People's Democracy
(Weekly
Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
No. 26
June 26, 2005
(Weekly
Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
|
Vol.
XXIX
No. 26 June 26, 2005 |
THE
clamping down of internal emergency on June 26, 1975 and its operation over the
next 19 months represents one of the darkest periods in the political history of
India. For all practical purposes, the Indian Constitution was kept in suspense,
parliamentary democracy was trodden brutally underfoot, and an authoritarian
rule proclaimed. Three decades onward to that malevolent episode, the importance
of carrying forward the struggle to safeguard democracy has to be realised in
the proper perspective of what had happened thirty years ago.
The
slogan mongering about removal of poverty (garibi
hatao!) notwithstanding, the entire decade before the declaration of
‘emergency’ was riven with abject poverty. The number of people – 70 per
cent of the population according to reliable estimates – under the poverty
line went on increasing at an alarming rate. The Ford foundation-inspired
‘green revolution’ effectively robbed the rural poor of whatever little
purchasing power they yet possessed. The falling prices of cash crops like jute,
oil seeds, and cotton ruined the farmers even as black-marketeering and hoarding
started to flourish. A 22 per cent increase in the general price level was noted
during the early 1970s with the incidence of direct taxes adding to the extreme
misery of the mass of the people.
The
Indian industry was in deep crisis. Indira Gandhi had closed down 3,000
engineering and textile mills on returning to office in 1971. The industrial
recession had a deep and pervading effect on the manufacturing sector. Meeting
in Kolkata over June 10-12, 1975, the Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) noted that the
economy was in a state of dysfunction with spiralling unemployment, wide
lay-offs, and a severely shrinking job market. The loot of the monopoly
capitalists and of landlords was being ensured at the cost of extreme misery of
workers, peasants, employees, professional groups, and small manufacturers.
In
this dysfunctional economic background was the swing of political events that
gave birth to the evil of ‘emergency.’
The
fourth general elections depicted the unravelling of monopoly control of the
Congress across the country. The fall-out was a severe internecine strife within
the Congress itself. Two trends must be noted here. On one hand, the
‘syndicate’ Congress chose to veer towards the Jan Sangh-Swatantra Party
political grouping. On the other,
there was a rift within the Left and democratic forces. The 1972 Madurai party
congress of the CPI(M) in 1972 had already noted that the leadership of several
Left and democratic parties swung towards the Indira Congress and thus exposed
their vacillating character. They
also, noted the party congress, joined in the campaign of slander against the
CPI(M).
It
was the massive win that the Congress managed to post in this background of
weakness of the Left and democratic forces that started the train of events. The
Congress as the ruling party also claimed success over the events in Bangladesh
where the struggle of the masses had triumphed. Posing as a ‘socialist,’
Indira Gandhi indulged in reckless counter-democratic ploys to win elections in
states like Bengal while also triumphing elsewhere.
In
Bengal, the Congress organised and put in place its assault on the CPI(M) as
also on democratic forces and organisations led by it. Yet, the CPI(M) emerged
as the biggest single political party in the 1971 Bengal state elections,
winning 113 seats. Ignoring CPI(M)’s claim to form the government, a makeshift
outfit of political coteries was asked to put up a coalition government. Two
months later, under President’s rule, a swath of terror cut across Bengal,
organised by the central paramilitary forces, and the thugs of the Congress.
The
CPI(M) was the chief target. More than 1100 of CPI(M) workers were put to death.
Party offices, TU offices, and the offices of mass organisations were ransacked
and occupied. Thousands of people were implicated in false cases, thousands more
incarcerated without the benefit of trial. In the circumstances, riding a wave
of terror and openly rigging the polls, the Congress managed to ‘win’ the
election of 1972.
Jyoti
Basu wrote in his booklet entitled The
Decimation of Parliamentary Democracy in West Bengal, that the people of
West Bengal had remained in the front ranks of the resistance against the
policies of the Congress. The Left and democratic forces in West Bengal posed a
challenge to the Congress. The triumph of the masses in West Bengal would
encourage people elsewhere to defy the authoritarian ploys of the Congress.
The
Congress took recourse to semi-fascist terror to clamp down its sway on Bengal.
The ninth congress of the CPI(M) noted how the Congress, desperate to cling to
office, had trodden underfoot, parliamentary democracy, voting rights, and the
dignity due to the opposition.
As
far back as 1972 had the CPI(M) commented at the ninth congress of the Party
that factors like the failure to provide relief to the mass of the people, the
tendency towards using implements of oppression, the weaknesses of the Left
opposition and of the bourgeois parties, and the intolerance shown towards the
opposition per se were indicative of
the danger of a one-party authoritarianism. The warning went largely unheeded.
In
the period preceding the ‘emergency,’ several big movements took place.
These included strike actions, particularly the 22-day railway strike
that was brutally suppressed. Elsewhere,
Jayaprakash Narayan led a movement that brought to the fore issues like the
emergent needs of the people, the issue of safeguarding democracy, and
fulminating against corruption.
A
rift among the bourgeois political parties was apparent when, in March of 1975,
Jan Sangh, Congress (O), Bharatiya Lok Dal, and other bourgeois parties placed a
charter of demands in the parliament. The CPI(M) was self-critical about its
inability to take part in the anti-Congress movements across the country.
On
June 12, 1975, the Congress was routed in the Gujarat state assembly elections.
On the same day, the Allahabad high court adjudged that Indira Gandhi had
won from the Rai Bareili parliamentary constituency by adopting illegal means.
The court countermanded the election and ruled that Indira Gandhi would not be
able to contest elections for the next six years.
The
developments caused ripples to rise against Indira Gandhi within the Congress
itself. Rather than tender her resignation, Indira Gandhi chose to declare
‘internal emergency’ on June 26, 1975. She wanted to convince the world that
the emergency had to be imposed in order to secure the nation from the right
reactionary forces and from the ultra Left. Her arguments do not hold water.
Congress had always been friendly with outfits like the RSS whom Indira Gandhi
had often praised. The ultra Left Naxalites were in 1975 a disorganised and
spent force. Her arguments in favour of the ‘emergency’ were attempts to
justify authoritarianism.
The
Left remained riven with disunity. CPI jumped on the bandwagon of Indira Gandhi.
The CPSU and other communist parties of some socialist countries openly
supported Indira Gandhi. The CPI(M) Polit Bureau while calling for a broad front
declared that the drive to build up greater and stronger Left and democratic
unity must go on relentlessly.
A
K Gopalan who was the leader of the parliamentary party was stringent in his
attack on the ‘emergency.’ He raised the following points in his speech in
the Lok Sabha where the bill for approval of the ‘emergency’ was brought up
on July 21, 1975.
A
large number of opposition leaders were in jail, including 39 MPs, many of
whom were Congressmen
The
‘emergency’ was an assault against the people and the people had been
robbed of their constitutional rights to democracy
The
union government did not tolerate opposition; nor did it put with criticism
and movements and struggles were struck down
Three
thousand CPI(M) workers were arrested in the name of an anti-rightist drive
The
general fall-out of the ‘emergency’ were:
The
parliament was deprived of all rights and privileges
Freedom
of speech was suspended
Censorship of the media touched horrifying proportions
Thousands
of political workers were jailed without trial, including MPs and MLAs
Opposition-run
autonomous institutions were set aside
Oppression
on the people was unleashed in the name of population control measures
Attempt
was made to delete the fundamental rights from the Constitution through the
42nd amendment
The
storm troopers of the Congress and the Youth congress created an atmosphere
of terror in the country
The
opposition to authoritarianism ran along two streams of resistance. The CPI(M)
and some Left parties were engaged in continuous opposition.
They were in the front ranks in the fight against semi-fascist terror in
Bengal, Kerala, and Tripura. On the other hand, there were the rightist parties
like the Congress(O), the Jan Sangh, and the Swatantra party who became vocal on
the issue of democracy. The latter movement grew in stature under the leadership
of Jayaprakash Narayan in parts of north and western India. After meeting with
Jayaprakash Narayan in Delhi and Kolkata, the CPI(M) and the Left proposed
joint, parallel, or coordinated movements on the issue of civic rights.
The
central committee of the CPI(M) had in the meanwhile called for the formation of
a broad front with eminent persons of all political parties for the restoration
of democracy. It also called for
the massing of broad forces, on the tactics of ‘united front from below’, of
the supporters of the opposition political parties. It was said that the Left and democratic forces would act as
the principal instruments of the broad assemblage of forces; and that the broad
assemblage did not connote the formation of either a political party or an
electoral front.
Based
on this understanding, the struggle against authoritarianism grew across the
country and it took covert as well as overt forms. The working class played a big role in this movement for the
restoration of democracy. The
movements took place despite the ban on such actions.
Elsewhere, the Congress(O), the Jan Sangh, the Swatantra party, and the
socialist parties combined to set up the Janata Party.
The CPI(M) had no illusions about the programmatic understanding of the
Janata Party. Its efforts were to ensure that the largest votes were cast
against ‘emergency’ and that the opposition unity did not get to suffer.
The election slogan of the CPI(M) was: Vote
Against ‘Emergency’. In the
1977 elections, Congress(I) was defeated and the new Janata
Party-Congress-for-Democracy government withdrew the ‘emergency.’
The struggle, however, had not ended.
The
sustained pressure of movements led and organised by the CPI(M) and the Left
that finally saw the restoration over time of the democratic rights that the
‘emergency’ had abrogated. Withdrawal
of MISA and of the 42nd amendment to the Constitution, too, saw the new regime
drag its feet before the CPI(M) and the Left brought pressure to bear on the
union government.
The
tenth congress of the CPI(M) was very correct in pointing out that the struggle
against overt attempts to clamp down authoritarianism was to be a long and
sustained struggle. The defeat of the Congress in the elections never meant the
defeat of the classes that created the ambience of authoritarianism. The
correlation of class forces had not changed .The danger of parliamentary
compromise on the question of removing the structure of authoritarianism
continued to remain. The need of
the hour was, noted the CPI(M), to unite the masses against authoritarianism.
Realising
the importance of broad forum and democratic resistance, the CPI(M) spoke of the
need to utilise the opportunity created by the rift in the bourgeois parties to
set up the broad forum and to utilise it towards breaking down the authoritarian
structure. It was found necessary
to bring out from within the fold of the ruling classes and the parties of the
ruling classes, those sections that opposed authoritarianism.
It was Marxist strategy to mobilise any class and party for the
safeguarding of democratic rights.
The
tenth congress of the CPI(M) also noted that the danger of authoritarianism lay
hidden, in the increasing domination
of monopoly and big capitalists, and landlords, and in the increasing influence
of foreign monopoly capital. The
CPI(M) stated that while utilising the potential of wider resistance to
authoritarianism, the CPI(M), and the working class must ensure that the
domination and influence of these classes went on the wane.
To
change the correlation of class forces and to free the masses from the twin
bourgeois-landlord formations, it was necessary to build up a Left and
democratic front. A priority of the
Left and democratic front would be to continue unabated the struggle against
authoritarianism. It was noticed
soon enough after the formation of the Janata Party-CFD government that it had
great and fundamental difference with the Left on the question of democracy.
Apart
from hesitating in carrying forth the task of dismantling the ‘emergency’
structure, the union government, and Janata Party-led state governments, would
chose to bring down oppression on the democratic rights and on democratic
movements of the people across the country.
Indira Gandhi was to take advantage of the disquiet the people felt at
the economic policy of the new regime in Delhi and elsewhere.
The
Left Front governments of Bengal and Tripura, on the other hand, engaged
themselves in the task of expanding democratic rights.
Among the issues of priority marked out by the LF governments were:
abrogation of incarceration without trial, restoration of democratic rights,
freeing of political prisoners, democratising the education system, and holding
elections to the three-tier panchayat system.
The policy of the LF governments gave relief to the working people, and
as the forces of democracy became stronger, the forces of authoritarianism
became weaker.
NEXT
PHASE OF THE STRUGGLE
The
analysis of the CPI(M) about the danger of authoritarianism was proved correct
when Indira Gandhi came back to office in 1980. The National Security Act and the Essential Services
Maintenance Act (ESMA) were put in place ––counter-democratic legislations
each. The aim was to increase
oppression as the protests against economic deterioration became widespread.
ESMA was targeted to ban strike actions.
Mail started to be censored. Parliament
was to be made inconsequential. States
rights started to be interfered with. A
presidential form of government was talked about. The Constitution was being
amended to suit authoritarian whims.
The
rift in the opposition ranks, especially after the formation of the BJP, helped
the Congress since the BJP was concerned only in becoming Congress’s
alternative and was no longer interested in coalitions or fronts against
authoritarianism. The eleventh
congress of the CPI(M) (held in 1982) marked the challenge of authoritarianism
as the principal danger.
Indeed,
the Congress continued to be on the path authoritarianism even after the
assassination of Indira Gandhi and of the triumph in the subsequent Lok Sabha
polls. As the twelfth congress of
the CPI(M) pointed out: the ruling classes and the ruling class parties could
never implement their anti-people economic policies without organising an
assault on the democratic norms. Democracy, indeed, continued to be attacked at
the grass-roots level. NSA
continued, MISA was re-imposed, strike actions were viciously attacked, the
Andhra Pradesh state government was toppled, the government media was utilised
to serve the interests of the Congress.
At
the same time, the danger of separatism and secessionism started to raise their
ugly heads in Punjab, Assam, north-eastern India and elsewhere — causing a
threat to be poised against national unity and integrity.
The opportunistic policy of the Congress increased the dimensions of the
danger. As the twelfth congress of
the CPI(M) noted: in office, the Congress endangers not only democracy but also
national unity.
It
was chiefly under the aegis and leadership of the CPI(M) that the process of
building up unity among the Left and democratic forces started to gain momentum
once more. The Bengal Left Front
played a stellar role in this regard. Following
discussions, and after the Bhatinda Congress, the CPI changed the line of
cooperation with Congress and joined the Left forces. A coordination committee
of the Left was set up at the parliamentary level. The unity of the Left was
reflected in the expanding mass struggles. The Left unity also played a role in working out
relationships with the opposition bourgeois parties.
In
the case of the opposition bourgeois parties, two elements assumed importance.
First, taking a secular stand became an effective indicator in the
background of the enhanced danger of the forces of communalism.
Second, the role of the regional parties became important in the task of
safeguarding democracy as these parties gained in strength.
Four conclaves of 17-18 opposition parties were held in Vijaywada, Delhi,
Srinagar, and Kolkata in 1983-84. These
developments saw an increase in the size and frequency of mass rallies on the
question of safeguarding democracy.
It
is not possible to discuss the struggle to uphold and strengthen democracy
without referring to the menace of the communal forces.
This is necessary for a correct analysis of the past, for a proper
assessment of the present situation, and for the sake of struggle to be waged in
the days to come to defend and strengthen democracy.
Before
the elections of 1977, the Janata Party was formed. One of the constituents of that party was the Jan Sangh,
which was guided by the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh or the RSS.
The latter started to control the new regime right from the beginning and
encouraged the growth of Hindu communalism in a big way.
The Jan Sangh soon claimed that its members must have the right to be the
members of both Jan Sangh and the RSS. The
crisis within the Janata Party deepened. The
CPI(M) had long back issued warnings against the Jan Sangh and the RSS.
Calling
the authoritarian Congress and the communal Jan Sangh-RSS the ‘twin
dangers,’ the CPI(M) Polit Bureau had in 1974 called for a struggle against
both. On the July crisis of the
Janata Party, the assessment of the CPI(M) was that following the unravelling of
that party, the remaining entity was under the control of the Jan Sangh-RSS with
a few socialist and progressive personalities yet remaining within the fold of
the party. The CPI(M) refused to
support the regime. The central
committee of the CPI(M) stated that the struggle against authoritarianism and
communalism must be accompanied by the struggle against vested stakes to defend
the interests of the people, and to provide at least temporary relief to the
masses of the people.
Political
parties did not always seriously view the gaining of strength of communal forces
during 1987-88. The CPI(M) in
contrast talked of fighting the authoritarian Congress by mobilising a
comprehensive opposition unity, while working to isolate the forces of
communalism. At the height of the
struggle against the plethora of corruption at the highest places during Rajiv
Gandhi’s premiership, the central committee of the CPI(M) pointed out that the
anti-communal stand of the CPI(M) and the Left urged upon those parties, which
would enlist the help of the forces of communalism to form electoral alliances
against the Congress, to rethink their line.
The
CPI(M) in fact continued with energy to bring to the secular platform even those
parties that were keen to strike a compromise with the BJP.
The CPI(M) spoke clearly of the ‘twin danger of authoritarianism and
communalism’ in the election manifesto for the 1989 polls.
The CPI(M) also refused to have any seat adjustments with the BJP and,
indeed, the CPI(M) candidates won from constituencies like Kanpur and Nawada
defeating BJP candidates. On the
issue of building of a temple at Ayyodhya during the time the V P Singh-led
government was in office at the centre, the CPI(M) made clear that a firm stand
must be taken on the question of secularism and against communalism.
The Congress and the BJP together proceeded to vote out the Singh
government, enhancing manifold the communal danger to the nation.
DANGER
TO DEMOCRACY
Subsequently,
the BJP government assumed office as a danger to democracy.
The attacks on democracy included attacks on minorities, genocide in
Gujarat, attempt to introduce presidential form of government through amendment
of the Constitution, introduction of POTA, infiltration by the RSS not only in
education institutions but also in the armed forces.
Ideologically speaking, the communal drive is an attack on democratic
values.
It
is not correct to think that the danger to democracy would be forthcoming from a
particular political party. The
danger to democracy is inherent in the various forms of conflict between the
people, the ruling classes, and the economic policy that the ruling classes
would like to clamp down on the people. To
take an example: those who argue forcibly in favour of liberal policies are also
vocal in favour of curtailing the rights of the working people.
Of late, the interference from the administration, and even from the
judiciary, is increasingly witnessed on TU activities, against the right to
strike, and against the right to hold rallies and meetings.
The
policy of liberalisation, and the economic outlook that caters to the interests
of the international finance capital, cannot be established in a full-fledged
manner unless they are able to curtail the democratic rights of the people.
Thus, the struggle for democracy is essentially important as a part of
the struggle against the policy of liberalisation. (INN)
