At the midnight hour of June 25-26, 1975, when India slept, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's private secretary carried a note to President Fakhrudin Ali Ahmed. The note was promptly signed. It bore the words: “In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution, I, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, President of India, by this Proclamation declare that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India is threatened by internal disturbances.” Internal Emergency came into being and, even after nearly four decades, that dark era still haunts the nation.
In the 18 months that followed more than 100,000 people, including the entire opposition, were put behind bars for political reasons, the press was censored and Fundamental Rights under Article 14 (equality before law), Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and several clauses of Article 22 (protection against detention) were made unenforceable. In addition, Parliament enacted several autocratic laws and the executive ordered many stringent measures to tighten the noose around the people's neck. It is said that people reported to work on time and the country's notoriously lax railway kept to schedules.
This 18-month-period is recalled every time political authoritarianism looms on the country. There is, however, something paradoxical about the way many of us—including political pundits cutting across ideologies—treat Emergency. While condemnation is unequivocal and the Emergency is treated as a dark period in Indian democracy, the defeat of Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party in the general elections that followed two years later is seen as indication of strong roots democracy had taken in the country barely 30 years after independence.
Almost forty years later—a period that should be long enough to foster objectivity—this near celebratory attitude towards Indian democracy blinkers many to the long-term effects of the Emergency. It is seen as one-off event, hoary all right, but an aberration in India's tryst with democracy. It seems that the resounding defeat of the Emergency is much more significant than the event itself. We sometimes do invoke the Emergency when a threat of authoritarianism looms, but only to assure ourselves of the strength of India's democracy. In some ways, the fate of Emergency seems to assure us that nothing of the sort that happened during that 18 month period will be repeated.
Of course, India in 2014 is very different from that in 1975 and there is no denying that democracy has grown strong roots. It is unimaginable today that the entire opposition will be jailed, as during the emergency or the entire press gagged. The judiciary is unlikely to kowtow, the country has a strong Right to Information Act.
But democracy is not just about civil liberties and political freedom. It is also about institutions that ensure people enjoy liberties and freedom. It is about careful crafting and nurturing of institutions that ensure people's well-being. Creating and nurturing such bodies is much more painstaking and requires infinitely more statesmanship than ensuring trains run on time. It's now well-known that in a country with strong institutions, citizens enjoy protection and are ensured well-being, irrespective of political regime.
The Emergency dealt a body blow to the process of creating such institutions. It inaugurated a phase when institutions—for example, the Planning Commission, the UGC, the CBI—became completely in thrall to the political party—or coalition—in power. The Emergency also undermined the cabinet system of government vis-a-vis the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
Historians of contemporary India will tell you that Nehru would consult a Patel or an Azad regularly. The blame on the defeat in the China war is as much on Nehru's door as that of the defence minister in his cabinet, V K Krishna Menon. But the PM-cabinet equation changed with Indira Gandhi to the extent that a PM regularly consulting cabinet colleagues is seen as indecisive or a weakling.
We live in times where the personalities of strong leaders loom large over their foibles, let alone excesses. Strong leaders ensure greater efficiency, we are told. Is it a throwback then to the era when trains ran on time and when people attended office punctually?