M A Baby
THE Internal Emergency was declared 50 years back when I was Kerala State President of the Students’ Federation of India, and a student of Political Science in the Sree Narayana College, Kollam. Within less than a week of its declaration, we defied the Emergency and carried out a protest action in the heart of Thiruvananthapuram city, right in front of the Government Secretariat, shouting slogans like ‘Emergency in the Arabian Sea’. We were arrested and imprisoned under the Defence of India (DIR) Act, after the usual physical torture in the lockup, which was so common in those dark days.
Comrades AK Gopalan, EMS Namboodiripad and other eminent leaders were arrested during the Emergency but were released soon after due to fear of popular unrest. Several CPI(M) leaders were imprisoned under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) and the DIR, including both current and former Polit Bureau members.
Even before the declaration of the Emergency, there was a reign of semi-fascist terror in West Bengal under Congress Chief Minister Siddhartha Shankar Ray since 1972. It is true that the Indira Gandhi regime exhibited fascistic tendencies during the Internal Emergency. It is also true that many condemned it in the strongest words possible, as a fascist move. Also, it cannot be forgotten that Comrade AKG described Indira Gandhi as a ‘female Hitler’. However, it wasn’t fascism, but an extremely authoritarian regime which exhibited some such tendencies.
It needs to be noted that it was in this political context that Comrade EMS took the initiative to publish Georgi Dimitrov’s famous thesis, The United Front Against Fascism, in Malayalam, with quite a long foreword of his own. That document, which is also known as the Dimitrov Thesis, remains an important text that discusses what fascism is, and how to build a broad alliance or platform in the fight against fascism. In 1935, at the Seventh Congress of the Third International (also known as the Communist International) which was established under the leadership of Lenin, the new phenomenon that emerged in Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, and other countries was analysed comprehensively. That document effectively summarised the Congress discussions, including Dimitrov’s influential concluding speech.
Dimitrov defined fascism as the “open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialistic elements of finance capital”. He also stated, “No general characterisation of fascism, however correct in itself, can relieve us of the need to study and take into account the special features of the development of fascism and the various forms of fascist dictatorship in the individual countries and at its various stages. It is necessary in each country to investigate, study and ascertain the national peculiar ties, the specific national features of fascism and to map out accordingly effective methods and forms of struggle against fascism.”
The capturing of State power by fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by another but the substitution of one form of the ruling class State by another – bourgeois parliamentary democracy by an open terroristic dictatorship. In the Ninth Congress of the CPI(M) held in Madurai in 1972, it was pointed out that the severe problems in the Indian economy and the failure to implement promises made in the 1971 elections – including ‘Garibi Hatao’ – was creating widespread dissatisfaction among the Indian public. In the Political Resolution adopted in that Congress, it was stated that the Indira Gandhi regime was quickly transforming into an oppressive authoritarian regime. While the CPI(M) prophetically foretold the dangers to come and actively resisted the dark days of Indian democracy, there were some who actively supported it.
The tradition of the RSS – reflected in Hegdewar’s and Golwalkar’s exhortations to Indian youth not to waste their energy fighting British imperialism, and in Savarkar’s half a dozen mercy petitions to the colonial authorities – was upheld by them during the Emergency as well. Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras, the RSS Sarsanghchalak during the Emergency, wrote letters to Indira Gandhi seeking pardon. A copy of these letters written by Deoras is attached as appendices to the book he authored, Hindu Sangathan aur Sattavadi Rajneeti. In a letter dated August 22, 1975 Deoras began by praising Indira Gandhi’s address to the nation as ‘timely and balanced’. He concluded the letter by clearly stating his intentions: “I request you to keep this in mind and revoke the ban on the RSS. It would give me great happiness to meet you in person if you deem it appropriate”.
In another letter, dated November 10, 1975, Deoras – contrary to the claims of many BJP leaders – distanced the RSS from the anti-government movements of the time. He wrote: “RSS has been named in the context of Jaiprakash Narayan's movement. The government has also connected RSS with Gujarat movement and Bihar movement without any reason…Sangh has no relation with these movements…” Once again, he concluded by pleading with Indira Gandhi to lift the ban, promising the RSS’s cooperation: “The selfless endeavours of lakhs of RSS workers can be used to further the government’s development programmes.”
An immediate outcome of this letter was that the Uttar Pradesh unit of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh (BJS), the precursor to the BJP, announced total support for the government on June 25, 1976, the first anniversary of the Emergency proclamation. It further pledged not to participate in any anti-government activities. Interestingly, according to reports, ‘as many as 34 leaders of the BJS in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh went on to join the Congress’.
TV Rajeswar, former chief of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), who served as its deputy chief during the Emergency, writes in his book India: The Crucial Years that Deoras established a direct line of communication with the Prime Minister’s Office and “expressed strong support for several steps taken to enforce order and discipline in the country” (emphasis added). This included an appreciation of Sanjay Gandhi’s family planning drive, particularly its enforcement among Muslims.
Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, in an article titled The Unlearnt Lessons of Emergency published in The Hindu on June 13, 2000, further exposes the dubious role played by the RSS and its leaders during this period. He states that Atal Bihari Vajpayee spent only a few days in jail and remained out on parole for the rest of the Emergency. Swamy claims that Vajpayee reached an agreement with Indira Gandhi, offering an undertaking that he would not engage in any anti-government activities if released. According to Swamy, “Vajpayee did what the government told him to do for the duration of the time he spent outside on parole”. He further alleges that in November 1976, senior RSS leader Madhavrao Mule advised him to stop his resistance efforts because “the RSS had finalised the document of surrender to be signed at the end of January.” Such was the duplicitous role played by the RSS during the Emergency, a period they now claim to have heroically resisted!
The declaration of the Internal Emergency was in no way a spur of the moment decision. The JP Movement was gaining popularity rapidly and students and youth were coming out in large numbers in support of the call for ‘Total Revolution’. This naturally led Indira Gandhi and Congress into the path of oppression. The Railway Strike of 1974 shook the government. The high handed oppression meted out to it led to widespread protests across the nation. Though the Congress government in Gujarat fell unable to withstand the ire of the people, elections were not being held and Morarji Desai went on a hunger strike against it. Ultimately, with no way out, Indira Gandhi was forced to announce elections in Gujarat.
The Gujarat election verdict and the Allahabad High Court verdict were delivered on the same day, June 12, 1975. In both, Indira Gandhi and the Congress party suffered a humiliating defeat. The High Court verdict found the then prime minister guilty of electoral malpractices and barred her from holding elected office or contesting elections for six years. She requested the Supreme Court for an unconditional stay. However, Justice Krishna Iyer gave her only a humiliating conditional stay. Therefore, she had no way but to declare the Emergency, if she wanted to continue to stay in power. It was not merely an authoritarian act, it was also a declaration that was made without following due process. The Shah Commission had ascertained that the then prime minister made the decision to declare an Emergency without consulting her own cabinet!
It is said that in a ‘democratic house’ there will also be a ‘room for authoritarianism’. In modern bourgeois parliamentary democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly etc., are part of it. However, when a situation arises when an exploitative system can be replaced with an egalitarian system through people’s movements, such freedoms and rights will be made to disappear. Then, the authoritarian tendencies hidden beneath the glittering facade of bourgeois democracy will lay bare its ugly tentacles. That is what we saw during the Internal Emergency 50 years back and are now seeing during the undeclared emergency under the Narendra Modi government.
It was the ordinary people of India, especially the poor and rural sections of our population who reacted most decisively against the Internal Emergency in the elections of 1977. In fact, the elections were held by easing some of the conditions imposed during the Emergency and the actual Emergency itself was lifted only after Indira Gandhi and the Congress suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Indian people.
If India’s Internal Emergency teaches us anything, it is the fact that the people are supreme and they will not tolerate any ruling dispensation that tramples over them, no matter how high and mighty they may be. It also reminds us to steadfastly carry forward our fight for and alongside the people.
or reload the browser
