For some, Indira Gandhi was the best Prime Minister of India, and the ‘liberator’ of Bangladesh. To her critics, she was the architect of the Emergency—one of the darkest spots on Indian democracy—who also toppled non-Congress state governments. In his new book, Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India (Penguin), author and historian Srinath Raghavan explores her complicated legacy through meticulous research. He shows how the world order between the mid-'60s to the '70s and India’s internal political currents before and during Gandhi’s time, shaped her life as a politician and administrator. He also highlights how the early Congress government policies of Nehru and Shastri were out of sync for a time when Gandhi came to power, which led her to bring in a new set policies like the nationalisation of banks and to improve the Indo-US relationship. Excerpts from the conversation with the author:
QThe Emergency is well documented. What does your book bring to the table?
The Emergency gets a lot of prominence because it is a traumatic public event whose memory continues. By focusing somewhat exclusively on the Emergency, we tend to lose sight of the longer timeframe within which the Emergency itself is embedded and the political, economic, and social changes within which that particular event happened. As I say in this book, my interest is not so much on either the Emergency or on the person of Indira Gandhi, but on what I call the long 1970s, which is a period that stretches from the mid ’60s to the mid ’80s, roughly, that encompasses her ascent and years of power. I was also interested in understanding how India transitioned from being a certain type of democracy during the early post-colonial period to what it was in the post-1991 period.
QThe title of your book mentions ‘transformation.’ Please elaborate.
Three significant transformations happened in the ’70s. The first in the political system; the second one in her mode of politics— I have used the term Caesarism—
and the third one, in the economic system. During Indira Gandhi’s period, a shift occurred in India’s economic policies and framework from the ‘Nehruvian’ period. It’s incorrect to say that Indira Gandhi brought about those transformations, but she was an important player in the story that led to those transformations. And that is why I say that it's Indira Gandhi and the years that transformed India.
QWhat is Caesarism in Indira Gandhi’s context?
When a powerful and charismatic leader can short-circuit the machinery of parliamentary politics and directly appeal to the people—that’s Caesarism, because it is seen as a form of rule where the ruler maintains power not only through the representative structure but also by popular acclaim. It is a mode of politics by mass appeal with the electorate connecting with her charisma. Congress’ abysmal performance in the 1967 election in which many of the Congress stalwarts lost and the party was weakened in many states, plus the economic challenges, contributed to this Caesarism.
QIs it true that Mrs Gandhi was initially disinterested in sending the Indian Army to assist in Bangladesh’s Liberation War but it was the then-President of the Soviet Union Leonid Brezhnev who convinced her?
Yes, Indira Gandhi was hesitant to send the Army to Pakistan. However, the latter point that the Soviets convinced her of is wrong. Gandhi hesitated because of geopolitics. The Yahya Khan regime was supported by the US, and the latter was also opening up to China. So, India was up against the Pakistan-US-China axis. Secondly, despite the massive refugee crisis, international powers remained not very sympathetic to India. And third, some prominent Bangladeshi politicians who were part of the liberation struggle had pro-US sentiments. However, she later got rid of those dilemmas and decided to send the army. Once the decision was taken, the Indian government knew what to do and how to.
QAlthough this book is not on the Emergency, according to you what triggered Gandhi to take such a step?
The Allahabad High Court judgment of June 12, 1975 found her guilty of electoral malpractices and disqualified her from holding any elected office for six years. This judgment gave a boost to opposition parties who were on the streets agitating against her continuation in office. To preserve her position as the Prime Minister and neutralise her opponents, she decided to declare the Emergency. This was the proximate trigger for the Emergency.