In the recent times with all the mess going around with the government, their ideologies and phrases being often termed as the death of constitution, end of democracy and what not, there are often times that we tend to forget, which in literal terms was the DARKEST AGE OF DEMOCRACY.
The emergency period. The 19 months emergency period that was declared on June 25th 1975 which then went on till 21st March 1977, was the literal definition of how democracy was murdered. The Allahabad High Court's verdict on the case Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr.(1972 AIR 1302) declared that the elections in which Indira had won, as void and she must step down from the office and also, placed a ban on Indira to compete for any office in the next 6 years shook the nation. The celebrations had started in parts of the country. The underdogs had won the big league but however, the celebrations didn't last for long. The counsel of Indira pleaded for a stay on the order for a period of 20 days which was granted in the absence of the opposing counsel Shanti Bhushan. Perhaps the entire history would have been different if he was present there
Indira Gandhi File picture : The Indian Express
The stay was granted, Indira moved to the apex court with an appeal. But it was only a few days later, on 25th June 1975, when the radios filled with the horrendous news reached the public. The president had proclaimed for an emergency throughout the country due to reasons which started from nation's security to integrity. And hence, the era India wishes to wipe from its history had begun.
Indian Herald file picture
Press being censored, 687 arrests in one day that summed up almost 70% of the opposition party and more than 100,000 arrests throughout the entire period and the unreported ones go even higher. Taking the fundamental rights away from the people for close to 19 months which was clearly for the benefits of Mrs.Gandhi to stay in the chair was an unprecedented move. In the time of emergency, the 42nd amendment of the Indian Constitution was passed which is now called as a mini constitution just because of its length. Every reason for the Allahabad High Court's decision was ratified in favor of Indira through the amendments made during the emergency so that none of those would illegal during the Apex Court's judgement which was yet to come.
So that was it. But 45 years down the line, does congress' biggest rival, the BJP and its face, the present prime minister of India, Narendra Modi have anything in common with the past era?
source : India Today
Both being prominent speakers of their respective parties, both being the face of their respective parties in the respective timeline and both being the history makers in the Indian politics have indeed earned their fame and the privilege to be a name in every common man's tongue.
During both the eras, there has been a wave of pliant president and governors. Indira Gandhi used and abused the position
of governor to place her favorites in the states, and use them to break
governments on flimsy grounds, as seen in the cases of Ajoy Mukherjee’s United Front government in West Bengal
in 1969 and N.T Rama Rao’s government in Andhra Pradesh in 1984. The dismissal of E.M.S Namboodiripad’s
government in Kerala was ordered by Nehru, but on the advice of his politically
precocious daughter.
Modi has used his governors to deny the single largest party in several
states the opportunity to come to power, as seen in Goa, Manipur, Meghalaya and
Nagaland. Last month, he used the governor again to try and ensure the single
largest party, his own BJP, came to power in Karnataka. Diametrically opposite
moves, no public morality, and the interpretation of the constitution changing
at will.
Similar enough?
To put things more in a layman perspective, let's analyze a few things that has happened in both the eras.
Press freedom. Unlike the Indira era, the Modi era hasn't been as ferocious. But however the number of reports of press freedom being curtailed and journalists being jailed have always been rising on the graph since 2014. India has one of the top ranks in the list of countries with the maximum Internet shut downs. Modi is known to have
compromised the media even more, ignoring them in sharing any information they
seek beyond whatever is dished out, use media owners to ensure the absence of
critical coverage, and is now said to be attempting to limit the freedom of the online media, apart
from heavily blunting the RTI Act by denying information on grounds of
sensitivity and national interests. While Indira was going on a full fledge against the press, Modi has taken more of a subtle approach.
"India drops 2 places in world press freedom index" : Hindustan Times
Passing of bills.
The Indira government like said above has introduced a vast number of changes to the nooks of the constitution. The Modi government on the other hand, has not touched the constitution as his office senior but, has indeed made changes. Over 40 bills have been passed till date and almost three fourth of the same have created a nation wide protest of some sort. So what was the similarity between the two counterparts? The opposition. Unlike in press freedom, here the Modi government has been more vocal than the subtle Indira. Locking up more than half of the opposition, the Indira Gandhi government had a fair "democratic" parliament session whereas the Modi government, in presence of havoc and atrocities and screams of the opposition has passed the most controversial bills that starts from the CAB to the latest farmers bills.
Farmer protests : New Indian Express
Indira Gandhi effectively used the slogan, “They want Indira out, I want poverty out.” Modi uses this with aplomb, “They want Modi out, I want corruption out.” The larger than life image, using media to the hilt (and in today’s context, social media), blending lies and factoids to create a godly image, etc, are hallmarks of the personal styles of both Indira Gandhi and Modi. She got her party president D.K Barooah to say, “Indira is India, India is Indira”. Modi gets his alter ego to lead the party and work on his agenda with no questions asked. Both the Prime Ministers used the bogey of stability and a strong leadership as their raison d’ etre of seeking and being in power. Every public event he attends, the chanting of “Modi, Modi’ is organized.
From invoking to the Pakistan bogey to undermining institutions, the similarities are much more. The ultimate truth is that both aren't much different. Yes, on the outside and colors they are but not pretty much on the inside. The fact that both governments are constantly criticized for ripping the citizens of their fundamental rights, arresting them on made up charges and even making up reasons of Nation's integrity have been under threat to fulfill its their personal agendas has become truly autonomic.
The simple fact that every person who has ever favored the BJP in some way, may it be the investigation teams who gave them clear chits or the judges who have given holy verdicts, being in top positions ranging from NIA heads to sweet comfy seats in the Rajya Sabha, shows an ironic picture of how the power of people have indeed become their ignorance in the world's largest democracy.
To conclude it must be told that we are not in the darkest age of democracy. No. We are not, but that doesn't mean there is any light shining on us. 45 years and what has changed is debatable. 45 years and what's coming is in the question we need answers for.
"However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad. However bad a Constitution may be, if those implementing it are good, it will prove to be good."
B. R. Ambedkar
Comments
Post a Comment