Emergency a misadventure, Indira paid a heavy price:Pranab

December 11, 2014

New Delhi, Dec 11: The 1975 Emergency was perhaps an "avoidable event" and Congress and Indira Gandhi had to pay a heavy price for this "misadventure" as suspension of fundamental rights and political activity, large scale arrests and press censorship adversely affected people, says President Pranab Mukherjee.indira gandhi

A junior minister under Gandhi in those turbulent times, Mukherjee however, is also unsparing of the opposition then under the leadership of the late Jayaprakash Narayan, JP, whose movement appeared to him to be "directionless".

The President has penned his thoughts about the tumultuous period in India's post-independence history in his book "The Dramatic Decade: the Indira Gandhi Years" that has just been released.

He discloses that Indira Gandhi was not aware of the Constitutional provisions allowing for declaration of Emergency that was imposed in 1975 and it was Siddartha Shankar Ray who led her into the decision.

Ironically, it was Ray, then Chief Minister of West Bengal, who also took a sharp about-turn on the authorship of the Emergency before the Shah Commission that went into 'excesses' during that period and disowned that decision, according to Mukherjee.

Mukherjee, who celebrated his 79th birthday today, says,"The Dramatic Decade is the first of a trilogy; this book covers the period between 1969 and 1980...I intent to deal with the period between 1980 and 1998 in volume II, and the period between 1998 and 2012, which marked the end of my active political career, in volume III."

"At this point in the book, it will be sufficient to say here that many of us who were part of the Union Cabinet at that time (I was a junior minister) did not then understand its deep and far reaching impact."

Mukherjee's 321-page book covers various chapters including the liberation of Bangladesh, JP's offensive, the defeat in the 1977 elections, split in Congress and return to power in 1980 and after.

The President says there was no doubt that Emergency brought discipline in public life, a growing economy, controlled inflation, a reversed trade deficit for the first time, enhanced developmental expenditure and a crack down on tax evasion and smuggling but "it was perhaps an avoidable event".

"Suspension of fundamental rights and political activity (including trade union activity), large scale arrests of political leaders and activists, press censorship, and extending the life of legislatures by not conducting elections were some instances of Emergency adversely affecting the interests of the people. The Congress and Indira Gandhi had to pay a heavy price for this misadventure," says Mukherjee.

Recounting the dramatic moments leading to declaration of Emergency minutes before midnight of June 25, 1975, he says that it was the suggestion of Ray, then Chief Minister of West Bengal, and Indira Gandhi acted on it.

"Indira Gandhi told me subsequently that she was not even aware of the Constitutional provisions allowing for the declaration of a state of Emergency on grounds of internal disturbance particularly since a state of Emergency had already been proclaimed as a consequence of Indo-Pak conflict in 1971", he says.

Ray, then member of CWC and Central Parliamentary Board, was one of the "most influential advisors" of Indira Gandhi with his views being sought on diverse issues.

"Siddhartha Babu had considerable influence over the decision making process of the organisation and administration...In matters relating to West Bengal, he was the decisive voice. So it was not surprising that he was privy to considerable information...," the President said.

Interestingly, though not surprisingly, once it was declared, there were a whole host of people claiming authorship of idea of declaring the Emergency.

And, again not surprisingly, these very people took a sharp about-turn before the Shah Commission.

"Not only did they disown their involvement, they pinned all the blame on Indira Gandhi pleading their own innocence. Siddartha babu was no exception. Deposing before the Shah Commission, he ran into Indira Gandhi--draped in a crimson sari that day--in the Commission hall and tossed a sprightly remark: 'You look pretty today'.

'Despite your efforts,' retorted a curt Indira Gandhi.

Terming the Shah Commission proceedings as "peculiar", Mukherjee said,"Suffice it to say that it seemed that the Commission was collecting materials and information only to substantiate a pre-conceived conclusion."

Mukherjee recalled that a number of ministers and bureaucrats deposed before the Commission blaming Indira Gandhi "alone" for the imposition of the Emergency with the Cabinet not being taken into confidence.

Giving details of the testimony of the then Home Minister Kasu Bramhananda Reddy before the Commission, the President said Reddy told the panel that he was called by the Prime Minister at 10.30 PM and was told that on account of deteriorating law and order situation, it was necessary to impose an internal Emergency.

According to Reddy, he told the Prime Minister that the powers already available under the existing Emergency could be availed of to deal with the situation but was overruled by Indira Gandhi saying internal Emergency was "considered necessary."

"Bramhananda Reddy told the Commission that he then signed a letter to the President of the Republic and appended the draft proclamation of Emergency for the President's assent with this letter. The Letter signed by Brahmananda Reddy was on a plain sheet of paper and not on the letter head of the Home Minister of India," he said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 13,2020

Jan 13: For the first time in years, the government of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is playing defense. Protests have sprung up across the country against an amendment to India’s laws — which came into effect on Friday — that makes it easier for members of some religions to become citizens of India. The government claims this is simply an attempt to protect religious minorities in the Muslim-majority countries that border India; but protesters see it as the first step toward a formal repudiation of India’s constitutionally guaranteed secularism — and one that must be resisted.

Modi was re-elected prime minister last year with an enhanced majority; his hold over the country’s politics is absolute. The formal opposition is weak, discredited and disorganized. Yet, somehow, the anti-Citizenship Act protests have taken hold. No political party is behind them; they are generally arranged by student unions, neighborhood associations and the like.

Yet this aspect of their character is precisely what will worry Modi and his right-hand man, Home Minister Amit Shah. They know how to mock and delegitimize opposition parties with ruthless efficiency. Yet creating a narrative that paints large, flag-waving crowds as traitors is not quite that easy.

For that is how these protests look: large groups of young people, many carrying witty signs and the national flag. They meet and read the preamble to India’s Constitution, into which the promise of secularism was written in the 1970’s.

They carry photographs of the Constitution’s drafter, the Columbia University-trained economist and lawyer B. R. Ambedkar. These are not the mobs the government wanted. They hoped for angry Muslims rampaging through the streets of India’s cities, whom they could point to and say: “See? We must protect you from them.” But, in spite of sometimes brutal repression, the protests have largely been nonviolent.

One, in Shaheen Bagh in a Muslim-dominated sector of New Delhi, began simply as a set of local women in a square, armed with hot tea and blankets against the chill Delhi winter. It has now become the focal point of a very different sort of resistance than what the government expected. Nothing could cure the delusions of India’s Hindu middle class, trained to see India’s Muslims as dangerous threats, as effectively as a group of otherwise clearly apolitical women sipping sweet tea and sharing their fears and food with anyone who will listen.

Modi was re-elected less than a year ago; what could have changed in India since then? Not much, I suspect, in most places that voted for him and his party — particularly the vast rural hinterland of northern India. But urban India was also possibly never quite as content as electoral results suggested. India’s growth dipped below 5% in recent quarters; demand has crashed, and uncertainty about the future is widespread. Worse, the government’s response to the protests was clearly ill-judged. University campuses were attacked, in one case by the police and later by masked men almost certainly connected to the ruling party.

Protesters were harassed and detained with little cause. The courts seemed uninterested. And, slowly, anger began to grow on social media — not just on Twitter, but also on Instagram, previously the preserve of pretty bowls of salad. Instagram is the one social medium over which Modi’s party does not have a stranglehold; and it is where these protests, with their photogenic signs and flags, have found a natural home. As a result, people across urban India who would never previously have gone to a demonstration or a political rally have been slowly politicized.

India is, in fact, becoming more like a normal democracy. “Normal,” that is, for the 2020’s. Liberal democracies across the world are politically divided, often between more liberal urban centers and coasts, and angrier, “left-behind” hinterlands. Modi’s political secret was that he was that rare populist who could unite both the hopeful cities and the resentful countryside. Yet this once magic formula seems to have become ineffective. Five of India’s six largest cities are not ruled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in any case — the financial hub of Mumbai changed hands recently. The BJP has set its sights on winning state elections in Delhi in a few weeks. Which way the capital’s voters will go is uncertain. But that itself is revealing — last year, Modi swept all seven parliamentary seats in Delhi.

In the end, the Citizenship Amendment Act is now law, the BJP might manage to win Delhi, and the protests might die down as the days get unmanageably hot and state repression increases. But urban India has put Modi on notice. His days of being India’s unifier are over: From now on, like all the other populists, he will have to keep one eye on the streets of his country’s cities.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 6,2020

New Delhi, April 6: India recorded the highest number of 704 positive cases of coronavirus in the past 24 hours, said the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Monday.

With these new cases, the total number of COVID-19 positive cases in India have now climbed to 4,281.

Total deaths stand at 111 including 28 new deaths. So far, 318 COVID-19 patients have been cured across the country.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 26,2020

Jaipur, Jan 26: Rajasthan on Saturday on Saturday became the third state in the country to pass a resolution urging the Centre to repeal the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

he resolution was passed in the state Assembly amid opposition by the BJP which accused the ruling Congress of pursuing appeasement politics.

It is the second Congress-ruled state to pass such a resolution after Punjab. The Kerala Assembly too had passed such a resolution against the CAA moved jointly by the ruling Left Front alliance and the opposition Congress-led UDF.

The Rajasthan Assembly resolution, passed by voice vote, also asked the Centre to withdraw the new fields of information that have been sought for updation of the National Population Register (NPR) 2020.

"It is evident that the CAA violates the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, the House resolves to urge upon the government of India to repeal the CAA to avoid any discrimination on the basis of religion in granting citizenship and to ensure equality before law for all religious groups of India," the state's parliamentary affairs minister Shanti Dhariwal said, moving the resolution.

Leader of the opposition Gulab Chand Kataria of the BJP questioned the state's right to challenge the Act.

"Granting citizenship is a matter for the Centre. In such a situation do we have the right to challenge the CAA? The Congress should stop doing appeasement and vote bank politics," he said.

Comments

abdullah
 - 
Sunday, 26 Jan 2020

Salute to Rajasthan Govt for rejecting communal and black CAA bill.   This bill is agaisnt the teach of our Constitution and bjp has never done anything as per our constitutin.   Its trying its best to scrap the constitution and restore it with RSS agenda.    We should oppose any move by bjp against the value of constitution.   As bjp has no respect to our constitution, it has no right to be in power.    Many of bjp leaders are giving statemetns against the value of constitution and such leaders should be treated as anti indians and action be taken on them.   

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.