Igniting a nation's conscience

Though bordering on the alarmist, Arvind Narrain’s new book that compares the Emergency days with the current regime is unsettling and thought-provoking.

The independence of India from a colonial regime brought along itself a romantic idea of experimentation — democracy. In his lodestar speech, Dr B R Ambedkar warned the young nation about the responsibilities supplementary to the cause of democracy. He said: “Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.” After independence, it took only 28 years for an era of darkness to engulf India — the Emergency of 1975.

The proclamation of Emergency by Indira Gandhi brought the 'imagined horrors' to reality. It also marked a reference point in the history of India to which historians and political commentators have time and again referred to, to explain the subversion of civil and democratic rights. Arvind Narrain brings one such reference; he uses 'undeclared emergency' to explain what he calls the current systematic subversion of dissent and democratic rights. The phrase 'undeclared emergency' has gained currency in India's political corridors over time. Last year, some media houses condemned sedition charges against journalists by labelling it as an act of undeclared emergency.

In his new book, 'India's Undeclared Emergency: Constitutionalism and the Politics of Resistance', Arvind Narrain draws a comparison between the proclaimed Emergency under the Indira Gandhi era and the last seven years of India. The book is divided into five sections. The first chapter examines the Emergency period from 1975 to 77. The second chapter deals with understanding preventive detention laws in India.

In comparison, the third chapter discusses the nuances of undeclared emergencies. The fourth chapter supplements it by explaining that an undeclared emergency is far more dangerous than the Emergency of 1975. Lastly, the fifth chapter, as the title suggests, 'What is to be done?', lays down a plan of action and how such a regime could be resisted.

Crackdown on dissent

The proclamation of Emergency in 1975 was targeted toward centralising the tenets of power in the hands of a mother-son duo. Flowing from the Constitution, the provision of Emergency enabled the Indira regime to crack down on dissent by arresting prominent leaders, including J P Narayan. The 'Sultanism,' as Arvind calls it, aimed to depoliticise society — especially the universities and factories with unions.

In his book Emergency Chronicles, Gyan Prakash has also shared an anecdote about the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) — where the police kidnapped a student named Prabir Purkayastha in plain clothes during the Emergency. The assertion of Emergency led to the unfettered use of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) to lock up around 110,000 persons. However, the unchecked power was asserted through the State against the citizens, and it never succeeded in building popular support. Though arbitrary, the Emergency never escalated the religious faultlines on the Indian canvas.

The Modi era

Though the Emergency can never be excused from the history of India, as Arvind argues, the muzzling of dissent and systematic erosion of democratic values now is far more insidious than in the era of the Emergency. Juan Linz defined totalitarianism as the power exercised in the name of an ideology with the support of mass organisation and support from members of society. Modi's rule fits into Linz’s definition of totalitarianism. Unlike Indira's Emergency, Modi has vast support from all over the country, as apparent from the back-to-back electoral victories.

It seems an inherent jingoism supplemented by the political narrative of Hindutva with unmatched cheering from media houses has provided Modi with the platform to build his personality cult. The recent use of Modi's photograph on Covid vaccine certificates was just the manifestation of the blurring of lines between the government and a single person — Narendra Modi. The Emergency had its coercion only through the State, but the current regime is supplemented by the mob culture of this new India, most horrifyingly seen in the many lynchings over the years.

Finally, Arvind regrets that the current regime is not the one the founders of India ever dreamt of; instead, they warned about it, especially Dr Ambedkar. Though India bounced back from the Emergency times, it would be arduous for the country to regain its conscience after the continuous exploitation of its democratic structure. Arvind's new literature on the comparison between the Emergency and the current regime is a desperate though alarmist effort to ignite the republic of its lost consciousness and serves as a forewarning. Perhaps the best and the only solution could be the realisation of constitutional values and a re-examining of the vision of the founding mothers and fathers.