Today, as political discord echoes through our democracy, I find myself reflecting on those dark days of Emergency and the enduring wounds inflicted on our nation’s soul

It was only in 1956 that I got some idea of how the Constitution of India was framed, and who were the major personalities that constituted the historic Constituent Assembly. The teacher who introduced me to it was a great admirer of Mahatma Gandhi and adored Pandit Nehru and Neta Ji Subhash Chandra Bose. The library had a copy of the constitution of India having the signatures of all of the members of the Constituent Assembly and also images representing Indian culture and heritage. We learnt the Preamble by heart.   This teacher-created interest amongst students interested in dramatics, and after hectic preparation of a couple of weeks, a mock Constituent Assembly was enacted in the presence of a huge gathering.

This young teacher was also confident that the ancient Indian culture now be resurrected, and the entire world would know how advanced Indians were in ‘thought and deed’! In 1975, I read the constitution in all seriousness, and witnessed how it was being mercilessly mutilated! After nearly five decades, as one peruses the print and electronic media, one witnesses a slugfest between the union government and the opposition, it makes one reflect on the emergency days, and one just can’t avoid reflecting on the 18 months of democratic darkness that shattered the lives of millions of the people. It ruined the credibility of Indian democracy internationally.

No apology could erase the wound inflicted on the constitution and the humiliation of the stalwarts who created the constitution of India. Was it not a shameless humiliation inflicted on Baba Sahib Bhim Rao Ambedkar? He had repeatedly opposed the inclusion of the term ‘secular in the Preamble of the Constitution. How could any active and alert citizen forget the fact that the 44th Constitution Amendment Act was passed by a Parliament that was in its arbitrarily-extended sixth year? Practically all of the opposition stalwarts were in jail!  Today, any voice that says ‘I want my original Preamble back’ should be deciphered in the spirit it deserves to be comprehended in its objectivity.

It could certainly be a great tribute to Dr Baba Sahib Ambedkar! This correction would offer a healing touch to persons like me who had witnessed the emergency and also -to a great extent – to those who had suffered damages of an irreversible nature. Let me narrate a personal experience.

One senior academic was appointed head of a regional institute in Bhopal in December 1974.   In August 1975, he was asked to report to report to his central office New Delhi next day ‘for consultations’. I was number two in the institutional hierarchy and had become a full Professor just a year back in August 1974.  I assisted him in preparing certain project proposals he would carry that evening for obtaining sanction from New Delhi. 

The next morning, I received a ‘lightening call’ to take over as Head of the institution immediately, as the incumbent stood removed from his position.  It was shocking, and I was just not ready to comply.  I was advised by all my well-wishers including those from senior bureaucracy and police services to quietly ‘take over’, without in any way indicating unwillingness. 

On return, the summarily sacked academic described the ordeal he suffered. As he was to reach the designated office, a peon was waiting with a letter that he swiftly handed over, obtained his signatures on the peon book, and vanished! 

I got instructions to ensure that no one even meets him!  I insisted that the head of an academic institution should not be humiliated before his students.  A lady bureaucrat from the New Delhi office reposed faith in me, but told me that only I, and I alone, would be responsible for any mishap that may occur, and its consequences. 

The academic who was humiliated and removed never got justice during his remaining lifetime of around two decades.

Those who would not like even a mention of emergency could recall how strongly India was proud of the persona of that great intellectual and jurist Nani Palakhivala. He had refused the brief from Mrs Indira Gandhi and fought for the constitution in draconian conditions.

His reflections on emergency shall remain ever-relevant: “No period in the history of our republic is of more educative value than 1975 t0 1977. George Santayana said, ‘Progress far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness… Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. If our basic freedoms are to survive, it is of vital importance that we remember the happenings during emergency when the freedoms were suspended”. 

Is it necessary to ‘fight facts’ to negate the truth?  What we witness all around us in the world of the current-day average politicians was envisioned by Sri Aurobindo in his lifetime: “The modern politician in my part of the world does not represent the soul of a people or its aspirations.

What he does usually represent is all the average pettiness, selfishness, egoism, self-deception that is about him and these he represents well enough as well as a great deal of mental incompetence and moral conventionality, timidity and pretence”. All of these attributes have grown up in gigantic proportions in our times. The only way out is the sincere acceptance of diversity of every imaginable hue, and revert back to the great dialogical tradition.

The adults and elders must realize what the young of India are getting from them in the years of their growing up!

(Professor Rajput works in education, social cohesion and religious amity; views are personal)