'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?'

Sam Manekshaw, the first field marshal in the Indian army, was at the ringside of events when Independent India was being formed. Then a colonel, he was chosen to accompany V P Menon on his historic mission to Kashmir. This is his version of that journey and its aftermath, as recorded in an interview with Prem Shankar Jha.

At about 2.30 in the afternoon, General Sir Roy Bucher walked into my room and said, 'Eh, you, go and pick up your toothbrush. You are going to Srinagar with V P Menon. The flight will take off at about 4 o'clock'. I said, 'why me, sir?'

'Because we are worried about the military situation. V P Menon is going there to get the accession from the Maharaja and Mahajan.' I flew in with V P Menon in a Dakota. Wing Commander Dewan, who was then squadron leader Dewan, was also there. But his job did not have anything to with assessing the military situation. He was sent by the Air Force because it was the Air Force which was flying us in.'

Since I was in the Directorate of Military Operations, and was responsible for current operations all over India, West Frontier, the Punjab, and elsewhere, I knew what the situation in Kashmir was. I knew that the tribesmen had come in - initially only the tribesmen - supported by the Pakistanis.

Fortunately for us, and for Kashmir, they were busy raiding, raping all along. In Baramulla they killed Colonel D O T Dykes. Dykes and I were of the same seniority. We did our first year's attachment with the Royal Scots in Lahore, way back in 1934-5. Tom went to the Sikh regiment. I went to the Frontier Force regiment. We'd lost contact with each other. He'd become a lieutenant colonel. I'd become a full colonel.

Tom and his wife were holidaying in Baramulla when the tribesmen killed them.

The Maharaja's forces were 50 per cent Muslim and 50 per cent Dogra.

The Muslim elements had revolted and joined the Pakistani forces. This was the broad military situation. The tribesmen were believed to be about 7 to 9 kilometers from Srinagar. I was sent into get the precise military situation. The army knew that if we had to send soldiers, we would have to fly them in. Therefore, a few days before, we had made arrangements for aircraft and for soldiers to be ready.

But we couldn't fly them in until the state of Kashmir had acceded to India. From the political side, Sardar Patel and V P Menon had been dealing with Mahajan and the Maharaja, and the idea was that V.P Menon would get the Accession, I would bring back the military appreciation and report to the government. The troops were already at the airport, ready to be flown in. Air Chief Marshall Elmhurst was the air chief and he had made arrangements for the aircraft from civil and military sources.

Anyway, we were flown in. We went to Srinagar. We went to the palace. I have never seen such disorganisation in my life. The Maharaja was running about from one room to the other. I have never seen so much jewellery in my life --- pearl necklaces, ruby things, lying in one room; packing here, there, everywhere. There was a convoy of vehicles.

The Maharaja was coming out of one room, and going into another saying, 'Alright, if India doesn't help, I will go and join my troops and fight (it) out'.

I couldn't restrain myself, and said, 'That will raise their morale sir'. Eventually, I also got the military situation from everybody around us, asking what the hell was happening, and discovered that the tribesmen were about seven or nine kilometres from what was then that horrible little airfield.

V P Menon was in the meantime discussing with Mahajan and the Maharaja. Eventually the Maharaja signed the accession papers and we flew back in the Dakota late at night. There were no night facilities, and the people who were helping us to fly back, to light the airfield, were Sheikh Abdullah, Kasimsahib, Sadiqsahib, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, D P Dhar with pine torches, and we flew back to Delhi. I can't remember the exact time. It must have been 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning.

(On arriving at Delhi) the first thing I did was to go and report to Sir Roy Bucher. He said, 'Eh, you, go and shave and clean up. There is a cabinet meeting at 9 o'clock. I will pick you up and take you there.' So I went home, shaved, dressed, etc. and Roy Bucher picked me up, and we went to the cabinet meeting.

The cabinet meeting was presided by Mountbatten. There was Jawaharlal Nehru, there was Sardar Patel, there was Sardar Baldev Singh. There were other ministers whom I did not know and did not want to know, because I had nothing to do with them. Sardar Baldev Singh I knew because he was the minister for defence, and I knew Sardar Patel, because Patel would insist that V P Menon take me with him to the various states.

Almost every morning the Sardar would sent for V P, H M Patel and myself. While Maniben (Patel's daughter and de facto secretary) would sit cross-legged with a Parker fountain pen taking notes, Patel would say, 'V P, I want Baroda. Take him with you.' I was the bogeyman. So I got to know the Sardar very well.

At the morning meeting he handed over the (Accession) thing. Mountbatten turned around and said, ' come on Manekji (He called me Manekji instead of Manekshaw), what is the military situation?' I gave him the military situation, and told him that unless we flew in troops immediately, we would have lost Srinagar, because going by road would take days, and once the tribesmen got to the airport and Srinagar, we couldn't fly troops in. Everything was ready at the airport.

As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, 'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away'. He (Nehru) said,' Of course, I want Kashmir (emphasis in original). Then he (Patel) said 'Please give your orders'. And before he could say anything Sardar Patel turned to me and said, 'You have got your orders'.

I walked out, and we started flying in troops at about 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock. I think it was the Sikh regiment under Ranjit Rai that was the first lot to be flown in. And then we continued flying troops in. That is all I know about what happened. Then all the fighting took place. I became a brigadier, and became director of military operations and also if you will see the first signal to be signed ordering the cease-fire on 1 January (1949) had been signed by Colonel Manekshaw on behalf of C-in-C India, General Sir Roy Bucher. That must be lying in the Military Operations Directorate.

Excerpted from Kashmir 1947, Rival Versions of History, by Prem Shankar Jha, Oxford University Press, 1996

Nehru’s foreign policy blunders on China and Pakistan

The Congress Party has always projected Pandit Nehru as an exemplary helmsman of India’s foreign policy.

The founder of our political movement, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, on the other hand, regarded Panditji’s handling of Pakistan, as well as China, as two egregious blunders of his.

Sadly, the shock that Nehru suffered when confronted by China’s gross betrayal in 1962 virtually cost him his life. His mishandling of Pakistan has left terrorism and Kashmir as two festering sores for our body politik right up to this day.

Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International (whose late father was a committed Congressman) has recently made some very pertinent observations about Nehru’s conduct of India’s Foreign Policy. A Penguin publication by Zakaria has been titled “The Post American world”. In this book Zakaria says that the “central paradox of India” today is that “its society is open, eager and confident ready to take on the world”, but its state – its ruling class – is “hesitant, cautious and suspicious of the changing realities around it”. The Newsweek Editor adds: “Nowhere is this tension more obvious than in the realm of foreign policy, the increasingly large and important task of determining how India should fit into the new world”.

Zakaria’s book recalls that when Mountbatten suggested that there be a powerful chief of defense staff, Nehru turned down the suggestion.

Zakaria adds “A week into his new government, he walked over to the defense ministry and was furious to find military officers working there (as they do in every defense ministry in the world). Since then all armed service personnel working in New Delhi’s ‘South Block’ wear civilian clothes”.

Pandit Nehru remained India’s Prime Minister from 1947 to 1964. Throughout his tenure he was his own Foreign Minster. K.P.S. Menon, one of our first foreign secretaries, has observed in his autobiography: “We had no precedents to fall back upon because India had no foreign policy of her own until she became independent …our policy therefore necessarily rested on the intuition of one man, who was Foreign Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.”

Zakaria goes on to make a rather severe summing up of Nehru’s foreign policy management thus :

“Nehru rooted India’s foreign policy in abstract ideas rather than a strategic conception of national interests. He disdained alliances, pacts, and treaties, seeing them as part of the old rules of real politik, and was uninterested in military matters.”

Ironically, Fareed Zakaria writes, India’s policies became “especially tough-minded and shrewd during the reign of Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi.” We all know that it was during her regime that Bangladesh was carved out, and that India took its initial step into the field of nuclear weaponry. Those who have been following the development of India into a full fledged nuclear weapons state are aware that Pokharan I took place in 1974, during Mrs. Gandhi’s tenure. The process then started was completed by Prime Minister Vajpayee through Pokharan II, where on May 11, 1998, three underground nuclear tests were successfully conducted.

There can hardly be a more glaring instance of Nehruji’s unconcern for the India’s own strategic interests than his refusal to accept a U.S. offer in 1955 of a permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council, till then held by Taiwan. He insisted that the seat be given to China. Interestingly, this fact is mentioned in his book on Pandit Nehru by Shashi Tharoor, an MOS in Dr. Manmohan Singh Government.

When Nehru declined to accept the U.S. proposal, his argument was that he did not want U.S. to marginalise China. We thereby only hurt our own interests.

In 2008, a conclave of foreign ministers of BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) was held at Yekaterinburg (Russia). At this conclave Russia pressed that the conclave support India’s plea to secure a permanent place in the U.N. Security Council. Russia’s move did not succeed because it was strongly opposed by China !

L.K. Advani
New Delhi

15th February, 2010

Corruption suspect Sonia morphs into a crusader

S Gurumurthy

“All across India, people are saying enough is enough. And suddenly the unthinkable is starting to happen. People considered above reproach, or at least untouchable, are coming under the judicial crosshairs. And the latest high-profile target is one of the biggest fish of all, Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi, currently No. 9 on the Forbes list of the World’s Most Powerful People.” Who says so? Dr Subramanian Swamy? Me? No. It is Cleo Paskal writing in the online news website Huffington Post on the corruption charges against Sonia Gandhi. Paskal’s article titled “World’s No. 9 Most Powerful Person Now Accused of Corruption—Will She Fall?” appeared in Huffington Post on April 25, 2011.

An award-winning journalist, Paskal writes for Sunday Times, Telegraph and the Economist. Her books have won multiple awards. An Associate Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, the US Department of State, those consulting her include US Department of Energy, US Army War College, UK Ministry of Defence, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK Defence Academy, EU, NATO, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the heads of many major corporations, and intelligence professionals from over 30 countries. Associated with Manipal University and School of Communication and Management Kochi, she is familiar with India. She blogs in Huffington Post, the world’s third most popular news website that commands over 38 million visitors viewing half-a-billion pages every month. Founded in 2005, it became instant success. In February this year, AOL acquired it for $315 million (`1,450 crore). In 2008, the Observer, London, rated Huffington Post, the winner of several awards, as the worlds’ best blog. Now back to Paskal on Sonia.

Acknowledging that Sonia’s “image is of a dutiful, submissive Indian wife, now widow”, Paskal notices the “growing, persistent murmurs about questionable business deals and inexplicable exponential jumps in the personal wealth of her and her family”. Paskal recalls “the ground-breaking articles” that M D Nalapat, a senior journalist, had written about Sonia in 1995 in “the Times of India”. Paskal says that Nalapat’s comment that her “public docility was just a ploy” and “she had serious political ambitions”, was “later confirmed by her role in the Congress”. Paskal also emphasises Nalapat’s view that “her desire for power wasn’t simply altruistic and that the wealth not only of her, but of her Italian relatives, rose stratospherically after Rajiv Gandhi became prime minister in 1984”. Paskal points out that while his articles were undisputed; Nalapat was forced out of journalism in 1998 when, as he had predicted, Sonia took over the Congress.

Then Paskal cites the “public questions from another highly reputed source, Sten Lindstrom, Sweden’s special prosecutor”, who investigated the Bofors pay-off scam. Paskal points out Lindstrom’s interview in 1998 in which he had said that “the Gandhis, particularly now Sonia, should explain how Quattrocchi-owned companies got such fat sums as payoffs from the Bofors deal. After all, what is the connection of Sonia and the Gandhi family to Quattrocchi? Who introduced Quattrocchi and his AE Services to Bofors? At least one thing is certainly known now. A part of the payoffs definitely went to Quattrocchi. (...); the papers all pointed to the Gandhi family.” Paskal points out, “Not only have the questions not been answered by Sonia, but in spite of substantial evidence against him, Quattrocchi has managed to evade prosecution in India, and has even had his kickback funds unfrozen from overseas accounts.”

“But the most serious threat to Sonia,” warns Paskal, “is now lying on the desk of the Prime Minister of India.” That is Dr Subramanian Swamy’s written request to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for sanction to prosecute Sonia for corruption. Paskal says: “In a meticulously researched 200-plus page submission, Dr Swamy alleges Sonia Gandhi has been involved in corruption in India since 1972 and personally benefited from the Bofors scam (1986), has held billions in non-Indian bank accounts since at least 1991, illegally profited from the Iraqi oil-for-food deals (2002), and even accessed KGB payoffs during the Cold War.” Obviously Paskal has read the complaint thoroughly. Adding that the Prime Minister has three months’ time to grant or reject the request, she says, “If he doesn’t, Dr Swamy can take the case directly to the Supreme Court, which, under Chief Justice Kapadia, is showing a definite proclivity towards facilitating corruption cases.” “Given the growing importance of India in our heavily globalised world,” Paskal concludes, the permission sought to prosecute Sonia “is not just an Indian story; this is one all should be following very closely indeed.” In Paskal’s view, the bribery charges against Sonia will have global reach.

Now shift to the Indian scene. With most mainline media blacking out the truth, the people are unaware of much of what Paskal says about Sonia’s suspected corruption. On the contrary, they see a saint in her. Result: Sonia, who Paskal suspects as corrupt, nonchalantly proclaims ‘Zero Tolerance’ to corruption. And the mainstream media, sidestepping questions over her integrity, celebrates her resolve more. Sonia laments that Indians have “become greedy”, their “moral universe has shrunk”, and the media eulogises her candidness. Further. Declaring support to Anna Hazare, who staked his life for anti-corruption law, she earns Anna’s gratitude and media glory. But she forthwith lets the Sibals, Digvijays and Tiwaris to set upon Bhushans, Anna’s men, and also shockingly disapproves of them. Yet the media does not ask her how her minions could defy her. Finally, the mainstream media has blacked out Dr Swamy’s “meticulous” complaint against Sonia. A reader’s gratitude to Paskal for “shedding light on an issue that is taboo in Indian mainstream media” tells the true story. QED: Sonia, a suspect, is now morphed into a crusader.

Navy refuses info on phased-out helicopters got from the US

Navy has refused to disclose any details about procurement of six phased-out helicopters from the US worth Rs 182 crore for which it recently received a rap from the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The Navy, which was criticised by the country's top auditor for a deal "which would ultimately compromise operational effectiveness", has cited national security to withhold information about it.

In reply to an RTI application seeking details about the deal which came under fire from the CAG, the Navy cited section 8(1)(a) of the transparency law to deny the information.

The section exempts disclosure of information which would 'prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence'.

"The information sought by you is classified in nature, hence exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act," Commander-at-arms S K Gupta at Integrated Headquarters Defence Ministry replied to RTI applications filed by activist S C Agrawal.

The Navy had acquired six decommissioned UH3H helicopters under the Foreign Military Supply (FMS) programme of the United States in November 2006, along with training and support facilities at an approximate cost of Rs 182.14 crore.

The 35-40 years old helicopters "were on the verge of completing their air frame life and are on extended life", noted CAG in its recent report.

"These helicopters were delivered with many defects including Category A 12 defects resulting in nonavailability of the helicopters leading to delay in training and the operationalisation of the squadron," it had said.

In his appeal against the decision of the Commander-at-Arms, Agarawal said: "Section 8 clearly states that any information which is not denied to Parliament or state-legislature, cannot be denied under RTI Act. Since report of Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG) is presented to Parliament, any query relating to CAG strictures on purchase of defective choppers cannot be denied under RTI Act."

Indira's India and the KGB - 2/2

by Christopher Andrew

India was also one of the most favourable environments for Soviet front organisations. From 1966 to 1986 the head of the most important of them, the World Peace Council, was the Indian Communist Romesh Chandra, who denounced “the US-dominated Nato” as “the greatest threat to peace” across the world.

By the summer of 1975 Mrs Gandhi’s suspicions of a vast conspiracy by her political opponents, aided and abetted by the CIA, had, in the opinion of her biographer Katherine Frank, grown to “something close to paranoia”. In June 1975 she persuaded the President and the Cabinet to agree to the declaration of a state of emergency. Opposition leaders were jailed or put under house arrest and media censorship introduced. Thousands of people were arrested.

Reports from the Delhi main residency claimed exaggerated credit for using its agents of influence to persuade Mrs Gandhi to declare the emergency. But, according to Leonid Shebarshin, head of the Delhi main residency from 1975, both the Centre and the Soviet leadership found it difficult to grasp that the emergency had not turned Indira Gandhi into a dictator and that she still responded to public opinion and had to deal with opposition: “On the spot, from close up, the embassy and our (intelligence) service saw all this, but for Moscow Indira became India, and India — Indira.” Reports from the Delhi residency which were critical of any aspect of her policies received a cool reception in the Centre. Shebarshin thought it unlikely that any were forwarded to Soviet leaders or the Central Committee.

Though Mrs Gandhi was fond of saying in private that states have no constant friends and enemies, only constant interests: “At times Moscow behaved as though India had given a pledge of love and loyalty to her Soviet friends.” Even the slightest hiccup in relations caused consternation. During 1975 a total of 10.6 million roubles was spent on measures in India designed to strengthen support for Mrs Gandhi and undermine her political opponents. Soviet backing was public as well as covert. In June 1976, at a time when Mrs Gandhi suffered from semi-pariah status in most of the West, she was given a hero’s welcome on a trip to the Soviet Union.

The Kremlin, however, was worried by reports of the dismissive attitude to the Soviet Union of Indira’s son, Sanjay. It was reported that one of Sanjay’s cronies was holding regular meetings with a US embassy official “in a very suspicious manner”. Soon after his mother’s return from her triumphal tour of the Soviet Union, Sanjay gave an interview in which he praised big business, denounced nationalisation and poured scorn on the Communists. By her own admission, Indira became “quite frantic ” when his comments were made public. Sanjay was persuaded to issue a “clarification” which fell well short of a retraction.

The emergency ended as suddenly as it had begun. On January 18, 1977, Mrs Gandhi announced that elections would be held in March.

Press censorship was suspended and opposition leaders released from house arrest. To ensure success, the KGB mounted a major operation involving more than 120 meetings with agents during the election campaign. Nine candidates at the elections were KGB agents. Files also identify by name 21 of the non-Communist politicians (four of them ministers) whose election campaigns were subsidised by the KGB.

Agent reports reinforced the Delhi main residency’s misplaced confidence that Indira Gandhi would secure another election victory. Reports that she faced the possibility of defeat in her constituency were largely disregarded. In the event Mrs Gandhi suffered a crushing defeat. Janata, the newly united non-Communist opposition, won 40 per cent of the vote to Mrs Gandhi’s 35 per cent. One of the KGB’s bêtes noires, Morarji Desai, became Prime Minister. In Delhi, Mrs Gandhi’s downfall was celebrated with dancing in the streets.

Her relations with Moscow after she returned to power in 1980 never quite recaptured the warmth shown during her previous term in office.

Extracted from The Mitrokhin Archive, Volume II: the KGB and the World by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, to be published by Penguin on September 19 at £30, offer £27.

© Christopher Andrew and Estate of Vasili Mitrokhin 2005

Indira's India and the KGB - 1/2

by Christopher Andrew

A charm offensive against Mrs Gandhi, agents in the media and the government, attempts to buy influence in Congress — in the second volume of the astonishing Mitrokhin archive Christopher Andrew reveals how the KGB targeted India



INDIRA GANDHI NEVER realised that the KGB’s first prolonged contact with her occurred during her first visit to the Soviet Union, a few months after Stalin’s death in 1953. As well as keeping her under continuous surveillance, the Centre (KGB headquarters) also surrounded her with handsome, attentive male admirers. Two years later Indira accompanied her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, the inaugural Prime Minister of independent India, on his first official visit to the Soviet Union. Like Nehru, she was visibly impressed by the apparent successes of Soviet planning and economic modernisation exhibited to them in stage-managed visits to Russian factories. During her trip Khrushchev presented her with a mink coat which became one of the favourite items in her wardrobe — even though a few years earlier she had criticised the female Indian ambassador in Moscow for accepting a similar gift.

Soviet attempts to cultivate Indira Gandhi during the 1950s were motivated far more by the desire to influence her father than by any awareness of her own political potential. Moscow still underestimated her when she became Prime Minister. In her early parliamentary appearances she seemed tongue-tied and unable to think on her feet. The insulting nickname coined by a socialist MP, Dumb Doll, began to stick.

But her political genes were soon to show their worth. Following a split in the Congress Party in 1969, the Communist Party of India (CPI), encouraged by Moscow, swung its support behind her. At the elections of February 1971, Mrs Gandhi’s wing of Congress won a landslide victory.

In August she signed a Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation with the Soviet Union. Both countries immediately issued a joint communique calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam. India was able to rely on Soviet arms supplies and diplomatic support in the conflict against Pakistan which was already in the offing.

Despite diplomatic support from both the United States and China, Pakistan suffered a crushing defeat in the 14-day war with India.

For most Indians it was Mrs Gandhi’s finest hour. A Soviet diplomat at the United Nations exulted: “This is the first time in history that the United States and China have been defeated together!” In the Centre, the Indo-Soviet special relationship was also celebrated as a triumph for the KGB. The residency in Delhi was rewarded by being upgraded to the status of “main residency”. Its head from 1970 to 1975, Yakov Prokofyevich Medyanik, was accorded the title of “main resident”. In the early 1970s the KGB presence in India became one of the largest outside the Soviet bloc. Indira Gandhi placed no limit on the number of Soviet diplomats and trade officials, thus allowing the KGB and Soviet intelligence as many cover positions as they wished.

Oleg Kalugin, who became head of Foreign Counter-Intelligence in 1973, remembers India as “a model of KGB infiltration of a Third World government”. He recalls one occasion when the KGB turned down an offer from an Indian minister to provide information in return for $50,000 on the grounds that it was already well supplied with material from the Indian foreign and defence ministries: “It seemed like the entire country was for sale; the KGB — and the CIA — had penetrated the Indian government. Neither side entrusted sensitive information to the Indians, realising their enemy would know all about it the next day.” The KGB, in Kalugin’s view, was more successful than the CIA, partly because of its skill in exploiting the corruption that became endemic under Indira Gandhi’s regime. Suitcases full of banknotes were said to be routinely taken to her house and one of her opponents claimed that Mrs Gandhi did not even return the cases.

The Prime Minister is unlikely to have paid close attention to the dubious origins of some of the funds that went into Congress’s coffers. That was a matter she left largely to her principal fund-raiser, Lalit Narayan Mishra, who, though Mrs Gandhi doubtless did not realise it, also accepted Soviet money. Short and obese, Mishra looked the part of the corrupt politician. Indira Gandhi, despite her own frugal lifestyle, depended on the cash he collected from various sources to finance her party. Money also went to her son and anointed heir, Sanjay, whose misguided ambition to build an Indian popular car and become India’s Henry Ford depended on government favours.

When Mishra was assassinated in 1975, Mrs Gandhi blamed a plot involving “foreign elements” — doubtless intended as a euphemism for the CIA. The Delhi KGB residency gave his widow 70,000 rupees, though she doubtless did not realise the source. Though there were some complaints from the Communist leadership at the use of Soviet funds to support Mrs Gandhi, covert funding for the Congress Party of India seems to have been unaffected. By 1972 the import-export business founded by the CPI to trade with the Soviet Union had contributed more than 10 million rupees to party funds. Other secret subsidies, totalling at least 1.5 million rupees, had gone to state Communist parties, individuals and media associated with the CPI. The funds that were sent from Moscow to party headquarters via the KGB were larger still. In the first half of 1975 they amounted to over 2.5 million rupees.

India under Mrs Gandhi was probably the arena for more KGB active measures than anywhere else, though their significance appears to have been considerably exaggerated by the Centre, which overestimated its ability to manipulate Indian opinion.

()

According to KGB files, by 1973 it had on its payroll ten Indian newspapers (which cannot be identified for legal reasons) as well as a press agency. During 1972 the KGB claimed to have planted 3,789 articles in Indian papers

Emergency: The Darkest Period in Indian Democracy

History bares testimony to the fact that great nations face grave crises. In 1933, the United States was struck by the great depression, which exposed the fallacies of the market economy. A few years later the military might of Japan was crushed by the United States during the Second World War. At the start of the last decade of the millennium, the fragilities of Socialism were exposed and it led to the eventual demise of the Soviet Union.

India’s strength has always been its vibrant democracy. Ours is perhaps the only country where people from contrastingly different castes, creed, religion and race live together in peace and harmony. The other hallmarks of our country are a strong judicial system and a free press. The imposition of the emergency in 1975 struck at the very core of these ideals, which constitute our democracy. It was perhaps the darkest period in the history of independent India.

The Reasons

On 25th June 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed an emergency in the country. Fundamental Rights stood suspended, censorship was imposed on the press and prominent political leaders were arrested. So what prompted Mrs. Gandhi to take such a drastic step? Could the emergency have been avoided? What role did her son Sanjay and his cronies play during this crucial period? Were there any personal motives? There are just some of the questions that we will try to answer.

In many ways the foundation for the emergency was laid when the Allahabad High Court set aside Indira Gandhi’s re-election to the Lok Sabha in 1971 on the grounds of electoral malpractices. This verdict, which came on 12th June, was later challenged in the Supreme Court, which on 24th June 1975, granted a conditional stay to Mrs. Gandhi, thereby allowing her to remain a member of parliament but disallowed her to take part in parliamentary proceedings. However, this was just the first step. The other, more significant reason for the imposition of emergency was the “JP movement”. Many regard Jayaprakash Narayan as “the Gandhi of Independent India”. In his entire political career he never contested an election. After the Allahabad High Court verdict, “JP”, as he was better known, gave the call for a “Total Revolution” and also demanded the resignation of Mrs. Gandhi. In fact on June 25, 1975, he announced a plan of daily demonstrations, not merely in Delhi, but also in every State capital and district headquarters until Indira Gandhi threw in the towel. He also appealed to the Army, the police and the bureaucracy “to refuse to obey Indira” and “abide by the Constitution instead”. His associate Morarji Desai went a step further. In an interview to an Italian journalist he said, “We intend to overthrow her, to force her to resign. For good…Thousands of us will surround her house and prevent her from going out…night and day.” Incidentally, Desai was once Deputy Prime Minister in her government.

Many argue that the emergency was the inevitable outcome of social, economic and political crises resulting in “systematic failure” One of them is Prof. P.N. Dhar, Secretary to the Prime Minister and her chief official advisor during this period. In his book “Indira Gandhi, the emergency and Indian Democracy”, he states that it was largely because of the opposition pressure that she was forced to resign. He says “Even before she could file her appeal, to which she was enticed, a delegation of opposition leaders from the Congress (O), JS, BLD, SP and Akali Dal called on the president and presented a memorandum to him saying that “a grave constitutional crisis had arisen as a result of Mrs. Gandhi continuing to occupy the of office of the prime minister despite a clear and categorical judicial verdict.” Apart from Dhar, there were others who supported the Emergency. One of them was prominent writer Khushwant Singh, who at the time was the editor of “The Illustrated Weekly of India”. He says “By May 1975 public protests against Mrs. Gandhi’s government had assumed nationwide dimensions and often turned violent. With my own eyes I saw slogan-chanting processions go down Bombay thoroughfares smashing cars parked on the roadsides and breaking shop-windows as they went along. Leaders of opposition parties watched the country sliding into chaos as bemused spectators hoping that the mounting chaos would force Mrs. Gandhi to resign.”

From the above arguments it is clear that Mrs. Gandhi was a power-hungry woman who imposed the emergency to safeguard her own political and personal interests. And the only beneficiary of this unfortunate period was her son Sanjay Gandhi.

The Man And His Mission

One of the most controversial figures in Indian politics, Sanjay Gandhi has often been accused of being the mastermind behind the atrocities committed during the emergency. It is widely believed that, through his associate Jagmohan, he ordered the demolition of Slums in Delhi’s Turkman Gate area. To make matters worse, both Sanjay and Indira Gandhi developed a Twenty-Point program which advertised the “salient features”.

However, the most controversial agenda was the implementation of a family-planning programme. This programme was a result of Sanjay Gandhi’s so-called “vision” to contain population growth in this country. Officially, this exercise was supposed to be a voluntary one for both men and women. However, there were reports that government officials were forcing young unmarried men, the poor and in some cases even political opponents.

That Sanjay had a dictatorial streak in his personality is evident, as he frequently used to order Cabinet ministers and other government officials. In one famous case I. K, Gujral, the then minister for information and broadcasting, was forced to resign after he refused to obey Sanjay Gandhi’s orders. Inder Malhotra remarked, “His ways were rude and crude. He had a knack of attracting riff-raff and roughnecks to him. But none of this prevented Congressmen, high and low, from fawning on him and swearing “eternal loyalty” to his mother and her family.”

However Khushwant Singh calls him a “lovable goonda”. He says “In some ways he epitomised the slogan he had coined: Kaam ziyaada, baatein kum – work more, talk less. He was a young man in a hurry to get things done. He had no patience with tedious democratic processes and red tape, no time for long-winded politicians or bureaucrats. The fact that he had no legitimacy for imposing his fiats on the country besides being the son of the prime minister was of little consequence to him.”

The fact that till today his name evokes fear among the public shows the notoriety in his personality. Also from the above the analysis it is evident that he showed utter contempt towards democratic institutions and would go to any extent to subvert them. In fact, it is said that Sanjay Gandhi was “furious” when Indira Gandhi decided to end the Emergency.

However, inspite of all his fallacies there is one contribution that Sanjay Gandhi gave to the nation: the Maruti car. It was envisioned as a cheap, affordable and indigenous car that the middle class could afford. Today it is India’s leading automobile company. However, even this car project had its share of controversy. The manner in which the land was acquired was questionable and there were serious doubts that the project might be shelved after the test version of the car failed.

The Impact

In addition to the common man, the judiciary and the media bore the maximum brunt of the excesses of the emergency. The Constitution, which is the most sacred document of any functioning democracy, was subverted in the most ruthless manner possible. Indira Gandhi ensured that all proclamations and ordinances were not subjected to judicial review. She amended the Representation of the People Act and two other laws in such a retrospective manner to ensure that the Supreme Court had no other option but to overturn the Allahabad High Court verdict. As senior advocate Arun Jaitley laments “The judiciary which had already been made pliable by the super cessions in 1973 was the main victim. The Supreme Court by a majority of four to one held that a person could be arrested or detained without legitimate grounds and there was no remedy in the law courts since all Fundamental Rights were suspended. The attorney-general of India argued for the government that a citizen could be killed illegally and no remedy was available since there were no Fundamental Rights of the citizen any more.” She misused Article 356 to dismiss the opposition governments in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu.

The fourth estate of democracy i.e. the media was also not spared. Censorship was imposed on newspapers and barring a few, like The Indian Express, no other newspaper had the courage to defy the censorship orders. When the Delhi edition appeared on June 28, The Indian Express carried a blank first editorial and the Financial Express reproduced in large type Rabindranth Tagore’s poem “Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high” concluding with the prayer “Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.”

In fact, Ramnath Goenka, the daring proprietor of the newspaper, explains the ordeal in his own words. “The government, acting under the personal directions of Indira Gandhi, abused its authority and subverted lawful processes to liquidate me and my group of companies economically and make me an object of public ridicule and shame. One of the prime minister’s first acts on 26th June 1975 was to remove her mild-mannered and democratically inclined Information minister I. K. Gujral and replace him with Vidya Charan Shukla, who she thought would better serve her Goebbelsian design.”

This censorship also had its lighter sides. Vinod Mehta, who edited the sleazy girlie magazine Debonair from Bombay, was asked to have his articles and pictures cleared before they were sent to the printer. The censor looked over the pages. “Porn? Theek hai! Politics no.” Most of it was soft porn. It was quickly cleared!!

For the press, the emergency was a cruel reminder that the State can snatch its freedom arbitrarily. Hence, soon after the emergency ended, the Press Council of India was formed whose main aim was to safeguard the freedom of the press and to maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in the country.

The emergency was a 19-month ordeal, which finally came to an end on January 23rd 1977; Indira Gandhi called for fresh elections and the release of all political prisoners. It was a courageous decision, considering the fact that she was under no visible compulsion to do so. It was a decision that would start a period of darkness for herself, her son Sanjay Gandhi and his coterie. However, this period would be short-lived as she staged a spectacular comeback in 1980.

The Aftermath And The Comeback

Soon after the withdrawal of the emergency, general elections were declared in the country. The Congress was reduced to just 153 seats in the Lok Sabha and the Janata Party led by Morarji Desai came to power. It was the first time a non-Congress government that assumed leadership of the country. Both Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay lost their seats. Thus began the darkest period in Indira Gandhi’s political career.

The government constituted the Shah Commission to probe into the excesses committed during the emergency. It recorded that highhanded and arbitrary actions had been carried out with impunity during the Emergency. In its report the commission recorded “Without the awareness of what is right and a desire to act according to what is right, there may be no realisation of what is wrong’”. Indira Gandhi herself was arrested on a number of charges including misuse of her official and another case related to deriving illegal benefits in connection with procurement of jeeps for election purposes. The arrest of Indira Gandhi was a dramatic affair to say the least. The officer in-charge at that time, Mr. N.K. Singh in his memoirs “The Plain truth”, records that he and his team had to take her to Badhkal, a tourist resort on the outskirts of Delhi, fearing that there might be a backlash in Delhi. However, this phase in her life would come to an end soon as the courts acquitted her. And in 1978, she re-started her political journey by contesting a by-election from Chikmanglur in Karnataka. Meanwhile, the weaknesses of the Morarji-Desai government were being slowly exposed. The basis of the formation of the Janata Party was only one: to remove Indira Gandhi from power, whatever the cost. It was this very factor that led to its break-up and their subsequent ouster from power.

by Avneesh Arputham