to time, mostly under their party's ideology, principles and political interests. BSP condemns this in the strongest words,' Mayawati said. Earlier, Congress leader and Lok Sabha Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi came down heavily on the RSS, saying that it doesn't want the Constitution but the Manusmriti. Intensifying his attack, Gandhi said that RSS intended to violate the rights of the marginalised and the poor while enslaving them. 'The mask of RSS has come off again,' he added. 'RSS-BJP doesn't want the Constitution. They want Manusmriti. They aim to strip the marginalised and the poor of their rights and enslave them again. Snatching a powerful weapon like the Constitution from them is their real agenda,' the Congress leader posed on X. This development comes after Hosabale questioned the legitimacy of including the terms 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution on Thursday while addressing a program on the 50th anniversary of the Emergency held at Dr Ambedkar International Centre, jointly organised by the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (under the Ministry of Culture), Ambedkar International Centre. He remarked that during the Emergency, terms like 'socialism' and 'secular' were forcibly inserted into the Constitution -- a move that needs to be reconsidered today. He emphasised that the Emergency wasn't just a misuse of power but an attempt to crush civil liberties. Millions were imprisoned, and freedom of the press was suppressed. (ANI)
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.
