EASTERN ACADEMY IMPHAL

CUET-UG

POLITICAL SCIENCE

CH: 6 THE CRISIS OF DEMCRATIC ORDER

THE BACKGROUND TO EMERGENCY

• Since 1967 Indira Gandhi had emerged as a towering leader with tremendous popularity.
• There were tensions between the judiciary and the government.
• The Supreme Court found many initiatives of the government to be violative of the
Constitution and the Congress party took the position that this stand of the Court was
against principles of democracy and parliamentary supremacy.
• In the years preceding the Emergency, the country was facing a social and economic
crisis. Monsoons had failed and the prices were skyrocketing. Economic growth was at a
standstill.
• Students led protests in Gujarat and Bihar played a pivotal role in galvanizing a nation-
wide opinion against the Indian National Congress and the then Prime Minister, Indira
Gandhi.
• The government claimed that the strikes and protests paralysed the country and hurt the
economy. Indira Gandhi’s loyalists and advisors advised her to impose an internal
emergency in order to deal with the massive political opposition, desertion and disorder
against her and the party.

ECONOMIC CONTEXT

• In the elections of 1971, Congress had given the slogan of garibi hatao but the social and
economic condition in the country did not improve much after 1971-72.
• There was an all round increase in prices of commodities when the US Government
stopped all aids to India following the war with Pakistan and the Bangladeash crisis.
• Industrial growth was low and unemployment was very high, particularly in the rural
areas.

1
 • Failure in monsoon during 1972-73 led to decline in agricultural productivity.
• In such a context non-Congress opposition parties were able to organise popular protests
effectively. Students’s protest became more pronounced. There was also an increase in
the activities of Marxist groups who did not believe in parliamentary politics.

GUJARAT AND BIHAR MOVEMENTS

• In January 1974 students in Gujarat started an agitation against rising prices of food
grains, cooking oil and other essential commodities, and against corruption in high
places. The students’ protest was joined by major opposition parties and became
widespread leading to the imposition of President’s rule in the state.
• The opposition parties demanded fresh elections to the state legislature. Morarji Desai,
announced an indefinite fast if fresh elections were not held in the State. Under intense
pressure from students, supported by the opposition political parties, assembly elections
were held in Gujarat in June 1975. The Congress was defeated in this election.
• In March 1974 students came together in Bihar to protest against rising prices, food
scarcity, unemployment and corruption.
• Jayaprakash Narayan was invited to lead the Student Movement.
• With JP leading the movement, it assumed a political character and had national appeal.
People from all walks of life now entered the movement.
• Jayaprakash Narayan gave a call for total revolution in the social, economic and political
spheres in order to establish what he considered to be true democracy. A series of bandhs,
gehraos, and strikes were organised in protest against the Bihar government.
• JP wanted to spread the Bihar Movement to other parts of the country.
• In 1975, JP led a peoples’ march to the Parliament. This was one of the largest political
rallies ever held in the capital. He was now supported by the non-Congress opposition
parties like the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the Congress (O), the Bharatiya Lok Dal, the
Socialist Party and others.
• The non-Congress opposition party projected JP as an alternative to Indira Gandhi.
• Both the Gujarat and the Bihar agitations were seen as anti-Congress and rather than
opposing the State governments.
• They were seen as protests against the leadership of Indira Gandhi.

2
 • Indira Gandhi believed that the movement was motivated by personal opposition to her.

CONFLICT WITH JUDICIARY AND BACKGROUND TO DECLARATION OF

• This was also the period when the government and the ruling party had many differences
with the judiciary.
• This led to a crisis- the famous Kesavananda Bharati Case. In this case, the Court gave a
decision that there are some basic features of the Constitution and the Parliament cannot
amend these features.
• The verdict in Kesavananda Bharti case: Any provision of the Indian Constitution can be
amended by the Parliament in order to fulfil its socio-economic obligations that were
guaranteed to the citizens as given in the Preamble, provided that such amendment did
not change the Constitution’s basic structure.
• In India, the basic structure doctrine has formed the bedrock of judicial review of all laws
passed by the Parliament. No law can impinge on the basic structure. What the basic
structure is, however, has been a continuing deliberation. Parliamentary democracy,
fundamental rights, judicial review, secularism- are all held by courts as basic structure. It
is the Judiciary that is responsible to decide what constitutes the basic structure.
• In 1973 immediately after Kesavananda Bharati case, a vacancy arose for the post of the
Chief Justice of India.
• The government set aside the seniority of three judges and appointed Justice A. N. Ray as
the Chief Justice of India. The appointment became politically controversial.
Constitutional interpretations and political ideologies were getting mixed up rapidly.
• In the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, Indira Gandhi had defeated the opposition candidate Raj
Narain from the Rae Bareli constituency. Raj Narain filed a petition in the Allahabad
High Court, accusing Indira Gandhi of electoral malpractices, bribing voters and
misusing government machinery. Indira Gandhi was cross-examined in the Allahabad
High Court, which also marked the first such instance for an Indian Prime Minister.
• On June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha found Indira Gandhi guilty of misusing
government machinery during her election campaign and declared her elections to be null
and void. The High Court also barred Indira Gandhi from contesting any elections for the

3
 next 6 years. The Court, however, gave the Indian National Congress 20 days time to
make arrangements to replace Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister. Indira Gandhi then
challenged the High Court verdict in the Supreme Court. On the 24th of June, 1975 the
Supreme Court granted her a partial stay on the High Court order. The Supreme Court
order had said that Indira Gandhi could remain an MP till her appeal was decided, but
could not take part in the Lok Sabha proceedings.
• On the 25th of June, 1975, Jayaprakash Narayan addressed a mammoth rally at the
Ramlila Ground in Delhi calling Indira Gandhi to vacate the thrown. It was joined by
thousands of people and opposition leaders.
• Jayaprakash Narayan also asked the armed forces to revolt against Indira Gandhi’s
government.
• That very night, a state of Emergency was declared in the country.
• Indira Gandhi claimed that there was a threat to internal disturbances and that
Jayaprakash Narayan was leading an agitation which was disrupting the basic activities of
the country.
• But the real reason was that there was a court case against her which she had lost in the
Allahabad High Court and because of that, for some time she could not be a
parliamentarian and her political position had become precarious and she was fearful that
the other members of her party would try and snatch away power from her.
• Article 352 was used by Gandhi to ‘advice’ the then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to
impose an internal emergency.

CONSEQUENCES

• After midnight, the electricity to all the major newspaper offices was disconnected. In the
early morning, a large number of leaders and workers of the opposition parties were
arrested. The government used the state machinery to crackdown on all political rivals.
Leaders arrested included JP, Morarji Desai, JB Kripalani, AB Vajpayee, Vijayaraje
Scindia, Charan Singh, LK Advani, Ashok Mehta, and all other opposition leaders of any
significance were put behind bars. A number of activists and journalists were also
arrested under the Defence of India Rules and Maintenance of Internal Security Act

4
 (MISA). The Cabinet was informed about it at a special meeting at 6 a.m. on 26 June,
after all this had taken place.
• The government suspended the freedom of the Press. Newspapers were asked to get prior
approval for all material to be published. In short there was press censorship.
• Various Fundamental Rights of citizens were suspended, including the right of citizens to
move the Court for restoring their Fundamental Rights.
• Many political workers who were not arrested in the first wave, went ‘underground’ and
organised protests against the government. Newspapers like the Indian Express and the
Statesman protested against censorship by leaving blank spaces where news items had
been censored. Magazines like the Seminar and the Mainstream chose to close down
rather than submit to censorship.
• Many new changes to the Constitution were brought about.
• In the background of the ruling of the Allahabad High Court in the Indira Gandhi case, an
amendment was made declaring that elections of Prime Minister, President and Vice-
President could not be challenged in the Court.
• The forty-second amendment was passed during the Emergency.
• Among the various changes made by this amendment, one was that the duration of the
legislatures in the country was extended from five to six years. This change was not only
for the Emergency period, but was intended to be of a permanent nature. Besides this,
during an Emergency, elections can be postponed by one year. Thus, effectively, after
1971, elections needed to be held only in 1978; instead of 1976.
• Almost all parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble and amending clause, were
changed by the 42nd Amendment, and some new articles and sections were inserted.
• The Parliament was given unrestrained power to amend any parts of the Constitution,
without judicial review.
• The 42nd Amendment also restricted the power of the courts.
• The 42nd Amendment was widely criticised, and the clampdown on civil liberties and
widespread abuse of human rights by police angered the public.
• The Emergency lasted from 25th June, 1975 until its withdrawal on the 21st of March,
1977.

5
 • During the Emergency, Indira Gandhi implemented a 20-point program of economic
reforms that resulted in greater economic growth, aided by the absence of strikes and
trade union conflicts. Encouraged by these positive signs and distorted and biased
information from her party supporters, Gandhi called for elections in May 1977.
• The twenty-point programme included land reforms, land redistribution, review of
agricultural wages, workers’ participation in management, eradication of bonded labour,
etc.
• Critics of Emergency pointed out that most of these promises by the government
remained unfulfilled, that these were simply meant to divert attention from the excesses
that were taking place.
• Apart from the arrests of political workers and the restrictions on the press, the
Emergency directly affected the lives of common people in many cases. Torture and
custodial deaths occurred during the Emergency; arbitrary relocation of poor people also
took place; and over-enthusiasm about population control led to cases of compulsory
sterilisation.
• Sanjay Gandhi, Indira Gandhi’s younger son, who did not hold any official position at the
time, gained control over the administration and allegedly interfered in the functioning of
the government. He was involved in the demolitions and forced sterilisation in Delhi
which was very controversial.

CONTROVERSIES REGARDING EMERGENCIES

• Emergency is one of the most controversial episodes in Indian politics: i) there are
differing view points about the need to declare emergency. ii) investigations by the Shah
Commission after the Emergency found out that there were many ‘excesses’ committed
during the Emergency. Through the use of powers given by the Constitution, the
government practically suspended the democratic functioning.
• Indira Gandhi wrote in a letter to the Shah Commission that subversive forces were trying
to obstruct the progressive programmes of the government and were attempting to
dislodge her from power through extra-constitutional means.
• Some other parties, like the CPI that continued to back the Congress during the
Emergency, also believed that there was an international conspiracy against the unity of

6
 India. They also felt that the agitations led by JP were mainly by the middle classes who
were opposed to the radical policies of the Congress party. After the Emergency, the CPI
felt that its assessment was mistaken and that it was an error to have supported the
Emergency.
• Critics of emergency argued that in a democracy people have the right to publicly protest
against the government. If some agitations had over-stepped their limits, the government
had enough routine powers to deal with it. The threat was not to the unity and integrity of
the country but to the ruling party and to the Prime Minister herself. The critics say that
Indira Gandhi misused a constitutional provision meant for saving the country to save her
personal power.

LESSONS OF THE EMERGENCY

• The Emergency at once brought out both the weaknesses and the strengths of India’s
democracy.
• It is extremely difficult to do away with democracy in India.
• Ambiguities regarding the Emergency provision in the Constitution have been rectified
since. Now, ‘internal’ Emergency can be proclaimed only on the grounds of ‘armed
rebellion’ and it is necessary that the advice to the President to proclaim Emergency must
be given in writing by the Council of Ministers.
• Emergency made everyone more aware of the value of civil liberties.
• The Courts too, have taken an active role after the Emergency in protecting the civil
liberties of the individuals in response to the inability of the judiciary to protect civil
liberties effectively during the emergency.
• The actual implementation of the Emergency rule took place through the police and the
administration. They were turned into political instruments of the ruling party and
according to the Shah Commission Report, the administration and the police became
vulnerable to political pressures. This problem did not vanish after the Emergency.

POLITICS AFTER EMERGENCY

• The 1977 elections turned into a referendum on the experience of the Emergency, at least
in north India where the impact of the Emergency was felt most strongly. The opposition

7
 fought the election on the slogan of ‘save democracy’. The people’s verdict was
decisively against the Emergency. The lesson was clear and has been reiterated in many
state level elections thereafter. In this sense the experience of 1975 -77 ended up
strengthening the foundations of democracy in India.

LOK SABHA ELECTION OF 1977

• In January 1977, after eighteen months of Emergency, the government decided to hold
elections and elections were held in March 1977.
• The major opposition parties had already been coming closer in the pre-Emergency
period. Now they came together on the eve of the elections and formed a new party,
known as the Janata Party. The new party accepted the leadership of Jayaprakash
Narayan. Some leaders of the Congress who were opposed to the Emergency also joined
this new party.
• Some other Congress leaders also came out and formed a separate party under the
leadership of Jagjivan Ram. This party was named as Congress for Democracy, later
merged with the Janata Party.
• The Janata Party made this election into a referendum on the Emergency. Its campaign
was focused on the non democratic character of the rule and on the various excesses that
took place during this period.
• The Congress could win only 154 seats in the Lok Sabha. Its share of popular votes fell to
less than 35 per cent. The Janata Party and its allies won 330 out of the 542 seats in the
Lok Sabha; Janata Party itself won 295 seats and thus enjoyed a clear majority.
• Indira Gandhi was defeated from Rae Bareli, as was her son Sanjay Gandhi from Amethi.

JANATA GOVERNMENT

• The Janata Party government came to power in the 1977 elections. But it was far from
cohesive.
• After the election, there was stiff competition among three leaders for the post of PM-
Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Jagjivan Ram. Eventually Morarji Desai became the Prime
Minister but that did not bring the power struggle within the party to an end.

8
 • Critics felt that the Janata Party lacked direction, leadership, and a common programme.
The Janata Party government could not bring about a fundamental change in policies
from those pursued by the Congress. The Party split and the government which was led
by Morarji Desai lost its majority in less than 18 months. Another government headed by
Charan Singh was formed which lasted for about four months only.
• Fresh Lok Sabha elections were held in January 1980 in which the Janata Party suffered a
comprehensive defeat, especially in north India where it had swept the polls in 1977.
• Congress party led by Indira Gandhi nearly repeated its great victory of 1971. It won 353
seats and came back to power.
• The experience of 1977-79 taught another lesson in democratic politics: governments that
are seen to be unstable and quarrelsome are severely punished by the voters.

LEGACY

• Between the elections of 1977 and 1980 the party system had changed dramatically. The
Congress party now identified itself with a particular ideology, claiming to be the only
socialist and pro-poor party.
• With the early nineteen seventies, the Congress’s political success depended on attracting
people on the basis of sharp social and ideological divisions and the appeal of one leader,
Indira Gandhi.
• Other opposition parties relied more and more on what is known in Indian politics as
‘non-Congressism’. They realized the need to avoid a division of non-Congress votes in
the election which played a major role in the elections of 1977.
• The Emergency and the period around it can be described as a period of constitutional
and political crisis because it had its origins in the constitutional battle over the
jurisdiction of the Parliament and the judiciary and even though the party in power had
absolute majority, its leadership decided to suspend the democratic process.
• There was also tension between institution-based democracy and democracy based on
spontaneous popular participation. This tension may be attributed to the inability of the
party system to incorporate the aspirations of the people.