Latest news with #TheEmergency:APersonalHistory
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Revisiting Emergency through images
It has been 50 years since the Emergency was imposed on June 25, 1975. It lasted all of 21 months, coming to an end on March 21, 1977. Its impact, however, has lasted longer. The Emergency era remains fresh in the minds of the public, with politicians and academics invested in the constitution and polity of the nation. 'The long 1970s were the hinge on which the contemporary history of India turned, transforming the young postcolonial country into today's India,' author Srinath Raghavan said in a recent interview with The Hindu. His book Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India is only one of many recent works aiming to demystify these years and what transpired. Only recently, Coomi Kapoor's The Emergency: A Personal History received an uncertain Bollywood treatment in the form of Kangana Ranaut's similarly titled film, which received a lukewarm response. As several narratives exist — political, academic, imaginative — there exist some undeniable facts and turning points during this era. We take a look at some images published by The Hindu, which sought to capture the zeitgeist — before, during and after the Emergency era. Also read: Revisiting a dark chapter: 50th anniversary of Emergency declaration ARCHITECTS OF THE EMERGENCY: Prime Minister Indira Gandhi with President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, when she called on him on August 21, 1974. Mrs. Ahmed is at left. On her cabinet's advice, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed proclaimed Emergency under Article 352 citing 'internal disturbances'. Photo: The Hindu Archives THE MARCH THAT SHOOK MRS. GANDHI: Socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan is seen seated outside the locked gate of the Patna Secretariat while leading the anti-corruption movement in Bihar in October 1974. As JP began touring more states, he also united several anti-Congress parties and the protests against Indira Gandhi government grew, which was seen as a prime reason for her recommending the Emergency. Photo: The Hindu Archives JP's MOVEMENT: JP leading a 'march to Parliament' in Delhi in March 1975. His movement brought an end to the Congress rule at the Centre for the first time in 1977. Different political parties came together under the banner of his Janata Party to provide the country its first non-Congress government. Photo: The Hindu Archives GUJARAT REVOLT: Morarji Desai (centre) sat on an indefinite fast to press for early election in Gujarat. Elections were held in June and for the first time and the only time, Gujarat threw a hung Assembly verdict. Two weeks later, Emergency was imposed. RAILWAYS STRIKE: This image, which later became a symbol of the state of Emergency, was taken when trade union leader George Fernandes was arrested during the all India railway strike in May 1974. Fernandes led the agitation demanding pay revision and eight-hour work shifts for railway workers. Despite his arrest, about 70% of railway workers stayed off from work, bringing the country's largest PSU to a standstill. A LEGAL BATTLE LOST: Indira Gandhi lost the legal battle in the Allahabad High Court in a petition filed by Raj Narain (in picture), challenging her election in 1971 from Rae Bareli in Uttar Pradesh. The conviction meant she ceases to be an MP. EMERGENCY IMPOSED: The first page of The Hindu dated June 26, 1975, reports President proclaiming Emergency, on its front page. WHEN A CM PROTESTED: Karunanidhi, then the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, distributes handmade pamphlets to public near Anna Statue in Mount Road to protest press censorship during Emergency. On July 12, 1975, he addressed a mass meeting on the Marina Beach in Madras, declaring there was neither an internal nor external threat to India and called upon the vast concourse to take a pledge to defend their freedoms. His government was subsequently dismissed. This image was taken from a photo display at Kalaignar Karuvoolam. Photo: M. Vedhan THE STORY OF THE UNSEEN: When JP was addressing a meeting in Vijayawada against the Emergency in 1975, three three youngsters - Yalamanchali Sivaji, Yarlagadda Lakshmi Prasad and Kambhampati Hari Babu - can be seen. All of them became MPs subsequently. Sitting in the audience, but missed in the click is a young man who was among several people arrested for opposing the Emergency. It was M. Venkaiah Naidu, who went on to be the Vice-president of India. This picture was shared with The Hindu by Dr. Sivaji. Photo: Special Arrangement DMK FACES THE WRATH: Young DMK leaders M.K. Stalin, Arcot Veerasamy, Murasoli Maran were among those detained in MISA. C. Chittibab, former Mayor of Madras, died in custody while trying to protect Stalin. Photo shows the cell at the erstwhile Madras Central Prison where Chief Minister M.K. Stalin was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act during the Emergency. THE GOVERNMENT NARRATIVE: In this image shared by the Press Information Bureau, some of the members of the Indian community in London, called on Indira Gandhi, in New Delhi on September 15, 1975. They had participated in the massive demonstration in support of Emergency measures and against the distortions by the British press and BBC. Photo: Special Arrangement THE JANATA GOVERNMENT: Morarji Desai (left) talking to L.K. Advani (right) while Jayaprakash Narayan watching them, in New Delhi on January 22, 1977. This photograph wouldn't have been possible prior the Emergency given their political views. But the anti-Congress leaders joined hands to form the Janata government, handing out Congress its first defeat at the Centre. Moraji Desai became the Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, the I&B Minister, while JP chose to stay away from electoral politics. Photo: The Hindu Archives ENDING EMERGENCY: Indira Gandhi called for fresh elections in March 1977 and released all political prisoners. The picture shows Ms. Gandhi meeting leaders of the Opposition parties in New Delhi on January 28, 1977. NEW LEADERS RISE: The Emergency gave birth to a new wave of politicians, Chandra Shekhar being a prominent face. He and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who were ministers in the Janata Government, eventually became prime ministers.
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Emergency wasn't just a reaction to judiciary's rulings
On June 25, 1975, India was put under Emergency. People were stripped of their constitutional rights and horrors were inflicted on them. Critics of the government and Opposition leaders were put behind bars. Some of them never tasted freedom again, breathing their last while incarcerated. Fifty years later, the Emergency remains a dark chapter in India's democratic journey. It must be recalled, remembered and condemned because the real reason for imposing the Emergency was far more sinister than commonly understood. Many believe that Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency because she was rattled by Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha's judgment invalidating her election from Rae Bareilly. By her own admission, Mrs Gandhi did it sensing an 'internal threat' in the country in June. Evidence, however, suggests the plot to enforce the Emergency had been underway since early January that year. Journalist Coomi Kapoor in The Emergency: A Personal History mentions a handwritten note (dated January 8, 1975) from then West Bengal Chief Minister Siddhartha Shankar Ray requesting Mrs Gandhi for lists of persons proposed to be arrested. The list also mentioned various other steps that needed to be taken. On August 11, Congress mouthpiece National Herald stated in an editorial the real reason for the Emergency. It said that the time had come for India to evolve into a single-party democracy. In Indira Gandhi and the Years that Transformed India, historian Srinath Raghavan writes that Mrs Gandhi's closest aides had been pushing for a presidential system. This system was one of limited dictatorship, a committed judiciary and a committed bureaucracy. In September 1975, B K Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and close aide of Mrs Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a 'tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support'. He wrote to Mrs Gandhi that Parliamentary democracy had 'not been able to provide the answer to our needs' and urged her to 'make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority'. One would have dismissed the letter as an act to please the PM had Mrs Gandhi not approved of discussing these ideas with her party leaders. The ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh. As these aides explored the proposals made by B K Nehru on Mrs Gandhi's instructions, what emerged was a document titled 'A fresh look at our Constitution: Some suggestions'. Drafted in 1975, the document proposed a presidential system with a powerful president and a 'Superior Council of Judiciary' to control judicial appointments and legislation, effectively diminishing the Supreme Court's role. In response to Mrs Gandhi's call to 'explore BK Nehru's proposal and party demand for constitutional change', Congress president D K Barooah appointed, on February 26, 1976, a committee 'to study the question of amendment of the Constitution… in the light of experience'. The 12-member committee, headed by Swaran Singh, submitted 'tentative proposals' to the Congress president in April 1976 and these were then circulated among a select few. The then Chairman of the Law Commission of India, Justice P B Gajendragadkar, wrote to Mrs Gandhi that while an amendment to the Constitution was necessary, 'ad-hocism is undesirable and adoption of extremist doctrinaire positions is irrelevant and inadvisable'. He advised the then PM 'to appoint a high-powered committee to research and discuss the problem in depth for a dedicated and comprehensive effort'. Sadly, no such committee was appointed. Justice Gajendragadkar later reiterated his view that the amendments to the fundamental law of the land should not have been left to a party committee and that the modality could, advisedly, have been a committee of experts to hear all parties and persons. He said that the committee appointed by Barooah had 'worked in a hurry, discussed issues in a casual manner and based its recommendations mainly on political considerations'. The 42nd Amendment, infamously called the 'mini-Constitution', brought in sweeping changes. Its primary objective, based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, was to enhance the power of the central government and reduce the influence of the judiciary. The 42nd Amendment curtailed the power of the courts to review and invalidate laws passed by Parliament. This was done by amending Articles 32, 131, and 226. It also diluted the power of high courts to issue writ petitions. This is the same power that B R Ambedkar said was the very heart and soul of India's Constitution. The 42nd Amendment altered the balance of power between the Centre and the states. States found themselves with less control over their own affairs, leading to tensions and conflicts over jurisdiction and governance. The centralisation of power made it harder for regional parties to advocate for regional issues. The publication of parliamentary proceedings in the media was prohibited under the Emergency. The Statesman warned that 'by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the Parliament'. The attempt Congress made to impose dictatorship in the country was throttled as, despite the mass jailing of leaders, the Opposition — which would later form the Janata Party — continued to fight for people's rights and the restoration of democracy. Mrs Gandhi also faced backlash from the global community and was rattled by political developments in the Subcontinent where similar attempts were made to usurp people's rights. But the basic DNA of Congress stays the same. Congress leaders walking around with copies of the Constitution are attempting to make people forget the party's gory past. June 25 serves as a reminder that the Indian Constitution is above and before all else. Led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the BJP and the country together will continue to defend it. The writer is Union Minister for Environment, Forest & Climate Change
The Print
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
Control, fear, and division—Congress hasn't changed even 50 years after Emergency
Journalist Coomi Kapoor, in her detailed account titled The Emergency: A Personal History , wrote that more people were jailed during those 21 months than during the entire Quit India Movement in 1942. This single line tells you how deep the betrayal ran. That night, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed a nationwide Emergency. With one signature, the Constitution was rendered powerless, civil liberties vanished, and the world's largest democracy slipped into darkness. Over the next 21 months, India became unrecognisable. Parliament was silenced, the courts stood helpless, the press lost its voice, and the people lost their rights. It was on the night of 25 June 1975 that India's democracy was quietly smothered under the weight of fear and tyranny. Not by an invading army. Not by a colonial power. But by our own elected government. A government led by the Congress party, the same party that claims it gave India its freedom. The party that once chanted slogans of freedom jailed its own citizens for demanding it. Courtroom verdict that shook a PM The seeds of the Emergency were sown in a courtroom. In the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, Indira Gandhi secured a massive win from Rae Bareli. But her victory was contested by Raj Narain, a socialist leader, who accused her of electoral fraud. On 12 June 1975, the Allahabad High Court found her guilty and declared her election void. The verdict disqualified her from holding office for six years. Her political legitimacy stood shattered. And rather than stepping down, she chose to strike at the very roots of democracy. Gandhi advised then-President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to declare an Emergency. The order was signed in haste on the night of 25 June. The people of India went to sleep in a free country and woke up in a dictatorship. Also read: JP wasn't a saviour of Constitution. He called Mao his guru India in chains What followed was one of the darkest periods in our republic's history. Opposition leaders were thrown into jail. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, LK Advani, Morarji Desai, Jayaprakash Narayan – all were imprisoned under harsh laws like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). The press was brought to its knees through censorship. Some newspapers, like The Indian Express, left editorial pages blank in protest. Students were hunted, citizens were watched, and those who spoke were put behind bars. The infamous forced sterilisation drive robbed countless people of dignity and choice. Even those within Congress who raised their voices paid the price. Leaders like S Jaipal Reddy in Andhra Pradesh and then-Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi were targeted for daring to oppose the Emergency. Government figures reported over one lakh detainees under the MISA and Defence of India Rules (DIR). It was not just politics that suffered. India's soul was under arrest. The people answer back Despite the repression, the people did not forget. And when given the chance, they responded with courage. On 21 March 1977, the Emergency was lifted. In the elections that followed, the Congress faced the full force of public anger. The Janata Party coalition swept to power. Indira Gandhi lost her seat in Rae Bareli to Raj Narain, the very man whose challenge had triggered the crisis. Congress was wiped out in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. For the first time, Indians realised that change was possible. That a Congress-free India was not a dream, but a choice. Has the Congress changed? The short answer is no. The same mindset that led to the Emergency still lingers in the Congress party today. It still believes in power without accountability. It still believes that only one family has the right to lead. Time and again, it has sidelined deserving leaders in favour of dynastic loyalty. Time and again, it has sidelined capable leaders in favour of dynastic loyalty. A telling example is that of Jyotiraditya Scindia. After the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, despite being a promising young leader from Madhya Pradesh and a loyal member of the party, he was kept away from key decision-making and denied major responsibilities. Eventually, disillusioned, he left the Congress to join the BJP in 2020, and now serves as a Union minister. This episode clearly reflects the Congress' persistent preference for family over merit. The Congress that once dominated Indian politics now barely holds on. It governs in only a few states. In many parts of the country, it has no presence at all. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, it contested 328 seats, but could win only 99. In several constituencies, it finished third or lower. This is not just a story of electoral defeat, it is a story of losing touch with the people. Also read: Alienating Hindus broke Congress. It must win them back to survive Emergency is a warning, not a memory Today, 50 years later, the Emergency still haunts our collective memory. It is a reminder that freedom cannot be taken for granted. That institutions must be protected. That democracy needs not just elections, but accountability, courage, and truth. Had Congress respected democracy after Independence, India could have marched forward much faster. Instead, decades were lost to a politics of control, fear, and division. The India we see today – confident, growing, respected across the world – is not the result of Emergency-style governance. It is the result of restoring people's trust, empowering citizens, and putting the nation first. The Emergency was not just a political blunder. It was a betrayal. The Congress party tried to erase the very idea of democracy in India. That cannot be forgotten. It should never be forgiven. Those who hijacked MK Gandhi's name have no right to speak about freedom. It is time they apologise to the nation. It is time they step aside. Only then will India's democracy truly be complete. S Vishnu Vardhan Reddy is Vice President, BJP Andhra Pradesh. He tweets @SVishnuReddy. Views are personal. (Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
Scroll.in
27-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Scroll.in
In movies based on real events, how far can creators stretch ‘creative liberty'?
'Sometimes you have to forsake accuracy, but you must never forsake truth.' That's how Peter Morgan defended the expansive creative liberties taken in The Crown, the acclaimed Netflix series that he created and scripted. The show tells the story of the British royal family through the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. Though the show's creators have clearly said that The Crown is a 'fictional dramatisation … inspired by real events', it has been criticised for inaccuracy. One critic derided it as ' fake history '. The debate about how much creative liberty the creators of dramatised works based on real events can take played out in India this week, as a controversy broke out about actor-director Kangana Ranaut's biopic Emergency about Indira Gandhi. Veteran journalist Coomi Kapoor alleged that distortions and misrepresentations in the film are being blamed on her 2015 book, The Emergency: A Personal History, for which she had signed adaptation rights with Ranaut's Manikarnika Films Private Limited. Kapoor told The Telegraph that the facts about Indira Gandhi's life are in the public domain. ' Don't cite the book and present wrong facts,' she said. Kapoor has sued Manikarnika Films and Netflix for defamation and breach of contract. Responding to the legal notices, Manikarnika Films on April 10 said that the film was based not just Kapoor's book but on other material too. It said that the agreement explicitly allowed for creative liberties 'to make necessary modifications to the subject story and screenplay', reported The Telegraph. The company also said Kapoor had given them 'absolute and complete intellectual property rights'. The case raises questions about the legal rights of authors of non-fiction works when their work is adapted for the screen and how far creative liberty can be taken. Signing a contract for the rights of a non-fiction book does give a filmmaker creative licence – but not to the extent that the screen adaptation is untrue to the source material, said lawyers and an editor at a publishing house. 'Authors have a right against distortion or mutilation of their work if it affects their honour or reputation,' said Nikhil Narendran, a technology and media lawyer and partner at the law firm Trilegal. It is also important to differentiate between dramatisation and completely distorting or twisting of facts, he said. 'A misrepresentation of a fact from a non-fiction work is arguably a distortion,' said Narendran. 'Especially when a movie claims that it is made on a non-fiction book, but distorts facts represented in that book.' Signing away rights Priya Kapoor, editorial director at Roli Books, said that contracts involving screen adaptations can only go so far in protecting the author and their work – unless specific protective clauses are negotiated into the agreement. To protect the reputation of the book, Kapoor said the filmmaker or serial maker is usually asked to add a disclaimer stating that the work is 'based loosely' on a book and that the author or publisher is not liable for creative liberties that have been taken. Lawyer Dushyant Arora said adaptation contracts are fiercely and closely negotiated. 'Some of these contracts not only reserve some sort of a greenlight as far as the script is concerned, sometimes they also reserve rights as far as the casting is concerned,' he said. Coomi Kapoor had signed a tripartite contract with her publisher, Penguin Random House, and Manikarnika Films, according to The Print. The agreement granted the producers 'full artistic licence' but without modifying anything 'not in consonance with historical facts'. It also added that the author's name and book were not to be used to promote the film without her approval. Legal cover Sometimes, filmmakers buy the rights to a non-fiction book to use it as a legal shield if a social or political group takes exception to something shown on screen. More important, basing a show or film on a book adds credibility, even if material about the subject is widely available. 'They need a solid IP [intellectual property], like a book, to underline their entire storymaking,' said Priya Kapoor. Streaming platforms want this too, she said. 'They're saying, where is the research coming from, where are these facts coming from?' she added. 'You can't just put it out there. Put out a book behind it – and pay for it.' But this strategy comes with limitations. '...When you claim that your movie is based on a book, you can't deviate from basic facts presented there, or else you will face claims of mutilations and distortion,' Narendran said. That's what Coomi Kapoor complained about to The Print. She noted that Ranaut's biopic prominently credited her book as the source. 'In order to give credibility to their work, they used my name,' she said. Journalist Sunetra Choudhury, one of the co-authors of Black Warrant, which was published by Lotus Roli Books and turned into a Netflix series, said that she could have asked for riders while selling adaptation rights but the agreement was based on trust as well as familiarity with director Vikram Aditya Motwane's work. 'They had a special screening for us and we were very happy with what they'd done because it was very nuanced,' she said. The limits of creative liberty One of the contentious features of Peter Morgan's approach of blending fact with fiction in The Crown is how he imagines dialogue between characters. Josh O'Connor, who plays Prince William in two seasons, told the BBC that Morgan takes historical facts, or moments in history viewers either remember or have seen footage of, and 'paints in-between those punctuation moments'. Dramatisation is key to making a film or television adaptation of real-life events engaging and entertaining. That is part of the creative licence that filmmakers seek when buying rights to a book, said Narendran. Choudhury said she was pleased that the web series of Black Warrant was true to the book. '...Of course they had to make dialogue and that dialogue is obviously creative liberty but it has the same spirit,' she said. Arora said that in the end, the makers of dramatised series and films based on real events owe their subjects the truth 'because you are profiting off their stories'. He explained: 'It is some sort of an act of documentation.' The Emergency is as much about the excesses of a power-hungry prime minister as it is about powerless citizens whose liberties were abused and whose lives were crushed by the state, he said. 'I think that especially when you're telling stories about power, democracy and the marginalised, you ought to stay as close to the truth,' he said. Here is a summary of the week's top stories. Pahalgam and its aftermath. India and Pakistan fired tit for tat diplomatic salvoes following the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam on Tuesday. Twenty-six persons were killed and 17 others were injured in the attack that took place in Anantnag district's Baisaran area. Militants fired at tourists, most of whom were from outside the state. The terrorists targeted tourists after asking their names to ascertain their religion, the police said. All but three of the dead were Hindu. India suspended visa services for Pakistani citizens and said all valid visas would be revoked from April 27, except medical visas, which would remain valid until April 29. Pakistani citizens in India under the SAARC visa scheme were given 48 hours to leave. India's Ministry of External Affairs also advised its citizens against travelling to Pakistan and urged those already there to return. India declared Pakistan's defence, military, naval and air advisers in New Delhi persona non grata and said it would withdraw its defence advisers from Islamabad. India also suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty on sharing water from the Indus and its tributaries. Pakistan said this was an 'act of war' and warned that it would respond with 'full force across the complete spectrum of national power'. It also said it would suspend the 1972 Simla Agreement signed with India in the aftermath of the 1971 war. Among other features, the agreement resulted in the recognition of the Line of Control that serves as the de facto boundary between the countries in much of Jammu and Kashmir. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that the punishment meted out by India for the attack will be ' bigger than what the terrorists imagine '. The contentious waqf amendment. The Union government told the Supreme Court that the Waqf Amendment Act does not violate constitutional rights. In an affidavit submitted on Friday, the government argued that the law regulates only secular aspects of waqf property management and steers clear of religious freedoms governed by Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution. The amendments, it said, were based on an 'in-depth and analytical study' and aimed at reforming administrative procedures. It also defended the inclusion of non-Muslims on waqf boards, saying these were secular bodies with advisory roles. The government said over 20 lakh hectares had been recorded as waqf land after 2013, alleging misuse of earlier provisions to encroach on private and public land. It opposed a 'blanket stay' on the law and said that legal challenges to it were based on the 'false premise' that it impinged on religious freedoms. The government assured the court it would not denotify waqf properties or appoint new council members before May 5, when the matter will be heard next. Court criticises Ramdev. Patanjali Ayurved founder Ramdev was ordered by the Delhi High Court to remove an advertisement in which he claimed that popular drink Rooh Afza was being used for 'sharbat jihad'. The court said that the comment by the yoga guru was 'indefensible'. Food company Hamdard, which makes the drink, had moved the court seeking the removal of a video. While advertising for a Patanjali product on April 3, Ramdev, without naming Hamdard, claimed that proceeds from its sale were used to construct mosques. He described this as 'sharbat jihad'. While Ramdev defended his remark, arguing that he had not named any company, Justice Amit Bansal said that the comment 'shocks the conscience of court'. The court also directed Ramdev to file an affidavit that he would not repeat such statements. Follow the Scroll channel on WhatsApp for a curated selection of the news that matters throughout the day, and a round-up of major developments in India and around the world every evening. What you won't get: spam.
India Today
23-04-2025
- Entertainment
- India Today
Kangana's Emergency faces legal row over alleged fact distortion by book's author
Actor and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut's recent film 'Emergency' is facing legal scrutiny after senior journalist and author Coomi Kapoor accused the filmmakers of misusing her work and distorting has alleged that Manikarnika Films Private Limited, owned by Ranaut, along with Netflix, has 'intentionally and maliciously distorted facts' and exploited her name by claiming that the film is based on her 2015 book 'The Emergency: A Personal History', published by stated that a tripartite agreement between herself, Penguin and Manikarnika Films regarding the adaptation rights of the book had been 'blatantly breached'. Kapoor further accused the filmmakers of 'multiple factual inaccuracies and misleading portrayals of historical events'.'My daughter is a lawyer, so on her advice, I included two clauses. While the producers had full artistic freedom to create the film, nothing should be altered that contradicts historical facts that are publicly available,' Kapoor explained.'The contract also stated that the author's name and book could not be used for promoting or exploiting the film without prior written consent. I was in Goa and had not seen the film at the time, believing that they would honour the contract. But they are still claiming that the film is based on the book,' she added, noting that she has already sent two legal notices but has not received a also referenced an August 2023 WhatsApp exchange with Kangana Ranaut's brother, Aksht Ranaut of Manikarnika Films, where she stressed that the contract terms must be followed and that while referencing her book in the sources was acceptable, describing the film as 'based on her book' was not. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Netflix India (@netflix_in)Directed and produced by Kangana Ranaut, the film chronicles the Emergency months in India and how people went through has played former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in the film, while Anupam Kher, Shreyas Talpade, Vishak Nair, Milind Soman and later actor Satish Kaushik featured in pivotal roles. The film was delayed after the Central Bureau of Film Certification (CBFC) withheld certification for several months, before finally giving it a U/A certifcate with a few cuts.'Emergency' was produced by Zee Studios and Manikarnika Watch
