Darkness under scrutiny

On June 25, 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi invoked Article 352 of the Constitution, declaring a state of Emergency in the country. What followed has been well-documented, a period synonymous with preventive detentions and arrests of political detractors, curtailment of civilian rights, and involuntary sterilisations. For historian Gyan Prakash, the key question was why the architects of the Constitution, such as BR Ambedkar, would grant the State such extraordinary powers in the first place. His latest book Emergency Chronicles: Indira Gandhi and Democracy’s Turning Point revisits this tumultuous period in the country’s modern history. It investigates the historical circumstances that led to the Emergency and analyses the impact on an incipient and disaffected democracy. Prakash (66), a professor of history at Princeton University, has authored several books on Indian political history, including Bonded Histories: Genealogies of Labour Servitude in Colonial India and Mumbai Fables , which was adapted into the 2015 film Bombay Velvet . Edited excerpts from an interview with BL ink .

Emergency Chronicles comes during a particularly tense election year. Why now?

I wasn’t thinking of the timing of the publication when I started working on the book, but I was motivated by a few events. In August 2011, I had attended a rally led by Anna Hazare at the Ramlila Maidan (in Delhi) and I thought, I’ve seen this before — in 1975, with the movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan. It got me thinking about the response to those events, which was the imposition of Emergency by Indira Gandhi. When I started looking at the literature on the subject, it was mostly confined to 1975-77, also called “the 21 months of darkness”, and all the narratives had the same arc: The Emergency is declared, democracy is put on hold, Gandhi is defeated and democracy is restored; and also that it all had to do with Gandhi’s desire to cling to power. I thought this suggested there was nothing fundamentally wrong with democracy in India. Moreover, the Emergency was a provision in the Constitution. So I had to ask: Why did our lawmakers equip the State with such extraordinary powers? Since I’m a historian, I began to dig.

Looking back: For historian Gyan Prakash, the key question was why the architects of the Constitution, such as BR Ambedkar, would grant the State such extraordinary powers in the first place

And what did you find?

Well, Independence happened at a time of great turmoil, so the national leaders believed that they had to build a very strong State that could maintain national unity. Second, people also wanted social change. The laws were drafted accordingly. Why does BR Ambedkar — the chief architect of the Constitution — opt for such a strong State? It was because he had no faith in the caste-ridden Indian society becoming a source of radical social change, so it had to be instituted by politics and by the State. But, at the same time, he believed politics on the street had to be curbed. He called ‘satyagraha’ the “grammar of anarchy”, one that was understandable under colonial rule, but not in a democracy with a Constitution and designated avenues for dissent.

Could you discuss the afterlife of the Emergency?

After the Emergency, many of the laws that conferred power on police forces continue to thrive. The Charan Singh government (1979-80) gave the State powers to enforce preventive detention. Under Indira Gandhi, preventive detention was turned into an Act. Many of these laws are instated in places such as Kashmir, Punjab and the Northeast. But what I call the ‘turning point’ in the book has to do with something different. I see 1975-77 as a last-ditch attempt to salvage the postcolonial programme that was initiated in 1947. Until then, national propaganda addressed Indian citizenry as a whole. But after the Emergency, you see the citizenry being disaggregated by caste and religion.

The phrase ‘undeclared Emergency’ is used by many to describe the current political scenario.

I think the differences (from the events of 1975) are very crucial. There are enough laws with which you can achieve almost the same kind of curtailment of rights as with Emergency — the sedition law, the surveillance of citizens and so on.

Emergency Chronicles: Indira Gandhi and Democracy’s Turning PointGyan PrakashPenguin VikingNon-fiction₹699

The ruling parties today have a variety of outfits or vigilante groups that are unleashed on the streets. Another critical change is in the media landscape, which has transformed beyond recognition from the days of Doordarshan. The current State is more effective in how it wields information and the media. So, together with existing laws, foot soldiers on the street, and control of the media, it is possible to achieve authoritarian power without declaring Emergency.

What worries you the most about contemporary politics?

In 2016-17, when I was working on the book in Mumbai, I felt like I was in a stereophonic existence — with Donald Trump on one side and Narendra Modi on another. But in the US, there was ground-level resistance to Trump from the very day he was voted to power. Look at the Women’s March to Washington. You saw people who were never involved in politics suddenly out on the streets with placards. So people outside the established Democratic Party have become politically active, and it is they who have moved the Party to the left. You see this with the new wave of younger leaders who are women, and people of colour. Trump supporters are older whites, who will, in the long run, become a minority. What is troubling in India is that young people are strong Modi supporters. So, perhaps, the countervailing force to the current government will emerge out of the farm crisis, provided it is mobilised and not frittered away in party politics.