As rightly noted by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Sarkaryawah Shri Dattatreya Hosabale, the Emergency was not merely a political event but an ideological assault on the very spirit of Bharat’s democracy. In the same vein, Vice-President of India Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar has sharply remarked that inserting the words “Secular” and “Socialist” into the Constitution was a sacrilege to the vision of our founding fathers and a betrayal of the constitutional soul. These are not stray sentiments; they echo a growing national awakening that seeks to understand and correct the historical distortions imposed upon our Republic.
When we speak of the Emergency (1975–77), we often confine its origins to the authoritarian instincts of one individual, Indira Gandhi. But to understand its deeper roots, one must go further back in the political genealogy of post-independence India. The Emergency was not simply a moment of constitutional collapse. It was, in many ways, the full flowering of a political culture seeded by Jawaharlal Nehru himself, a culture that prioritized centralization over federalism, ideology over institutionalism, and dynastic continuity over democratic consensus.
It was Nehru’s half-dream of a controlled, ideological republic, dressed in the language of liberalism but increasingly intolerant of dissent, that laid the foundation for the Emergency. Indira Gandhi did not betray this dream, she completed it, brutally and unapologetically, by suspending civil liberties, erasing institutional checks, and silencing the people’s voice, all in the name of “national interest.” What Nehru left undone by design, Indira did by decree. And what the Constitution guaranteed to the people in 1950, was throttled by a family that sought to substitute itself for the state.
Pandit Nehru’s deep distrust of opposition politics and his unwavering faith in centralized state power began shaping a political architecture where democracy was procedural, but power was absolute. From the very early years of the Republic, the Nehru government displayed an aversion to decentralization. States were reorganized at the Centre’s convenience, opposition leaders were branded reactionary, and institutions such as the Planning Commission and the Congress Working Committee were used to engineer ideological conformity rather than democratic dialogue.
What was most worrying, however, was Nehru’s handling of secularism and socialism, not as inclusive principles, but as exclusionary tools. Secularism, under Nehru, did not emerge as a doctrine of equal respect for all religions. It became a selectively applied policy where religious sensitivities were managed to serve electoral arithmetic. Socialism too, instead of becoming a genuine instrument for equitable economic growth, morphed into state control without accountability, cloaked in high moralism. The seeds of ideological absolutism were firmly planted.
If Nehru’s era was marked by the subtle subjugation of institutional independence, Indira Gandhi’s Emergency was its open execution. The dismissal of elected state governments, the nationalization spree, the destruction of the judiciary’s independence, and finally, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, these were not sudden eruptions but methodical steps taken with the confidence that the state was now indistinguishable from the Congress Party, and the Congress Party indistinguishable from the family.
The insertion of the words “Socialist” and “Secular” into the Preamble during the Emergency, without debate or mandate, was not merely symbolic. It was the final stamp on an ideological republic whose foundation had been laid much earlier. What B.R. Ambedkar and the Constituent Assembly left out Indira Gandhi forcibly added not to protect the vested interest of her family legacy but also legitimize the Emergency and silence the rising forces of cultural and ideological resistance, particularly from the RSS, the Jan Sangh, and civil society intellectuals.
Dr BR Ambedkar envisioned a constitutional democracy where the state derived its power from the people, not from a party, a dynasty, or an ideology. His Constitution was secular, but without the need for ideological branding. It was committed to social justice, but without abandoning individual liberty. It was federal in spirit, allowing India to be governed not from the top-down, but from the grassroots up.
The Emergency and the Congress’s actions during that time were nothing short of a betrayal of Ambedkar’s constitutional vision. It replaced democratic deliberation with executive fiat, parliamentary wisdom with party loyalty, and the will of the people with the will of one family.
Today, as India continues to evolve and modernize, it is imperative for this generation to understand that the Emergency was not an isolated abuse of power, but a natural consequence of a long-standing political mindset that prioritized legacy over liberty.
We must also recognize that the words inserted into the Preamble during the Emergency were not expressions of collective will, but stamps of ideological propaganda. If India was secular before 1976 and it certainly was, then those insertions were redundant. If it wasn’t, then inserting them without democratic consultation was a mockery of constitutionalism.
True constitutional patriotism demands that we restore the Constitution not just in form, but in spirit. This requires revisiting the distortions introduced under duress, confronting the truths that history has masked with myths, and affirming that no dream, however idealistic, is worth sacrificing democracy for.
The time has come to accept that Emergency was not a deviation, but a design one seeded by Nehru’s quiet paternalism and fulfilled by Indira’s loud authoritarianism. It is now up to the Republic to reject that design, and return to the constitutional vision its framers had entrusted to the people, not to the rulers.
Comments