Fifty years of the Emergency is a diagnostic moment. This volume of essays, edited by Peter deSouza and Harsh Sethi, makes it quite clear that the lessons, if any, learnt from the Emergency, have been fairly limited. These essays provide a point of departure to discuss whether an “undeclared emergency” has become the norm now.
There is an eerie similarity between then and now, in terms of the actors, sites of conflict, and institutions.
The introduction to this volume begins by recalling how a student leader, Prabir Purkayastha, was kidnapped from the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) by the police who mistook him for another student leader, D P Tripathi, but kept him in jail in any case even after realising their mistake.
The same Purkayastha was arrested nearly five decades later in October 2023, under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). No written grounds of arrest were provided to him at the time of detention; the arrest memo was generic and his legal counsel was not provided the FIR or the remand application. His arrest and remand were finally declared illegal by the Supreme Court, granting him bail. For Prabir Purkayastha then, things had worsened. Unlike during the Emergency, this time around he was charged under anti-terror law.
JNU: From a Site of Resistance to a Target of Violence
One of the prominent sites of Emergency excesses was JNU. On 8 July, 1975, as vividly described by Ravi Palat in his essay “Chronicle of a repression foretold: JNU in the Emergency and after – University restructuring in a global context”, the police raided the university hostels and arrested scores of students.
Cut to 9 February, 2016. The JNU Students’ Union holds a meeting to condemn the hanging of Afzal Guru. The police raid the campus, arrests students and when they are produced in Patiala House Courts, allows them to be beaten by the lawyers there. Palat points out, “Nothing remotely like this happened to JNU students during the Emergency.” Things have clearly worsened for students who dissent.
This was evident again on 7 January, 2020, when masked goons belonging to the student wing of the ruling party entered JNU hostels, armed with rods, sticks, and stones, and beat up over 30 students and faculty members.
Delhi Police did nothing, neither during the attack nor afterwards, despite being posted at the university gates. No arrests have been made up to now. During the Emergency, there was a formal suspension of democracy. Today, repression, especially violence against dissenters, has been informalised and outsourced.
Laws That Outlive the Emergency
There is also a marked similarity between the Emergency and now in terms of how laws and the functioning of legal institutions.
A number of constitutional changes were made after the Emergency to prevent its future occurrence. However, as one the essayists, R Sudarshan, points out, a variety of laws and rules have since been enacted that echo, if not at times magnify, the coercive framework of the Emergency.
The UAPA parallels the Maintenance of Internal security Act (MISA) in terms of detention periods and bail denial. It presumes the accused to be guilty unless proven otherwise. The broad executive discretion under UAPA allows the notification of organisations as unlawful akin to the Emergency. The National security Act (NSA) also mirrors MISA’s preventive detention powers, with minimal procedural safeguards.
The reformed sedition law (earlier, Section 124 of the IPC and now BNS Section 152) criminalises acts that “endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.” This includes speech, writing and actions that incite separatism. Some FIRs have already been filed under BNS Section 152 for poetry recitals and peaceful protests.
Digital Censorship and the Silencing of Civil Society
The Information Technology Rules, 2021, parallel Emergency censorship orders and mandate intermediaries and digital news publishers to remove “crime” or “national security” related content within 36-hours of a government takedown order.
The 2020-22 amendments to the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) have allowed intensive crackdown on civil society akin to the Emergency when funding channels and NGO voices were stifled to suppress dissent. In the last decade, FCRA licenses of more than 20,600 NGOs have been cancelled.
Not only have laws become harsher, the conduct of the judiciary has also become worse. The process of undermining the judicial independence and creating a chilling effect on dissent in the judiciary has amplified. For example, witness how no judge is willing to give bail to Umar Khalid, Sherjil Imam, or Gulfisha Fatima.
The “enemy within” narrative of Indira Gandhi is explained in detail by several writers in this book – especially in the essays of Anand Kumar, Pamela Philipose, and Peter deSouza. Did we not see similar narratives being used against recent mass protests – especially the anti-CAA protests, farmers movement, and protests by unemployed youth?
What is the framing of protestors as “Tukde-tukde gang” , “urban Naxals” and “anti-national” elements or putting climate activist Sonam Wangchuk in jail under NSA all about, if not about the enemy within?
There is remarkable semblance even in the “foreign hand” narrative. Just as the “foreign hand” was used as a psychological strategy to frame dissent as betrayal by Indira Gandhi to legitimise her actions, isn’t the same thing happening today? The rhetoric of casting dissent as foreign continues to reframe domestic criticism as external sabotage, allowing leaders to tighten control.
An Enduring Emergency
There are also crucial differences, however, between the then and now.
The Emergency of 1975-77 was declared, legal and temporary. Today, there is no formal declaration of Emergency but similar powers are used through ordinary laws. It is an ideological project, rooted in the long-term vision of cultural nationalism, majoritarianism and centralised authority.
It is diffused and normalised as surveillance, censorship and intimidation are embedded in everyday governance. It operates with a permanent infrastructure. Most importantly, there is public complicity which sees these measures as necessary for national security. In short, today’s ‘undeclared Emergency’ is ideological, informal and enduring.
The most frightening argument that deSouza makes in his essay is that if the State is viewed as a social organisation with its own dynamic of power, then one must recognise that it produces a logic of behaviour that is regime-independent. If Emergency-like conditions are indeed regime independent, then what hope is there for Indian democracy?
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)