இந்திராகாந்தி ஆட்சியில் அவசரநிலை 1975. - Emergency 1975. (Article - 1)

சரியாக நாற்பது ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்னால் 25-06-1975 அன்று அன்றைய பிரதமர் இந்திராகாந்தி அவர்கள் நாட்டில் அவசர நிலையை பிரகடனம் செய்தார்.  குடியரசுத் தலைவர் பக்ருதீன் அலி அகமதுக்குத் தன் பரிந்துரையை அனுப்பிவைத்தார்.

குடியரசுத் தலைவர் பக்ருதீன் அலி அகமது அதனை ஏற்றுக்கொண்டு, " 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 disturbance. " -New Delhi 25th June 1975. -PRESIDENT.  இவ்வாறு அவசரநிலையினைப் பிரகடனம் செய்தார். முறையாக அமைச்சரவைக் கூடாமல் எழுதி அனுப்பப்பட்ட பரிந்துரை அது. அதன்பிறகே முறைப்படி தட்டச்சு செய்து அனுப்பப்பட்டதாக தகவல்..

ஜனநாயகத்தை மீறி இந்திராகாந்தி சர்வாதிகாரத்தனமாக நடந்துகொண்டதை, ஜெயப்பிரகாஷ் நாராயண் தலைமையில் அனைவரும் எதிர்த்தனர். ஆயிரக்கணக்கானோர் கைது செய்யப்பட்டனர். பத்திரிகை சுதந்திரம் போன்ற ஜனநாயக உரிமைகள் கூட பறிக்கப்பட்டன.

1971ம் ஆண்டு நடந்த மக்களவைத் தேர்தலில் ரேபரேலி நாடாளுமன்ற தொகுதியில் இந்திராகாந்தி போட்டியிட்டபோது, அவரை எதிர்த்து ராஜநாராயண் போட்டியிட்டார். அப்போது இந்திராகாந்தி அவர்கள் தேர்தலில் அரசு இயந்திரத்தைப் பயன்படுத்திவிட்டார் என்று தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்ட வழக்கின் தீர்ப்பு இந்திராகாந்திக்கு பாதகமாக அலகாபாத் உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் முடிந்தது.

கயைமைத் தனமாக உச்சநீதிமன்ற தலைமை நீதிபதியாக நான்காவது இடத்தில் இருந்த ஏ.என் ரேயை பரிசீலனையே இல்லாமல்  பதவிமூப்பிலிருந்த நான்கு உச்சநீதிமன்ற நீதிபதிகளைப் புறக்கணித்துவிட்டு நியமனம் செய்தார். இதையெல்லாம் எதிர்த்து பீஹாரில் ஜெயப்பிரகாஷ் நாராயண் முழுப்புரட்சி என்ற போராட்டத்துக்கு அழைப்பு விடுத்தார்.

இப்படியான சூழலில் இந்திராகாந்தியின் இளைய புதல்வர் சஞ்சய் காந்தி, சித்தார்த சங்கர் ரே, பி.சி.சுக்லா, திரேந்திர பிரம்மச்சாரி ஆகியோர் அவசரநிலையை அறிவிக்க காரணமானவர்களாக இருந்தார்கள்.

ஜெயப்பிரகாஷ் நாராயண், மொரார்ஜி தேசாய், வாஜ்பாய், ஜார்ஜ் பெர்னாண்டஸ், எல்.கே.அத்வானி, நானாஜி தேஷ்முக், தலைவர் கலைஞர், சாந்தி பூஷன், ராஜநாராயணன், நீதிபதி ஜக்மோகன்லால் சின்ஹா, பத்திரிகையாளர்கள் கொயாங்கோ, குல்தீப் நய்யார், நிகில் சக்ரவர்த்தி போன்றோர் துவக்கத்திலிருந்தே அவசரநிலையினை எதிர்த்தனர்.

அரசியல்கட்சிகளான, ஸ்தாபன காங்கிரஸ், சுதந்திரா கட்சி,  மார்க்சிஸ்ட் கம்யூனிஸ்ட் கட்சி, சோஷியலிஸ்ட் கட்சிகள், தி.மு.க, ஜனசங்கம், பார்வேர்ட் ப்ளாக், தேசிய மாநாடு கட்சி, அகாலி தளம் போன்றவை மட்டுமில்லாமல் , ஆனந்த மார்க், மாவோ மற்றும் நக்சலைட் இயக்கங்களும் எதிர்த்தன.

புவேஸ் குப்தா தலைமையேற்ற இந்திய கம்யூனிஸ்ட் கட்சி முழுமையாக அவசரநிலையை ஆதரித்தது. பின் அதை தவறு என தங்கள் நிலைப்பாட்டை தெரிவித்தது.


அவசரநிலை அறிவித்தவுடன் இந்திராகாந்தி அவர்கள் அகில இந்திய வானொலியில் பேசிய பேச்சு ...
S S Ray to Indira Gandhi six months before Emergency: Crack down, get law ready
“The plan to be put into operation” was drafted in the note — dated January 8, 1975

1975 emergency, india emergency, 1975 india emergency, s s ray, Siddhartha Shankar Ray, indira gandhi, congress, coomi kapoor, coomi kapoor book, coomi kapoor book review, emergency, india emergency period, indira gandhi, sanjay gandhi, congress, indira gandhi emergency, india news, book review, The Emergency: A Personal History, indian express books, indian express

Mrs Gandhi declares Emergency from AIR studios on June 26, 1975. (Source: Express Archives)

President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad signed the ordinance on the night of June 25. According to Kapoor, the list of prominent politicians who were taken into custody subsequently was “personally vetted by Gandhi, who removed and added names till the last date”.

Published by Penguin Books India and set to hit the stands soon to mark the 40th anniversary of the imposition of Emergency, the book also includes revealing anecdotes about the Opposition’s response, featuring personalities as diverse as Subramanian Swamy, George Fernandes and even Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then a “humble pracharak” of the RSS.

The chapter “Swamy on the Run” recounts details of the then Jana Sangh MP’s surprise appearance in Rajya Sabha on August 10, 1976 and his trips to Gujarat in disguise. Kapoor writes that Swamy, her brother-in-law, used at stay at the residence of Makarand Desai, a minister, when he visited the state.

Kapoor writes: “The RSS often sent a young pracharak to pick him up… and take him to Desai’s house. This humble pracharak was Narendra Modi, who would become leader of the BJP and prime minister of India four decades later.”
Apart from detailing the excesses committed during the Emergency, including the muzzling of media and the activities of Indira’s son Sanjay Gandhi and her coterie, Kapoor recalls her personal connection too.

On November 1, 1975, her husband Virendra Kapoor, also a journalist, was arrested under the Defense of India Rules and had to spent nine months in Tihar and Bareilly jails.
As Finance Minister Arun Jaitley states his foreword, Kapoor’s book “brings to life the events and the atmosphere of those dark nineteen months in telling and compelling detail”. 

According to Jaitley, “The book is an invaluable record of one of the darkest periods in the history of independent India.” (Courtesy : The Indian Express )

-கே.எஸ்.இராதாகிருஷ்ணன்.
15-06-2015.

Emergency Article 2   - Click Here 

Emergency Article 3   - Click Here 

Emergency Article 4   - Click Here 

இந்தியாவின் மதசார்பின்மையும் சோசியலிசமும். - Neither Secular, Nor Socialist

இந்திய அரசியலமைப்புச் சட்டம் இந்திராகாந்தி பிரதமராக இருந்தபோது அவசரநிலை காலத்தில், 42வது சட்டத் திருத்தத்தில்
மதசார்பின்மை, சோசியலிசம் என்ற வார்த்தைகள் அரசியலமைப்பின் முகப்புக் கொள்கையில் சேர்க்கப்பட்டது.

இந்தக் கொள்கைகள் திருத்தத்தில் சேர்க்கப்பட்டாலும் நடைமுறைக்கு வந்ததா? இந்த விடயங்கள் கேள்விக்குறியாகவே இருக்கின்றனவா என்பது இன்றைய வினா!?

Mrs India Gandhi added two words to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution: “secular” and “socialist”. But India is neither. It is a caricature of both.

 The Congress Party, under Mrs Indira Gandhi, succeeded in adding two words to the Preamble of the Indian constitution in 1976. This was effectively the substance of the 42nd amendment of the Indian Constitution. The two words were “secular” and “socialist”.

Mrs Gandhi at that time enjoyed a brute majority in Parliament. In retrospect, it is clear it was done for political reasons. The 1970s were by far the worst years of the Indian political system. It might be termed as the decade of the public sector coupled with Mrs Gandhi’s honeymoon with the Communists and India’s marked tilt towards the erstwhile Soviet model. The addition of these two terms into the Preamble was prompted by a desire for legitimacy by the Congress to establish its allegedly secular and pro-poor credentials.

INDIRA GANDHI PORTRAIT

It is high time we ask whether subsequent developments in the Indian polity and economy have justified their inclusion. Does it reflect prevailing realities?

What is secularism? In the West, secularism is recognized as the principle that governs the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism lies in asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a State declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.

Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices. The Scandinavian countries for example generally take pride in describing their societies as being secular; Sweden is a good example. 

Secularism in the West was a product of the Enlightenment. It was also closely linked to modernism and industrialization. It drew its inspiration from Greek and Roman philosophers including Marcus Aurelius and the materialist philosopher Epicurus (who incidentally significantly influenced the young Marx) and other thinkers including Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Bertrand Russell. The essence of secularism in the West lies in the fact that it is areligious; religion is effectively divorced from the State. This is how in due course the Church was sequestered in Vatican City and stripped of being a contender for political power in Europe.

Marcus AureliusMarcus Aurelius (Credits: WIkimedia Commons/PEIREESELIM)
The concept of secularism in India has come to mean equal treatment of all religions by the State. In contrast to Western secularism, which envisions a separation of religion and State, Indian secularism envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the State and equal participation of the State in different religions. If it is the absence of religion in the West, it is a profusion of religions in India.

This is admittedly problematic not the least because the assertion that India is a secular nation is not backed up by any explanation of what this precisely means in the Constitution. Nor do our laws define the relationship between State and religion in our context. Our constitution also enjoins the establishment of a Uniform Civil Code in the Directive Principles of State Policy but successive regimes have found ingenious ways of evading that responsibility despite periodic injunctions from the Supreme Court.

Among other reasons, this perhaps explains why the practice of Indian secularism has elicited so much controversy and debate. While the Indian State is obliged to treat all citizens equally irrespective of their religion, its practice has been unequal since India’s personal laws on such issues as marriage, alimony, divorce and inheritance come into conflict with common law.

The Shah Bano case, on which the Supreme Curt passed judgement in 1985, brought matters to a head. She was a Muslim lady, who on being divorced from her husband, asked for alimony and won the case. Upset by mass demonstrations, the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi performed a signal disservice to the cause of a uniform civil code by enacting a new law that actually deprived only Muslim women of the right to maintenance enjoyed by women of all other communities. 

ShahBano

 “Nehru’s India,” writes Indologist Ronald Inden, “was supposed to be committed to ‘secularism’. The idea here in its weaker publicly reiterated form was that the government would not interfere in ‘personal’ religious matters and would create circumstances in which people of all religions could live in harmony. The idea in its stronger, unofficially stated form was that in order to modernize, India would have to set aside centuries of traditional religious ignorance and superstition and eventually eliminate Hinduism and Islam from people’s lives altogether. After Independence, governments implemented secularism mostly by refusing to recognize the religious pasts of Indian nationalism, whether Hindu or Muslim, and at the same time (inconsistently) by retaining Muslim ‘personal law’”.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Sadanand Dhume criticizes Indian ‘secularism’ as a fraud and a failure, since it isn’t really secularism as it is understood in the western world but interpreted in terms of religious appeasement. He writes that the flawed understanding of secularism among India’s left wing intelligentsia has led Indian politicians to pander to religious leaders and this has led India to take a soft stand against religious militancy and communal disharmony in general.

It is therefore legitimate to state that India is not a secular state in the Western sense. It is even less secular when you consider the practice of secularism in the Indian context. When the word was incorporated into the Preamble, the inspiration was Western (global) but the interpretation was Indian (local) and they have yet to be satisfactorily reconciled. As sociologist Pratap Bhanu Mehta once put it, the biggest mistake of the Congress was to use secularism as a point of political blackmail, which effectively meant vote for us or face the deluge.

The case for describing India as a socialist state is even harder to defend and even more difficult to sustain. What Indian politicians in general or Mrs Gandhi in particular understood by the use of that term is a matter of speculation. In retrospect, it is abundantly clear that they did not understand it at all. Once again, the exigencies were political: it was prompted by the predominantly left-wing ambience of the 70s and carrying a socialist tag helped to signal a pro-poor public image. It made for good politics in the milieu of the 70s.

Any self-respecting Sovietologist will tell us that the term ‘socialist state’ refers to economies dominated by State ownership, centralized planning and one-party dominance. This symbolized the classic model of development of the Soviet type and was one that took a severe beating with the unceremonious collapse of the excessively centralized economies of the former USSR and the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe. The model is today in disrepute and nearly defunct.

Describing India as a socialist state is clearly an anachronism. The proposition is completely devoid of merit. The liberalization of the Indian economy since 1991, India’s efforts to move away from bilateralism to multilateralism and consciously integrate her economy with the international mainstream certainly merits another description that is more relevant and appropriate. India is neither secular nor socialist. It is presently a caricature of both.

- Courtesy - Swarajya 

- கே.எஸ்.இராதாகிருஷ்ணன்.
12-06-2015.