 |
|
Shashi Tharoor's critique of the 1975 Emergency, declared by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, represents more than a simple historical recounting; it serves as a potent reminder of the fragility of democratic institutions and the ever-present danger of unchecked power. Tharoor, a senior Congress leader and a member of the Congress Working Committee, delivered his rebuke in an article published in the Malayalam daily ‘Deepika,’ framing the 21-month period between June 1975 and March 1977 as a “dark chapter” in Indian history. His comments, while focused on the past, carry significant weight in the present political climate, where concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the centralization of authority are increasingly prevalent. The essence of Tharoor's argument lies in the assertion that the Emergency represented a fundamental assault on the soul of the Indian Republic, characterized by the suppression of dissent, the curtailment of fundamental rights, and a blatant disregard for constitutional laws. The specifics he highlights, such as the forced sterilization campaigns led by Sanjay Gandhi and the demolition of slums in cities like New Delhi, paint a grim picture of the excesses committed during this period. These actions, he argues, were not merely isolated incidents but rather symptomatic of a larger problem: the transformation of unchecked power into authoritarianism. The silencing of voices, the stifling of dissent, and the trampling of individual liberties left an indelible scar on Indian politics, creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust that lingered long after the Emergency was lifted. The fact that Tharoor, a prominent figure within the Congress party, is willing to openly criticize this period in the party's history is noteworthy. It suggests a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths and to learn from past mistakes. However, the muted response from other Congress leaders, as evidenced by V D Satheesan's refusal to comment and K Muraleedharan's assertion that the Emergency is not a relevant topic, indicates a degree of unease within the party regarding this issue. This reluctance to engage with the legacy of the Emergency may stem from a desire to avoid controversy or to protect the reputation of Indira Gandhi, a towering figure in the party's history. Nevertheless, Tharoor's intervention serves as a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about the state of democracy in India and the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms. He emphasizes that democracy is not something to be taken for granted but rather a precious legacy that must be constantly nurtured and preserved. His warning about the temptation to centralize power, silence dissent, and bypass constitutional safeguards is particularly relevant in the current political climate, where concerns about the erosion of democratic norms are widespread. By drawing attention to the lessons of the Emergency, Tharoor hopes to remind people of the dangers of unchecked power and the importance of vigilance in protecting democratic institutions. In this regard, his critique of the Emergency can be seen as a call to action, urging citizens to be active participants in the democratic process and to resist any attempts to undermine fundamental rights and freedoms. The Emergency, therefore, serves as a stark reminder of the potential for democracy to be subverted and the importance of remaining vigilant in its defense.
The core of Tharoor's analysis hinges on the assertion that the Emergency was not merely a period of political crisis, but a systemic failure of governance and a grave violation of the fundamental principles upon which the Indian Republic was founded. He highlights the specific instances of abuse, such as the forced sterilization campaigns and the slum demolitions, not as isolated incidents, but as manifestations of a broader pattern of authoritarian behavior. The forced sterilization campaign, spearheaded by Sanjay Gandhi, stands as a particularly egregious example of the excesses committed during the Emergency. In the name of population control, thousands of individuals, particularly in poor rural areas, were subjected to coercive sterilization procedures. These campaigns often involved the use of violence and intimidation, with individuals being forced to undergo sterilization against their will. The lack of informed consent and the disregard for individual autonomy were hallmarks of this program, which remains a deeply controversial chapter in Indian history. The slum demolitions in cities like New Delhi were another example of the Emergency's disregard for the rights of the poor and marginalized. Thousands of people were rendered homeless as their homes were bulldozed, often without any prior notice or compensation. The justification for these demolitions was often couched in terms of urban beautification or slum clearance, but the human cost was immense. The dispossessed were left with nowhere to go, and their lives were shattered by the loss of their homes and livelihoods. Tharoor rightly points out that these actions were not merely the result of misguided policies but rather the consequence of unchecked power. The Emergency provided the government with the authority to bypass constitutional safeguards and to silence any opposition. This created an environment in which abuses of power could flourish, and those responsible were often shielded from accountability. The judiciary, which is supposed to act as a check on executive power, was also weakened during the Emergency. Judges were often pressured to rule in favor of the government, and those who resisted were often transferred or sidelined. This erosion of judicial independence further contributed to the climate of impunity that prevailed during the Emergency. The impact of the Emergency extended beyond the immediate victims of these abuses. The silencing of dissent and the curtailment of fundamental rights created an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship. Many individuals were afraid to speak out against the government, fearing that they would be arrested or persecuted. This chilling effect on free expression had a profound impact on Indian society, and it took many years for the country to fully recover from the trauma of the Emergency.
While acknowledging that India has made significant progress since 1975, Tharoor emphasizes that the lessons of the Emergency remain acutely relevant in the present day. He argues that the temptation to centralize power, silence dissent, and bypass constitutional safeguards is an enduring threat, one that can manifest in various forms, often cloaked in the guise of national interest or stability. This warning is particularly pertinent in the context of contemporary India, where concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch have become increasingly widespread. The silencing of dissent, whether through the use of sedition laws, the suppression of protests, or the targeting of journalists and activists, is a recurring feature of the current political landscape. The independence of institutions such as the judiciary and the Election Commission has also come under scrutiny, with critics alleging that they are being compromised by political interference. The rise of authoritarian populism, both in India and around the world, poses a further threat to democratic values and institutions. Populist leaders often appeal to nationalist sentiments and promise to deliver quick solutions to complex problems, while simultaneously undermining checks and balances and attacking independent media. In this context, Tharoor's call for vigilance is more important than ever. He argues that the guardians of democracy, including citizens, civil society organizations, and the media, must remain vigilant in defending fundamental rights and freedoms and in holding those in power accountable. This requires a commitment to critical thinking, a willingness to challenge authority, and a deep understanding of the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law. The Emergency serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us that democracy is not a given, but rather a fragile and precious achievement that must be constantly defended. By learning from the mistakes of the past, we can better protect the future of democracy in India and around the world. The refusal of some Congress leaders to comment directly on Tharoor's statements highlights a sensitivity around the topic, perhaps reflecting a desire to avoid direct criticism of Indira Gandhi or to downplay the significance of the Emergency's legacy. However, Tharoor's willingness to address this sensitive topic head-on underscores the importance of open and honest dialogue about the past, particularly when it comes to episodes that have had a profound impact on the country's political and social fabric. Ultimately, Tharoor's critique of the Emergency is not simply an exercise in historical revisionism, but a call for a renewed commitment to democratic values and a warning against the dangers of complacency. It is a reminder that the struggle for democracy is an ongoing process, one that requires constant vigilance and a willingness to defend fundamental rights and freedoms against any threat, whether from within or without.
Source: Shashi Tharoor criticises Emergency: ‘Unchecked power’ turned into ‘authoritarianism’