Shashi Tharoor on ‘Samvidhan Hatya Diwas’: ‘No murder, Emergency wasn’t unconstitutional’

In a recent discourse surrounding 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas', Shashi Tharoor, an eminent Indian politician and author, presented a nuanced perspective on the controversial period of the Emergency in India. The Emergency, which lasted from 1975 to 1977, is often described as one of the darkest chapters in Indian democratic history. Tharoor, however, offered a different viewpoint, asserting that the Emergency, while severe, was not unconstitutional.

ALSO CHECK: First Time In India’s History | Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas Declared

Understanding the Emergency: Context and Implications

The Emergency was declared by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, citing internal disturbances. This period saw the suspension of civil liberties, censorship of the press, and mass arrests of political opponents. The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution was enacted, which significantly altered the Indian Constitution. Tharoor acknowledges these actions but argues from a legal standpoint that they were within the bounds of constitutional provisions.

The Legal Framework of the Emergency

To comprehend Tharoor's argument, it is essential to delve into the legal framework that enabled the Emergency. Article 352 of the Indian Constitution allows for the declaration of an Emergency under circumstances of war, external aggression, or internal disturbance. Indira Gandhi's administration utilized this provision, and subsequent amendments, including the 42nd Amendment, fortified the government's stance. Tharoor's assertion is rooted in the fact that these actions, though draconian, were executed within the legal boundaries set by the Constitution.

Tharoor's Defense: A Constitutional Perspective

Tharoor's defense of the Emergency being constitutional hinges on two primary arguments. Firstly, the invocation of Article 352 was a legitimate exercise of constitutional power. Secondly, the 42nd Amendment, which expanded the scope of the Emergency, was passed by a duly elected Parliament, thereby adhering to democratic processes.

Tharoor also points out that the post-Emergency period saw significant judicial scrutiny, leading to landmark judgments like the Kesavananda Bharati case, which established the basic structure doctrine. This doctrine ensures that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered, thereby safeguarding democratic principles.

Political Ramifications and Public Perception

While Tharoor provides a legal defense, the political ramifications of the Emergency were profound. The period witnessed widespread human rights violations, with thousands detained without trial. The press was muzzled, and dissent was brutally suppressed. These actions led to a massive public outcry and a subsequent electoral defeat for Indira Gandhi in 1977.

The Aftermath: Restoring Democratic Norms

The post-Emergency era focused on restoring democratic norms and ensuring such an episode would not recur. The 44th Amendment Act was introduced to make the declaration of an Emergency more stringent, requiring the President to act on the written advice of the Cabinet, and ensuring the Parliament's approval.

Tharoor's Stance: A Call for Balanced Understanding

Tharoor's stance invites a balanced understanding of the Emergency. While he does not condone the excesses and human rights abuses, he emphasizes the importance of viewing the period through a constitutional lens. His argument is not about justifying the Emergency but about acknowledging the legal frameworks that enabled it, and learning from it to prevent future abuses of power.

Diagram: Timeline of the Emergency and Key Amendments

Conclusion: Reflecting on Historical Complexities

The Emergency remains a complex and contentious chapter in Indian history. Tharoor's perspective provides a critical lens to examine the constitutional aspects of this period. It serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between the exercise of power and the protection of democratic rights. By understanding the legal frameworks and political contexts, we can better appreciate the lessons from the Emergency and work towards a more resilient and robust democratic system.

In reflecting on 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas', it is imperative to consider both the constitutional and humanitarian impacts of the Emergency. Tharoor's insights contribute to a deeper understanding of this pivotal period, encouraging a holistic view that encompasses both legal justifications and the preservation of democratic values.