Tessa Valo

Indira Gandhi's India: From world's largest democracy to world's largest dictatorship and back
 

©Tessa Valo, 2007
 

tessa.valo@gmail.com
 

“India has the privilege of being the world’s largest composite society, and the home of many great and ancient faiths. Communalism is an evil which divides man and fragments society; it goes against our very genious and cultural heritage. It holds a threat to the  unit yand integrity of our country which must be our foremost concern.” 
 

Indira Gandhi (Gandhi 1971:78) 
 

”We should not hesitate to take steps which might be described as drastic. Some personal rights have to be kept in abeyance for the human rights of the nation: the right to live, the right to progress.”
 

Indira Gandhi (cit.in. Klieman 1981:254-5)
 

Since the proclamation of India´s independence in August 1947 and the creation of the Indian Constitution in 1950, which brought radically new features of the constitutional system of independent India, until the year 1967, there was only one party dominating the political scene and ruling in every state – obviously – the Congress. By the time of elections in 1967 the problems of the former Nehruian politics of rapid industrialization began to be felt, an acute food shortage and a severe foreign exchange crisis affected the country. The Congress managed to win only 54 per cent of the seats in parliament, which was - compared to former 74 per cent - a surprise also for the worst pessimists. The era of the Congress dominance was over and the question of centre-state relationships was felt more acutely than ever before. And precisely at this point Indira Gandhi comes into play. Not only was her new government contested by the state non-Congress governments but the Congress itself began to split and factionalize. In the limited space we have, we will try to give an overview over the two periods of Indira Gandhi’s rule, the first dating from 1966 to 1977, which includes a period of Emergency rule that will be of special interest for us here, and the second dating from 1980 to October, 31 1984, the day of Indira’s assassination. 
 

Coming to Power and the Split of the Congress
 

Until the elections of 1967 the Congress represented a central integrating institution of India (Manor 2007:95), it knit together state and society, it occupied both left and right political spectrum. The party was internally pluralistic, which made it more flexible, representative, and as such it was always prepared to absorb diverse movements and groups, which would otherwise pose a threat to its power position. Thus, if there existed any opposition, it would have been found within the Congress itself and not outside. This fact together with the above mentioned consequences of Nehruian politics of rapid industrialization led to the defeat of the Congress in 1967 and its internal split in 1969. The Congress lost power in six states, the party competition grew rapidly, new opposition groups were established and the dissident Congressmen were playing their roles in the weakening party. The competition, which previously occurred silently within the Congress, transformed into an open stage interparty conflict. This period brought to life also a new phenomenon of so called “defectors” (Manor 2007:99), these were flowing both out and in the Congress party, though the number of those flowing out was much higher, causing even fall of the Congress governments in three states. This, together with Indira Gandhi´s radical views on economic policy, which included diverse land reforms, nationalization of banks, and restriction of monopolies, presented in July 1969 at the Bangalore session of the AICC to the Congress, led to the schism in the Congress in 1969, which “was a major shock to the political system in India” (Manor 2007:100).  “The Syndicate […] began to feel that Prime Minister was moving away from the party control and trying to build up an autonomous centre of power” (Chatterjee 2007:18). After this act the opposition to Indira Gandhi inside the Congress was being formed and finally sixty-two Congress members of the Lok Sabha openly declared their opposition to the Prime Minister and formed their own block called the Congress (Organization) and joined the opposition. Indira Gandhi was left with a minority government which resulted in premature elections in 1971. Indira Gandhi started the most massive and populist election campaign in the history of India - under the slogan garibi hatao (remove poverty). It was also the first time when the national issues were the exclusive focus of the campaign (Chatterjee 2007:20). The great success in the elections together with the success in the Bangladesh war catapulted Indira Gandhi into a high position and she became generally acknowledged as the leader of one of the world's most powerful nations. The Congress politics and the party itself have under the rule of Mrs Gandhi undergone significant changes. Indira Gandhi “adopted a more confrontational posture, both towards opposition parties at the national level and towards opposition-controlled governments in various states. She also took a more aggressive line with her own party” (Manor 2007:101). She introduced the so-called “pyramidical decision-making structure in the party and the government” (Kochanek 1976), which was supposed to prevent all threats to her personal power. The intention was to centralize all decision making, weaken institutionalization and create a personalized regime. This resulted in the abandonment of intraparty democracy, positions in the Congress were appointed from above rather than by elections from below (Manor 2007:101). The Congress now derived its identity from the personality of the leader and this did not merely happen in symbolic terms, on the contrary, Congress was strongly centralized, directed from the central high command, the Chief Ministers which previously held high status and strong positions were now nominated from the centre and replaced according to the wish of the leader (Dua 1985). The Congress also adopted a “new rhetoric of the state socialism with the central executive structures of government playing the pivotal role” (Chatterjee 2007:22), whereas the local political structures were often being criticized. Another feature of the Congress party rule under Indira Gandhi was the orientation towards specific groups of population such as women, scheduled castes and tribes, and other minorities, and providing them with special welfare packages, which took on the form of a “gift” from Indira Gandhi and the centralized populist leadership (Chatterjee 2007:23). In spite of Indira's highly successful populist leadership, success in the Bangladesh war and the electoral victory this period was also marked by significant unrest from many sides. Not only was there the Congress opposition, but there was also a considerable unrest among the peasants in many backward agricultural parts of the country and there was also a widespread agitation against corruption in the government, which later became the popular anti-government movement. But the “total revolution” came with Jaya Prakash Narayan, the leader of a populist anti-government movement voicing the dissatisfaction with the ruling government of large sections of population. On 25 June 1975 declared Jaya Prakash Narayan that “the government had lost all moral claims to rule. That night a state of emergency was promulgated in India”. (Chatterjee 2007:25). 
 

The Emergency: 1975-1977
 

The justification of the declaration of Emergency given by Mrs Gandhi was that the “attempt at an open political system had been undermined through indiscipline, irresponsibility and subversion, both in the press and in public life and that pluralistic politics had brought about little but corruption, elite domination, sedition and stagnation” (Blair 1980:244). The dilemma of 1975 was apparently between “efficiency” and “freedom” and no middle option was at sight – obviously the first option was chosen. The Indian Constitution did not prove as an impenetrable barrier against emergency authoritarianism - Mrs Gandhi claimed constitutional justification for all her actions, even for the suspension of civil rights. She tampered with the fundamental character of the constitution and by the time of November 1976 she virtually rewrote it, enlarging the power of Parliament and the prime minister at the expense of courts and presidency (Klieman 1981:248). “By the end of 1976 the Indian Constitution has become virtually a dead letter, the power given to Mrs Gandhi limitless, and the safeguards against tyranny destroyed” (Klieman 1981:249). The press was then one of the first targets of repression, on June 26 1975 the government introduces press censorship for the first time since the declaration of independence. In the Delhi district public meetings, demonstrations and printing and publication of materials likely to cause disharmony among different sections of society were strictly prohibited. The publication of opposition statements in Parliament was also prohibited. After some time the press under pressure assumed a more supportive role and following the monthly magazine Surya, published by the wife of Sanjay Gandhi dedicated to portraying positively the dynamics of changing India, started promoting government's point of view (Klieman 1981: 248-50). Bureaucracy also contributed great deal to the transformation of what used to be a pluralistic structure of participation into a centralized apparatus of power and control. The public reacted to political changes with almost total indifference. The economical changes were on the other hand applauded; Indira Gandhi's economical program was accompanied by almost immediate economic relief – prices stabilized, public services were improved, industrial production rose up. On the other hand in the agricultural area Emergency meant also a continuation of the status quo that benefited the bigger farmers, whereas in the industrial area the Emergency not only strengthened the status quo but also advantaged the dominant classes (Blair 1980:257). “In short, during the Indian Emergency the notion of an alert democratic citizenry did not hold up well when put to test. Contrary to the democratic assumption, individual and collective citizen adaptation to the permanent emergency state is a fairly easy process. There is seemingly no limit to public ingenuity or inventiveness in rationalizing the need for curtailed freedoms for strong, centralized government” (Klieman 1981:252). In this situation the result of the elections of 1977 might look as a surprise. The vote against Emergency was not primarily a vote motivated by abstract principles of democracy or by the issue whether the Emergency was constitutional or not, it was primarily a vote for social freedom as an elementary human need (for the support of this argument see Klieman 1981). What motivated and mobilized Indians against Gandhi's regime was the emergency government's birth-control (sterilization) program. Sterilization became the one really “popular” issue during the 1977 elections. “In 1976 birth-control clinics around the country performed 7 million sterilization operations […] 207 persons died during or after vasectomy operations performed between July 1975 and March 1977” (Klieman 1981:255). Indira's slogan garibi hatao (remove poverty), changed among villagers into the slogan Indira hatao, indiri bachao (abolish Indira and save your penis). The elections were thus influenced much deeper by the local concerns than by national issues and foreign policy. Although the emergency ended it left some permanent scars on Indian political system that it took long time to remove. The great task of the subsequent Janata Government was to dismantle the democratic regime and recover the democratic regime. 
 

The Period of Conflict and Fragmentation: 1977 – 1984
 

The years from 1977-1984 were marked by conflict, decay and fragmentation and on the other hand also by political awakening of the mass of Indian voters and awareness of the role which elections and elected representatives play in the lives of ordinary people (Manor 2007:103). On the one hand India became more democratic, whereas on the other it passed through a period of institutional decay, where political institutions proved unable to respond adequately and effectively to the pressures from the society. The Janata Government proved unable to hold together and sank under the load of fragmentation. The Elections of 1980 catapulted Congress-I back to the power. The significant features of Indira Gandhi regime from 1980-84 were as following: The rule continued to be a centralized rule, where Indira and her central high command dominated almost in all spheres. The emphasis was as before given to centralization of powers in the hands of the central executive. In the economic area on the other hand a different path was followed, i.e. the emphasis was given to freeing of the private sector, liberalisation of imports and promotion of exports (Chatterjee 2007:31).The central government was acting in a rather authoritarian and personalized manner, which again led to the formation of a radical opposition and defeat of the Congress-I in some given states. In Punjab the extremist fringe of Akali Dal under the leadership of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale demanded more and more assertively a sovereign state of Khalistan and as a consequence the Indian army entered in June 1984 the Golden Temple in Amritsar and captured a great number of terrorists as well as left numerous dead behind including Bhindranwale. In October 1984 Indira Gandhi was killed by the members of her own security guard. Indira Gandhi's regime was followed by Rajiv Gandhi's regime, which brought more economical liberalization and more openness to privatization. Though there were some attempts to democratize the Congress party itself the old Congress structure based on personal loyalties soon reasserted.
 

Conclusion
 

“How will history judge Indira Gandhi? One can only guess, and I confess to being an admirer. Her flaws were obvious: her tendency to surround herself with nonthreatening nonentities, her occasional ruthlessness. She was political to her very soul; while campaigning on an “eliminate poverty” platform, she did little to stimulate economic growth that can alone reduce poverty in a developing economy. Politics interested her; economics was secondary. Grant all this, but examine the other side of the balance sheet. This fragile woman held India together” (Gupte 1985:19). What we can state with certainty is that Indira Gandhi will be remembered for promises, excitement, changes and unfulfilled expectations. She was unprecedented in centralizing the power and posing herself on the top of the decision-making pyramid, she tried perseveringly to modify the federal character of the party and government by strengthening their unitary tendencies and thereby reinforcing the centralization of power, and she unsuccessfully tried to change the support base of Congress from above by recruiting underrepresented sectors of society (Kochanek 1976:95). .
 

Resources