Almost 50 years to date, on June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court delivered a judgement that came as a thunderclap. Justice Sinha held Prime Minister Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt practices during the 1971 general elections, voiding her membership of Parliament and barring her from holding elective office for six years. Thirteen days later, Indira Gandhi got President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to issue a proclamation under Article 352 of the constitution declaring an internal Emergency. This enabled her to inaugurate a spell of avowedly authoritarian rule, incarcerating her political opponents, muzzling the press, casting aside the fundamental rights, and mauling the Constitution.

Five decades on, the Emergency continues to haunt Indian democracy as a memento mori (reminder of one’s mortality). This is hardly surprising, for many leaders who bestride contemporary politics — from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin — were shaped in the crucible of the Emergency. The Union government has declared its anniversary on 25 June as “Samvidhan Hatya Divas”. Public debates on the Emergency also tend to generate more heat than light. These focus all but exclusively on Indira Gandhi’s decision to impose the Emergency: Was it solely to ensure her continuance in office or was it principally a response to the Opposition’s drive to unseat her in the wake of the high court’s verdict? How credible was her claim that there was a grave internal threat abetted by external powers?

Inasmuch as Indira Gandhi was responsible for imposing the Emergency, these questions will continue to be probed. Yet understanding her concerns and intentions is not the same thing as causally explaining the onset of the Emergency. As I argue in my new book, such an explanation must bring together changes and developments at the levels of structure, conjuncture and event.

Start at the structural or systemic level. Political systems should be understood not........

© hindustantimes