Indian Emergency: The bigger picture
The lesser discussed events surrounding the Indian Emergency of 1975
The 1975 Emergency is remembered as the darkest hour of Indian democracy. Four decades later, the deliberations on the Emergency continue to centre around the actions of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her coterie. The conventional understanding that the Emergency was the result of the autocratic ambition of one leader alone, however, is not the full story. Several forces were involved in the build-up to the Emergency. Some initiated several years prior to 1975, and some with deep connections external to India.
Backdrop — 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War
In order to analyze the Emergency threadbare, the milestone event which preceded it — the 1971 Indo-Pak War — must be understood for what it really was. The war was not India’s doing, nor was it Pakistan’s. During the 70s, India’s status in world order was that of a ‘Third World’ country. While it postured itself as a non-aligned state, the truth was that India had strong ties with USSR. The Mitrokhin Archives, leaked by KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin who compiled them from KGB archives over a period of several years, reveal that Indian administration had been deeply penetrated by the KGB. The extent of this is clear from KGB’s claim that it was able to influence 30–40 percent of the new parliament, following the 1967 General Elections.
The less discussed revelation, however, was that of India’s penetration by the CIA. As the Mitrokhin Archives reveal, neither KGB nor CIA entrusted sensitive information to Indians, realizing that the other side would know all about it the next day. In light of such evidence, it becomes apparent that some key military and diplomatic milestones, which are regarded as successes of India, were part of strategy formulated by external powers. The 1971 Indo-Pakistan War, which resulted in the independence of Bangladesh, is one such example. Often called Indira Gandhi’s “finest hour”, there is evidence to suggest that this was, in fact, a war between USSR and USA, with India and Pakistan only playing mute executers.
During the 1960s, US actively tried to engage with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), otherwise called ‘mainland China’. The other China was the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as ‘Taiwan’. Since the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict, China viewed Pakistan as a strategic ally and had developed bilateral ties with Pakistan. Pakistan meanwhile had close ties with NATO, hence becoming a gateway for USA’s dialogue with PRC. The tenure of US President Richard Nixon (1969–74) saw a dramatic improvement in Sino-US dialogue. Two leaders were key in developing this relationship — Lee Kuan Yew, PM of Singapore and Yahya Khan, President of Pakistan.
The 1960s also saw East Pakistan face increasing hostility from West Pakistan. As a result of this, there was a huge influx of Bangladeshi refugees into India. Indira Gandhi, who became PM of India in 1966, had brought up the issue of Bangladeshi refugees on various international forums. The US, however, was reluctant to take any action against Pakistan. Yahya Khan was facilitating Sino-US dialogue, which the US feared would be compromised if Pakistan was attacked. Declassified US archives quote both President Nixon and his Secretary of Foreign Affairs Henry Kissinger explicitly stating so:
“the interest of the US would not be served by a [Indo-Pak] war. The new China relationship would be imperiled, probably beyond repair” — US President Richard Nixon
“the last thing we can afford now [is] to have the Pakistani government overthrown, given the other things we are doing now” — US Secretary of Foreign Affair Henry Kissinger
Source: Agarwal, A. (2014). The United States and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971: A Critical Inquiry. Indian Journal of Asian Affairs,27/28(1/2), 21–42.
The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was very much keen on disrupting the improving Sino-US ties. The situation in East Pakistan provided an opportunity for the same. The stage was set for the ’71 War. The only reason why the Subcontinent did not descend into several years of war and destruction like that in Vietnam was due to the commendable work of the Indian Army. Indian Army had isolated East Pakistan from West Pakistan within a matter of 13 days. Lieutenant-General A.A.K. Niazi, the Commander of the Pakistan Eastern Command signed the Instrument of Surrender of Pakistan Eastern Command on 16th Dec 1971. Militarily, it was an Indian victory. But geopolitically, it had been a fight between USSR and USA. In this larger war, USA was the winner. Contrary to the expectations of both USA and USSR, Sino-US ties became stronger following Pakistan’s defeat.
Sequence of events leading to Indian Emergency
In addition to the liberation of Pakistan, another development in 1971 was the initiation of a court case against Indira Gandhi on allegations of electoral malpractice. It was filed by her political rival Raj Narayan, whom she had defeated in the Raebareli constituency in 1971 general elections. Gandhi was represented by Nanabhoy Palkhivala, and Raj Narayan by Shanti Bhushan (father of lawyer and politician Prashant Bhushan). Four years later, in 1975, Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractice and disqualified her election from Raebareli constituency. It further barred her from holding elected office for six years. It is rarely pointed out that when the Janata Party came to power in 1977, Nanabhoy Palkhiwala (Gandhi’s defence lawyer in the ’71 case) was appointed as the Ambassador to US. In fact, Phalkhiwala had been known to have connections with the US. Shanti Bhushan meanwhile became a minister in the Janata Party government.
Why exactly was the US interested in removing Indira Gandhi from power? Having secured their relationship with PRC after the Indo-Pak conflict, US was looking to rebuild relations with India, which were in shambles following the ’71 war. Mrs. Gandhi, however, favoured USSR over US. Moreover, USSR had plans to invade Afghanistan. Pakistan was the sole US ally in the Sub-Continent. With USSR controlled Afghanistan in the north and a pro-USSR India in the south, it would only be a matter of time before NATO presence in the Sub-Continent was compromised. For US, this was a question of the entire Subcontinent — roughly 1/3 of the world’s population — joining the Soviet bloc.
The imposition of Emergency followed Mrs. Gandhi’s 1975 conviction. She appealed against the verdict in the Supreme Court, which later overturned her conviction. During her campaign in 1975, and the subsequent years of Emergency, Indira Gandhi alleged “foreign interference” in India’s internal matters and publicly claimed, “our doubts and fears are confirmed by the behaviour of important sections of the western press.” Phalkiwhala and Bhushan’s role in her conviction and USA’s overall strategy do corroborate her fears. More pointed evidence of American interference comes from a telegram by William Saxbe, USA’s ambassador to India from March 1975 to November 1976, from Nov 1975, mentioning an opposition leader by name.
The telegram describes a meeting between opposition labour leader George Fernandes and Foreign Labor Attache Manfred Turlach, and makes three interesting claims:
- Fernandes had gathered 300 people — some of whom were trained in the use of explosives — for sabotage activities.
- Fernandes had allied with Naxalites.
- Fernandes appealed to Turlach for finances to fund his activities. Fernandes is also said to be prepared to accept money from the CIA and asked Turlach for CIA contacts.
On the one hand, as the Mitrokhin archives reveal, KGB files claimed that by 1973 it had ten Indian newspapers on its payroll as well as a press agency under its control. The KGB claimed to have planted 3,789 articles in Indian newspapers in 1972, 2,760 articles in 1973, 4,486 articles in 1974 and 5,510 articles in 1975. Leonid Shebarshin, head of New Delhi KGB residency from 1975 to 1977 even claimed credit for influencing Mrs. Gandhi to declare the emergency in 1975. On the other hand, lawyers such as Nanabhoy and Shanti Bhushan, opposition leaders like George Fernandes, and terror groups such as Naxalites and possibly even the Khalistanis were collaborating with the CIA.
India becoming a playground for the Superpowers
In light of the above evidence, the Emergency no longer appears to be the result of Indira Gandhi’s autocratic ambition alone. It is merely one of the moves (possibly made under the influence or even direction of KGB) in a tug-of-war between CIA and KGB. Domestically, while Indira Gandhi is the villain of the Emergency (rightfully so), the present-day Indian dispensation should refrain from owning the legacy of opposition leaders of that time. The result of the tug of war between KGB backed Congress and CIA backed opposition resulted in the compromising Indian interests on several occasions throughout the Cold War years.
The very first instance of compromise in India’s interest was India failing to secure any diplomatic gains during Tashkent negotiations following the 1965 war. Moreover, India also had to give up the strategic Haji-Pir post which it had secured during the war. Furthermore, Indian PM Lal Bahadur Shastri allegedly assassinated in Tashkent. The next instance was following the 1971 war. Indian Army was within three days of reaching Peshawar, with almost no resistance from the Pakistani Army. But Indira Gandhi ordered a withdrawal. Had she not done so, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan could possibly have been settled for good. Yet another instance was during the tenure of the Janata Party government. PM Moraji Desai disapproved funding for RAW and clumsily revealed India’s deep assets in Pakistan to Zia-ul-Haq in a telephone conversation. This led to a huge setback for Indian security network. Interestingly, PM Desai is the only Indian to have been conferred Nishan-e-Pakistan, Pakistan’s highest civilian honour. There is no evidence of US directing PM Desai as KGB had done with previous Congress governments. But the presence of US sympathizers and CIA backed leaders in the Janata Party government is well known and raises the question of US involvement. Furthermore, India’s nuclear program suffered a setback during this period. India’s first nuclear test took place in 1974. Almost a quarter-century elapsed before India’s subsequent nuclear tests took place in 1998.
When one examines several governments which were in power in the decades from the 1960s to early 2000s, it becomes apparent that India’s actions have been subject to foreign pressure and interference time and again. Though Indira Gandhi bears the blame for imposing the Emergency, had events unfolded according to USSR’s plan, the outcome may have been worse. According to Leonid Shebrashin, USSR intended for Indira Gandhi to turn into a dictator following the Emergency. The Mitrokhin Archives mention that Moscow was “disappointed” that she was still responding to public opinion during the Emergency. Moreover, either under misplaced confidence, or due to misinformation planted by CIA, both Indira Gandhi and USSR were under the impression that Mrs Gandhi’s popularity had remained undamaged due to the Emergency. Hence, the Emergency was lifted after a relatively short 18 months. In contrast, the imposition of Emergency in other countries lasted far longer. In Taiwan, the state of Martial Law lasted for 38 years. North Korea, which was under USSR influence following the Korean War, became a permanent dictatorship. In India, democracy was preserved and continued relatively undamaged post-1976.
Legacy
The overturning of India’s national interests did not end with the Emergency or with the Janata Party government. In 1984, a gas leak occurred in the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal. India was unable to make UCIL CEO, Warren Anderson — a US national — face legal consequences of his company’s critical failure. In 1991, in what is today touted as “economic liberalization”, India was forced to accept conditions laid out by the IMF for a bailout package of a mere 500 Million USD. In 1993, the Indian government was forced to accept the Hurriyat — an organization whose prime motive was undermining the sovereignty of Indian government — as a legitimate party in Kashmir. In 1997, under the I.K. Gujral government, the so-called “Gujral Doctrine” called for inaction against Pakistan. It damaged India’s security apparatus, akin to the damage suffered under the Janata Party government two decades earlier. During the 1999 Kargil War, India was reluctant to deploy its Air Force until the closing days of War, out of consideration for ‘International Opinion’. The late entry of the Air Force into the theatre of combat resulted in the loss of lives of hundreds of Indian soldiers. In 2001, India’s parliament was attacked, planned by Pakistan based Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. India was prepared to conduct a counter-attack on Pakistan but was prevented from doing so under international pressure (primarily from US).
Over the past two decades, direct foreign influence is no longer exercised. It has been replaced instead by indirect influence. NGOs and International Humanitarian Organizations are vehicles of such indirect influence. The most prominent example of the actions of such groups was the formation of Aam Aadmi Party during India Against Corruption Movement in 2011. According to some estimates, the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA)licenses of close to 20,000 NGOs were cancelled since 2014 (external link) over irregularities in foreign funds. The number provides a glimpse into the scale at which foreign interference operates in the country. The controversy surrounding Rafale aircraft too was allegedly perpetrated by multinational defence contractors, who wanted to replace Dassault as the partner of choice for Indian aircraft.
It must be remembered that similar interference has led to the various occasions in which National interests were compromised. The Emergency is one such instance. Hence, the actions of both incumbent and opposition leaders of that period must be both be discussed to prevent a repeat in present times, and in future.
