‘Indian Civil Society Remains a Formidable Democratic Force’

MANORANJAN Mohanty is a renowned political scientist whose writings have focused on theoretical and empirical dimensions of social movements, human rights, the development experience and the regional role of India and China. A former professor of political science at the University of Delhi, he is currently a distinguished professor at the Council for Social Development (CSD).

In an exclusive interview with The Leaflet, Prof. Mohanty discusses the internal Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in 1975 close on the heels of the fiftieth anniversary of the historic event.

Excerpts from the interview

Abhish K. Bose: The Emergency era’s suffocating grip on Indian political life, marked by a culture of servitude and unquestioning obedience, bequeathed a mixed legacy. While it instilled a sense of discipline and loyalty among party faithful, it also stifled dissent, creativity and critical thinking.

The question remains: Has this culture of unquestioning obedience persisted, or did the Emergency serve as a transformative lesson, precipitating a shift towards a more inclusive, democratic, and participatory political ethos?

Manoranjan Mohanty: The Emergency did not have a mixed legacy. It only had a legacy of authoritarianism and repression. Clearly, during 1975–77, India experienced a ‘culture of servitude’, if you wish to call it, among the supporters of the regime and a process of forced obedience in society in general.

The Emergency did not have a mixed legacy. It only had a legacy of authoritarianism and repression.

But history always provides space for multiple currents. The anti-Emergency movement underground, in prisons and abroad was powerful and consequential. Even in the midst of enforced discipline, there were subterranean streams of non-compliance, indifference and even protest.

All this manifested with a torrential force when the Emergency was lifted and the 1977 elections took place.

In that sense, one can say that elements of a strong foundation were laid through the totality of this positive and negative experience of the JP Movement of 1974, the Emergency and the Janata Party period of 1977–79 for a democratic and participatory polity.

Abhish K. Bose: The shadows of authoritarianism loom large over India’s democratic landscape, as the current regime’s penchant for suppressing dissent and stifling free speech eerily echoes the dark days of the 1975 Emergency. The incarceration of activists, the muzzling of media freedom, and the arbitrary handling of the Delhi riots all serve as ominous reminders that the spectre of Emergency-era authoritarianism continues to haunt the world’s largest democracy. What are your views?

Manoranjan Mohanty: Indeed, the current period in India reminds us of the dark days of the Emergency. Similarities are obvious and you have rightly pointed them out. But the current situation has many new features and they make it even more dangerous.

Firstly, with the backing of big corporate houses, the ruling party has massive financial resources to spend money on propaganda and capture channels of communication including print and electronic media. It uses them to create a pro-regime image and undermine opposition forces.

Secondly, in addition to finances, it has organised a huge army of digital operators who intervene and dominate the discourses and build a totally comprehensive picture of the social, economic, cultural and political realms of the country.

With that at hand, and the large personnel of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) at the grassroots level, the power centre of the regime operates and seeks to control the entire system.

Third, with finances and technology, the regime has merged the State apparatus with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and RSS organisational structure. So in every ministry, every government agency, every sector of the Executive, the BJP now has a presence.

Fourth, all this is used to install the regime’s ideological and organisational supporters in all institutions of the State ranging from universities and commissions to the courts.

The bureaucracy, intelligence and political organisation work in tandem to serve the power strategy of the Narendra Modi regime in all spheres.

Thus, the bureaucracy, intelligence and political organisation work in tandem to serve the power strategy of the Narendra Modi regime in all spheres. These have been done to an unprecedented degree in the past two decades.

The incarceration of activists and the declared resolve of the Modi– (Amit) Shah regime to ‘liquidate’ the ‘Left-wing extremists’ (LWE) and ‘terrorists’ and the suppression of dissent in media, among intellectuals and in society in general, are to be read together with the new elements of authoritarianism. Just calling it ‘democracy deficit’ or ‘electoral autocracy’ is not enough unless we pinpoint the operation of authoritarianism in contemporary India.

Abhish K. Bose: The Indian electorate’s propensity to forget the transgressions of the past is a perplexing phenomenon, whereby the painful memories of authoritarian excesses, human rights violations, and suppressive governance are conveniently relegated to the recesses of collective amnesia.

This pernicious tendency is exemplified by Indira Gandhi’s resounding electoral victory following the Janata Party’s tenure, despite her regime’s egregious atrocities, including forced vasectomies, mass imprisonments, and brutal suppression of dissent.

Why do Indian people seem to so readily absolve their leaders of egregious wrongdoing, forsaking the lessons of history and ignoring the warnings of authoritarianism’s insidious creep?

Manoranjan Mohanty: I do not think it is a case of collective amnesia among Indian people. The experience of the Janata Party government was such a disappointment and the non-Congress forces were so divided that the Congress led by Indira Gandhi acquired a majority in the 1980 elections.

Moreover, Congress promised not to overturn some of the positive things that the Janata Party government had done. The Janata government had passed the 44th Constitutional Amendment that had annulled much of the 42nd Amendment passed during the Emergency that had introduced many authoritarian changes such as extending the tenure of the Lok Sabha.

While the electoral waves vastly changed in North India, in the South, the Congress base was relatively less volatile. Moreover, the emergence of new democratic currents in India such as the civil liberty movement, regional autonomy movements and the stress on people’s welfare and poverty eradication measures gathered greater momentum.

Thus, the concrete developments must be taken into account to explain historical processes instead of characterising Indian people as prone to ‘authoritarianism’ as some commentators do, talking about the ‘authoritarian political culture’ of India as against the ‘democratic political culture’ of some Western countries.

In fact, all democracies all over the world are still struggling to realise the goals of democracy as new dimensions of domination and exploitation are discovered and fought against.

Abhish K. Bose: Fifty years after the Emergency, the Indian civil society, once a formidable bulwark against authoritarianism, appears to be fraying at the edges. The vibrant fabric of democratic dissent, which once rallied against the excesses of the State, now seems to be threadbare in places, with conspicuous fissures and cracks.

All democracies all over the world are still struggling to realise the goals of democracy as new dimensions of domination and exploitation are discovered and fought against.

Has the Indian civil society, once a beacon of democratic resilience, lost its mojo? Will the Indian civil society rediscover its mojo, or will the forces of authoritarianism continue to suffocate the voices of dissent?

Manoranjan Mohanty: In my assessment, Indian civil society remains a formidable democratic force. What has happened is that all political groups have competitively occupied the civil society space, thus weakening the progressive forces.

Take for instance the human rights movement. The BJP-led Ram Janmabhoomi movement campaigned for the right to religion and mobilised a powerful stream of Hindu majoritarianism to come to power. Even though that has become a major source of threat to democracy, it occupied enormous public space.

On the other hand, movements of Dalits and Other Backward Classes were splintered. Regional parties were challenged in the name of national unity or competing regional mobilisations. Women’s movement and environmental movements continued to grow but were channelised through new debates that fragmented them or overpowered them in the name of economic growth, now under a neoliberal agenda.

The new wave of global communication technology such as electronic media and social media made the old-style functioning of civil society less effective. Despite all this, Indian civil society has remained vibrant and a great source of maintaining a democratic ethos.

Even when subjected to repression, manipulation and co-option, people’s movements throughout India continued to be active. Thanks to the opposition forces battling for political space and wider campaigns to defend the Constitution, there are occasional gains in elections, courts and public issues.

Abhish K. Bose: The esteemed historian Bipan Chandra’s controversial assertion raises a poignant question: Did Indira Gandhi’s declaration of Emergency and Jayaprakash Narayan’s call to defy her orders both constitute anti-democratic moves, as Chandra posits?

This dichotomous dilemma probes the very fabric of India’s democratic tapestry, woven from the threads of constitutional propriety and the frailties of human judgment. Do you concur with Chandra’s assessment, or do you perceive these events through a different lens, one that distinguishes between democratic dissent and anti-democratic subversion?

Manoranjan Mohanty: No. Clearly the JP movement in 1974 called upon people to challenge authoritarianism, corruption and centralisation of power. He appealed to the youth to build India anew with the slogan, ‘Nav Nirman’.

As Indira Gandhi’s government took step after step to enable her to remain in office, the movement sought to expose her authoritarian measures violating the spirit of the Constitution. So to blame the JP movement with equal measure as the imposition of the Emergency as anti-democratic is not fair.

I do have great respect for the eminent historian Bipan Chandra. But his political judgment on this issue is unacceptable to me. Despite some unintended consequences leading to the consolidation of the RSS, the great contribution of Jayaprakash Narayan was to save the Constitution and the democratic polity of India. Future generations will surely remain grateful to him for that.

Abhish K. Bose: The historic movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan, aimed at unseating Indira Gandhi’s Congress regime, poses a profound question: Did the formation of an alliance with the Janata Party, which included the RSS, inadvertently legitimise the RSS’s political aspirations, thereby reviving their fortunes after their post-M.K. Gandhi assassination decline?

In other words, did JP’s coalition-building efforts, aimed at democratic revitalisation, inadvertently provide a political rebirth to the Hindu right-wing forces, which had been sidelined since Gandhi’s assassination? If JP had dissociated from the RSS would it have delayed or even halted the subsequent rise of the Hindu right-wing political juggernaut, which has reshaped India’s political landscape?

In my assessment, Indian civil society remains a formidable democratic force.

Manoranjan Mohanty: In hindsight, this formulation has some meat. But only a united front strategy in 1977 could have defeated the Congress led by Indira Gandhi. The opposition forces which were put behind bars during the Emergency ranged from the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) to the RSS besides the socialists and others.

All of them had a common plank to fight Indira Gandhi’s Congress. But we must remember that RSS was active on the ground throughout the country all these years through sustained school education programmes and socio-cultural work in the tribal areas. That was despite having come under attack at various points in time.

Moreover, the non-Congress fronts that came to power at the Union level from 1989 onwards till 2000 also provided new opportunities to the BJP. That became the National Democratic Alliance under BJP’s leadership. So the Emergency-time boost for RSS must be put in perspective.

Abhish K. Bose: Was this authoritarian interlude the consequence of individual ambition and autocratic tendencies, or an inevitable historical necessity, a corrective measure to stabilise a democratic experiment that had completed its initial honeymoon phase?

In other words, did the Emergency represent a deliberate attempt to consolidate power by a few individuals, or was it a natural response to the growing pains of a young democracy, which, after a quarter century, required a course correction to recalibrate its trajectory?

Furthermore, did the Emergency and the subsequent JP movement serve as a cathartic moment, purging the political landscape of entrenched interests and revitalising the democratic spirit, akin to a periodic social rejuvenation? In that sense, can we expect yet another social rejuvenation soon?

Manoranjan Mohanty: The Emergency era as a whole indeed turned out to be a cathartic moment in the history of Indian democracy. Its lessons will continue to reverberate forever. But to say that it was a historical necessity to recalibrate democracy after a honeymoon period for a quarter century is to say the list is a blatant justification of this infamous authoritarian measure.

The Emergency was an autocratic decision giving a facile explanation of countering a ‘fascist’ danger. It was actually an authoritarian decision by Indira Gandhi and her coterie of advisers to save her seat as Prime Minister. Its justifications by the apparently progressive ‘Twenty Point Programme’ or the ‘family planning programme’ were hardly convincing.

Abhish K. Bose: In your view, what are the key lessons that scholars and policymakers can draw from the 1975 Emergency, and how can these inform strategies for strengthening democratic institutions and practices in India and beyond?

Manoranjan Mohanty: For scholars, the most important lesson is to study the State both in terms of its social character and power structure and not just focus on the government and the political formations and leaders seeking power. The Emergency saw the crystallisation of capitalist forces on both sides of the political battle seeking control over State apparatus and socio-economic resources besides channels of legitimation such as the media, culture and education.

Despite some unintended consequences leading to the consolidation of the RSS, the great contribution of JPJayaprakash Narayan was to save the Constitution and the democratic polity of India.

For Indian democracy, the greatest lesson is that democracy is an everyday battle of people in every sphere at every level. Freedom, equality, justice and reason are core values that every democrat, and, in fact, every citizen has to live in real life to build democracy.

These are substantive values, freedom of expression as well as choice, equality to vote and facilities in education, health, employment and status, justice— legal, economic and social— and reasoned debates on issues before any decision.

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution mentions many of these, but we have to comprehend their deeper meaning in such a way that the central concept of mutuality of the existence of citizens as equals and interdependent governs all spheres of life.

All this has to be understood in a framework of the integrality of humans with nature. To realise those values, unless struggles are fought on class, caste, gender, ethnicity, religion, or region lines in institutions, policies and practice through political parties as well as social movements, in the electoral realm as well as all other spheres, threats to democracy will always loom large in one form or another.

We must remember that not everyone believes in these values and we live in the midst of vast arenas of inequalities, unfreedoms, injustices and ecological disasters.

For Indian democracy, the greatest lesson is that democracy is an everyday battle of people in every sphere at every level. 

Scholars, journalists and social activists have as much of a role to build democracy as political activists, judges and legislators. Every human at every age has to take part in this enterprise of democratic transformation.

The ideological battle over the centrality of these values must not be undermined in the name of high economic growth, stability, nationalism and unity which the propagandists of Emergency had loudly proclaimed fifty years ago and which the new authoritarian rulers propagate with great fanfare today.

Abhish K. Bose has been a staffer with Deccan Chronicle and Times of India and is a frequent contributor to the English publications. He enjoys travelling.