THE EMERGENCY AND ITS MORAL EQUIVALENCE

One side of India's political divide is reaffirming its faith in the Constitution, while the other is pointing to the Emergency. But one must remember that each bend in history is different

- SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU

IN the just-concluded session of the new parliament, there was one odd historical coincidence and remembrance that created some noise but not enough debate. Om Birla, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, immediately after he was elected on June 26, moved a resolution condemning the Emergency of 1975. He also led the observation of a two-minute silence, quite unprecedented, and described it as a "dark period" in Indian democracy.

What Birla did was seize the opportunity that June 26 offered-the day Indira Gandhi inaugurated her dictatorial rule in 1975. This was not just an annual reminder, but also marked the beginning of the countdown to the 50 years since the Emergency was proclaimed. Symbolism was written all over Birla's move. Expectedly, it did not go down well with the Congress.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's words on the occasion unambiguously captured the significance of the act of mourning the historical happening. For him, personally, and for his 10-year-old regime, constantly accused of being authoritarian, it was about turning the tables on the Congress and pulling them down from the moral perch they had come to occupy during the election campaign.

Modi said: "It was also a wonderful gesture to stand in silence in honour of all those who suffered during those days ... It is important for today's youth to know about it because it remains a fitting example of what happens when the Constitution is trampled over, public opinion is stifled and institutions are destroyed. The happenings during the Emergency exemplified what a dictatorship looks like." Obviously, his target was the younger generation, who he suspected to have innocuously walked into frames created by the Congress against him.