“Indira is India and India is Indira,” this slogan was once chanted passionately by supporters of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. But did her contributions to the nation truly warrant such a sweeping statement?
It’s worth recalling the words of the eminent revolutionary Hemchandra Ghosh in an interview with Swami Purnatmananda, the editor of Udbodhan magazine. Reflecting on Swami Vivekananda, Ghosh remarked, “India had become Vivekananda, and Vivekananda had become India.” This powerful statement was rooted in the saint’s complete dedication and self-sacrifice for the upliftment of his motherland.But can the same be said about Indira Gandhi?
According to The Mitrokhin Archive II, serious allegations tarnish her legacy. The book states that Indira Gandhi was allegedly involved in the exchange of sensitive national information in return for 20 million rupees. It goes on to describe how the KGB (main security agency of the Soviet Union from 1954 to 1991), as per the account of former Soviet officer Oleg Kalugin, found great success in India during her tenure—largely due to its ability to exploit the corruption that had become rampant under her regime. In a particularly damning passage, the book notes, “Suitcases full of banknotes were said to be routinely taken to the Prime Minister’s house. Former Syndicate member S. K. Patil is reported to have said that Mrs Gandhi did not even return the suitcases.”
The wide gulf between electoral rhetoric and governance during the Indira Gandhi era has been incisively analysed by political scientist Richard L. Park. In his paper titled ‘Political Crisis in India, 1975’, Park highlighted how Indira Gandhi’s iconic 1971 campaign slogan “Gharibi Hatao” (Abolish Poverty) had, by 1974, turned into a bitter irony. “Indira Gandhi’s 1971 election slogan, gharibi hatao, by 1974 had become a wry joke since the poor were, in many cases, worse off than ever before,” Park observed. He noted that inflation had spiralled to a staggering 30% annually, exacerbated by the rising costs of petroleum imports—further deepening the economic distress of the very people the slogan had aimed to uplift.
Though the government officially cited “internal disturbances” and a perceived threat to national security as the reasons behind the declaration of Emergency in 1975, the true motivation behind the move appears far more political than constitutional. The justification was anchored in Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, which permits the imposition of Emergency under such circumstances. However, the events leading up to the declaration suggest a different narrative. The immediate trigger was the landmark judgment delivered on June 12, 1975, by the Allahabad High Court. In a historic verdict, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha found Prime Minister Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices during the 1971 Lok Sabha elections. She was disqualified from Parliament and barred from holding any elected office for six years. This stunning judgment shook the political establishment and placed Gandhi’s hold on power in serious jeopardy.
Indira Gandhi had secured a sweeping victory in the Rae Bareli constituency, defeating socialist leader Raj Narain. However, Narain challenged her election on grounds of electoral misconduct, alleging that her election agent, Yashpal Kapoor, was a serving government official at the time and that government machinery was misused for campaign purposes. Faced with the possibility of losing her office, Gandhi responded not with resignation but with the imposition of Emergency on June 25, 1975. It was widely believed that this drastic measure was taken primarily to preserve her position at the helm of power.
The Shah Commission of Inquiry, constituted after the Emergency to investigate its excesses, corroborated this perception. In its interim report, the Commission noted that “maintaining internal disturbance” was not the sole or even the primary reason for the Emergency. The second inquiry report stated, “The circumstances in which the Emergency was declared and the ease with which it was accomplished should be a warning to the citizens of the country. The Cabinet and the important functionaries of the Government were not only not consulted but were deliberately kept in the dark by Indira Gandhi when she decided to advise the President to impose an ‘internal emergency’ upon an already existing emergency in the country. Smt. Indira Gandhi did not consult the Cabinet even though she had plenty of time to do so.”
So, the Emergency, in retrospect, was less about national security and more about consolidating personal power — a period marked by the suspension of civil liberties, censorship of the press, and mass arrests, now remembered as one of the darkest chapters in Indian democracy.
‘The Tribune’ newspaper, in its front-page report on June 27, 1975, summed up the early impact of the Emergency with the stark headline: “676 Arrested All Over Country.” As historian Gyan Prakash has noted, by the early hours of June 26, 1975, Morarji Desai, along with nearly six hundred other opposition leaders, had already been detained and put behind bars. That very morning, the government cracked down on the press—confiscating the special supplements of The Hindustan Times and Motherland, which were prepared for publication on June 26.
The newspapers that did reach the stands on June 27 carried the grim news: a national Emergency had been declared. Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution were suspended, and prominent figures of the opposition, including Jayaprakash Narayan, had been arrested. According to Prakash, during the course of the Emergency, over one lakh individuals were arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) and the Defence of India Rules. It was a period marked by an unprecedented assault on civil liberties and democratic institutions.
As Journalist Coomi Kapoor Noted, “By evening the police had arrived at the Motherland office to seal the building and also find out just who was responsible for the afternoon edition, since the editor K.R. Malkani had been arrested earlier in the night.”
While writing about the Emergency of 1975, another veteran journalist, Kuldip Nayar, recalled the grim atmosphere of that period in a column published in The Indian Express on August 24, 2018. He wrote, “When I recall the imposition of the Emergency, what comes to mind is the atmosphere of fear created by Sanjay Gandhi, an extra-constitutional authority who drew strength from his mother, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.” This remark stands as a stark reminder of how the Gandhi family came to treat the nation as its personal estate. It is particularly telling that Sanjay Gandhi, despite holding no official position in the government, wielded enormous influence and instilled fear across institutions—an undeniable proof of how governance had been reduced to dynastic control.
The Emergency of 1975, declared in the name of national security, swiftly mutated into a calculated dismantling of India’s democratic framework. Beyond the censorship, arrests, and suppression of civil liberties, a more insidious campaign unfolded—one that targeted the Constitution itself. In a climate of fear and coercion, key constitutional amendments were rushed through Parliament, not with deliberation, but with alarming authoritarian haste. The judiciary, while not formally abolished, was systematically disempowered. Through constitutional manoeuvres, its jurisdiction over the executive was sharply curtailed. Two pivotal amendments, passed in August 1975, exemplify this trend. The 39th Amendment shielded holders of high office—including the Prime Minister—from judicial scrutiny over electoral malpractice. This effectively placed their actions beyond legal reproach. The 40th Amendment further entrenched executive impunity by granting the Prime Minister personal immunity from criminal and civil prosecution, even covering acts committed before or after holding office.
But perhaps the most controversial change came with the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Widely known as the “Mini Constitution,” it was a sweeping overhaul. Among its many changes was the insertion of the words ‘Socialist’, ‘Secular,’ into the Preamble of the Constitution. While these terms may reflect noble ideals or not it’s an another perspective, but their introduction at a time of suspended democracy raised troubling questions. Was this an ideological commitment—or a political smokescreen?
By embedding such foundational values without national consensus or open debate, the government risked reducing them to hollow rhetoric. Rather than strengthening the Constitution, these changes served to centralise power, suppress dissent, and politicise the very principles on which the Republic was built. The Emergency, far from being a necessity, emerged as a desperate bid to cling to power, with devastating consequences for India’s democratic institutions. To equate a political figure—mired in scandal and dynastic control—with the soul of a civilisation is not only misleading but an affront to the ideals that truly define Bharat.
Comments