The long shadow of Emergency: India has moved on. The BJP hasn’t!

Fifty-one years after the proclamation of the Emergency, India continues to debate one of the most controversial chapters in its democratic history. That debate may be legitimate. The Emergency deserves scrutiny, criticism and historical examination. What is less understandable, however, is why the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) continues to treat it as if it were a contemporary political issue rather than a historical event whose verdict has long since been delivered by both the people and history itself. In fact, the recent if the recent backsliding of democracy in India is taken into account, it is the BJP which as imposed an Undeclared Emergency. Breaking political parties, engineering defections, iron hand on a large section of the media ownership, crony capitalism, throttling institutions and misusing agencies - are all the characteristics of the Emergency, which, many would argue, are still in place.

Being a student of Indian politics, I have often had debates (both online and offline) on the Emergency. The majority of the arguments against it either come from the people who have a diametrically opposite ideology and political philosophy from mine, or the rest come from people who have not dug deeper into the reasons of imposition of the Emergency and are only indoctrinated by superficial trappings. In fact, many of the Congress contemporaries too, are more often than not uncomfortable in delving or discussing the Emergency.

The Congress party has never claimed that the Emergency was without fault. Over the decades, its top leadership, including Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Former PM, Dr Manmohan Singh, have publicly acknowledged excesses committed during that period. Indira Gandhi herself sought the judgment of the people by calling elections in 1977 and accepted the electorate's verdict when she was defeated. The Congress leadership has repeatedly expressed regret over that chapter of history.

Yet every year, particularly around June 25, the BJP and its ecosystem attempt to revive the Emergency as a political weapon. The purpose is not historical reflection. It is a political mobilisation. A government confident in its present would not need to constantly campaign against a government that ceased to exist nearly half a century ago. Any serious assessment of the Emergency must begin with an understanding of the circumstances that preceded it. History cannot be examined selectively.

The early 1970s were marked by extraordinary instability. India faced economic distress, inflation, food shortages, the after-effects of war and severe drought conditions. Political agitations were intensifying across the country. In Gujarat, the Nav Nirman movement began as a student protest but quickly evolved into a larger political campaign demanding the dismissal of an elected government.

The question is worth asking: how does a student movement transition from protesting fee hikes to demanding the removal of a government that enjoys a legislative majority? Such developments did not occur in a political vacuum.

After the resignation of the Gujarat government and the imposition of President's Rule, opposition leaders saw an opportunity to replicate the model elsewhere. Jayaprakash Narayan, whose personal integrity commanded enormous public respect, emerged as the central figure of a nationwide movement seeking what he called "Sampurna Kranti" or Total Revolution.

The moral appeal of JP's movement was undeniable. However, the methods adopted by sections of the opposition increasingly moved beyond conventional democratic politics. Calls for bandhs, gheraos, parallel structures of authority and sustained disruption became common features of political mobilisation.

In Bihar, the movement escalated further. Despite concessions by the elected government, demands continued to expand. Political agitation gradually evolved into a challenge to the authority of constitutional institutions themselves. By late 1974, discussions of Janata Sarkars and Janata Adalats reflected attempts to establish parallel centres of political legitimacy.

Equally significant were the railway strikes of 1974. What began as an industrial dispute soon acquired overt political dimensions. George Fernandes famously declared that a nationwide railway strike could bring the country to a standstill. In a speech mobilising railway workers, he stated: “Seven days strike of the Indian Railways- every thermal station of the country would close down. A ten-day strike of the Indian Railways- every steel mill in India would close down and the industries of the country would come to a halt for the next 12 months... A fifteen-day strike in Indian Railways- the country would starve.”

The opposition’s main aim was to wreck the economy and paralyse the administration. This is why they pitched their demands so high and displayed little interest in negotiation of their demands.

It was clear to the Government that the strike was politically motivated and was planned to paralyze the country. With its back to the wall, the Government had to defend the state and assert its right to govern. Indira Gandhi’s Government came down heavily on the protesters. Thousands of employees were arrested and their families were driven out of their quarters.

There were also growing concerns about external interference. The Cold War context cannot be ignored. Following India’s role in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 and its nuclear test in 1974, relations with major Western powers were strained. Intelligence assessments of the period reflected anxieties regarding foreign involvement in domestic political developments.

The immediate trigger, however, was the Allahabad High Court judgment of June 12, 1975, which invalidated Indira Gandhi’s election from Rae Bareli. While the Supreme Court granted a conditional stay, the political atmosphere had already become highly charged. What followed intensified the crisis. Opposition leaders organised nationwide campaigns against the government. Demonstrations, gheraos and civil disobedience were planned on a large scale. Most controversially, Jayaprakash Narayan publicly called upon the police, armed forces and civil servants not to obey what he considered unjust orders.

Jan Morcha- a motley group of 10 parties, with Morarjee Desai as Chairman was formed. In a rally in Ramlila Grounds, he asked the army, the police and the Government servants not to obey orders and challenged the Government to try him of treason.

He even said encouraged the military to plan a coup and gherao the PM’s residence. For any elected government, such appeals would have raised serious questions about constitutional authority and state stability. On June 25, 1975, the Emergency was declared under Article 352 of the Constitution. It was a constitutional provision, though the manner of its use remains one of the most fiercely debated issues in modern Indian history.

What happened thereafter is equally well documented. Civil liberties were curtailed. Political opponents were arrested. Press freedoms were restricted. Excesses occurred, some undeniable and some exaggerated over time through political retelling. None of these actions should be dismissed or justified casually.

The Emergency remains a cautionary lesson about the concentration of power and the fragility of democratic institutions. But that lesson has already been absorbed by Indian democracy. The people rejected the Congress in 1977. The Congress accepted that verdict. The party apologised. Indira Gandhi herself acknowledged mistakes. The democratic process functioned exactly as it was supposed to. Similar conditions or even worse conditions were created during the Morarji Desai Government too. But then it did not have a legal, constitutional, and Parliamentary sanction of the Emergency.

The same exists, perhaps in a different form, even today. That is why the contemporary obsession with the Emergency appears increasingly disconnected from India’s present realities.

Young Indians today are concerned about employment, paper leaks, inflation, education, social harmony, economic opportunity and institutional accountability. They are not waiting for daily reminders about a political event that occurred half a century ago.

History should be studied, not weaponised. The irony is difficult to ignore. A party that invokes the Emergency every year often shows little interest in discussing contemporary concerns with the same intensity. The past becomes a convenient substitute for the BJP to avoid answering questions about the present.

The Emergency will always remain part of India’s democratic story. It should be remembered honestly, debated rigorously and taught accurately. But it cannot become the sole lens through which contemporary politics is viewed. India has moved on. The Congress has moved on. Even history has moved on. The BJP, however, appears determined to remain permanently trapped in June 1975.

Rachit Seth is the founder of Policy Briefcase, which provides parliamentary research & strategic communications support. He is a former National Media Coordinator of the Indian National Congress.

The writer is a Parliamentary researcher and communications expert; Views presented are personal.