NCERT Solutions For Class 12 Political Science Chapter 10 The Crisis of Democratic Order

(c) The Naxalite Movement

In May 1977, the Janata Party government appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice J.C. Shah, retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, to inquire “into several aspects of allegations of abuse of authority, excesses and malpractices committed and action taken in the wake of the Emergency proclaimed on the 25th June, 1975”. The Commission examined various kinds of evidence and called scores of witnesses to give testimonies. Shah Commission after the emergency found out, there were many ‘excesses’ committed during the emergency.

The opposition to emergency could keep the Janata Party together only for a while. The Janata Party split and the government which was led by Morarji Desai lost its majority in less than 18 months. Another government headed by Charan Singh was formed on the assurance of the support of the Congress party. But the Congress party later decided to withdraw its support with the result that the Charan Singh government could remain in power for just about four months. This led to the fresh mid-term elections in January 1980.

Between the elections of 1977 and 1980 the party system had changed dramatically. Since 1969, the Congress party had starting shedding its character as an umbrella party which accommodated leaders and workers of different ideological dispensations and view points. The Congress party now identified itself with a particular ideology, claiming to be the only socialist and pro-poor party. Thus with the early nineteen seventies, the Congress’s political success depended on attracting people on the basis of sharp social and ideological divisions and the appeal of one leader, Indira Gandhi. With the change in the nature of the Congress party, other opposition parties relied more and more on what is known in Indian politics as ‘non-Congressism’. They also realised the need to avoid a division of non-Congress votes in the election. This factor played a major role in the elections of 1977.  The elections after the emergency set off the process of this change in the party system.

• The Emergency made everyone more aware of the value of civil liberties. The Courts too, have taken an active role after the emergency in protecting the civil liberties of the individuals. This is a response to the inability of the judiciary to protect civil liberties effectively during the emergency. Many civil liberties organisations came up after this experience. 
• Before emergency there was a tension between judiciary and executive over number of issues. After Emergency both judiciary and Executive acted in bit mature way and their confrontations subsided gradually.
• The period of emergency was marked by massive media censorship. This censorship muzzled the Media. After the emergency Media played a pro- active role to raise voice of common masses. Now the media is stronger today but business houses owning them can be managed.
• The actual implementation of the emergency rule took place through the police and the administration. These institutions could not function independently. They were turned into political instruments of the ruling party and according to the Shah Commission Report, the administration and the police became vulnerable to political pressures. This problem did not vanish after the Emergency.

(a) The major opposition parties came together on the eve of the elections and formed a new party, known as the Janata Party. The formation of the Janata Party was done to ensure that non-Congress votes would not be divided. This made the party system in India look like a two-party system in 1977. On the one hand there was a united ‘Janata Party’ and on another hand ‘Congress’.

(b) The Congress could win only 154 seats in the Lok Sabha. Janata party and its allies won 330 out of the 542 seats in the Lok Sabha; Janata Party itself won 295 seats and thus enjoyed a clear majority. Election results reflected the mood of the nation i.e. congressism or non-congressism. All the other parties are minor and won only few seats.

(c)  Some leaders of the Congress who were opposed to the emergency split from Congress and joined Janata party. Some other Congress leaders also came out and formed a separate party under the leadership of Jagjivan Ram. This party named as Congress for Democracy, later merged with the Janata Party.

After the election, there was stiff competition among three leaders for the post of Prime Minister – Morarji Desai, Charan Singh and Jagjivan Ram. Internal rift and quarrels between factions of Janata party led to split in Janata party.

Economic context

In the elections of 1971, Congress had given the slogan of garibi hatao (remove poverty). However, the social and economic condition in the country did not improve much after 1971-72. The Bangladesh crisis had put a heavy strain on India’s economy.

After the war with Pakistan the U.S government stopped all aid to India. In the international market, oil prices increased manifold during this period. This led to an all-round increase in prices of commodities.

Industrial growth was low and unemployment was very high, particularly in the rural areas. Food grain output declined. There was a general atmosphere of dissatisfaction with the prevailing economic situation all over the country. In such a context non-Congress opposition parties were able to organise popular protests effectively.

Political Reasons

Students’ protests in Gujarat and Bihar, had far reaching impact on the politics of the two States and national politics.

Jayaprakash Narayan wanted to spread the Bihar movement to other parts of the country. He was now supported by the non-Congress opposition parties. These agitations were seen as anti-Congress and rather than opposing the State governments, they were seen as protests against the leadership of Indira Gandhi.

The National Coordination Committee for Railwaymen’s Struggle led by George Fernandes gave a call for nationwide strike by all employees of the Railways for pressing their demands related to bonus and service conditions.

Declaration of Emergency and accesses committed during this period became main cause for the coming together of all the opposition parties under umbrella of Janta Party and winning election of 1977.

Conflict with Judiciary

This was also the period when the government and the ruling party had many differences with the judiciary. Three constitutional issues had emerged – can the Parliament abridge Fundamental Rights?

In 1973, the government set aside the seniority of three judges and appointed Justice A. N. Ray as the Chief Justice of India. Thus, constitutional interpretations and political ideologies were getting mixed up rapidly. The climax of the confrontation was of course the ruling of the High Court declaring Indira Gandhi’s election invalid. The response of the government was to declare a state of emergency.

The 1977 elections turned into a referendum on the experience of the Emergency. Major opposition parties now came together on the eve of the elections and formed a new party, known as the Janata Party. In north India, it was a massive electoral wave against the Congress. For the first time the opposition came into power at the Centre.

The government decided that a grave crisis had arisen which made the proclamation of a state of emergency necessary.

The government argued that in a democracy, the opposition parties must allow the elected ruling party to govern according to its policies.

It felt that frequent recourse to agitations; protests and collective action are not good for democracy. Supporters of Indira Gandhi also held that in a democracy, you cannot continuously have extra-parliamentary politics targeting the government. This leads to instability and distracts the administration from its routine task of ensuring development. All energies are diverted to maintenance of law and order.

Indira Gandhi wrote in a letter to the Shah Commission that subversive forces were trying to obstruct the progressive programmes of the government and were attempting to dislodge her from power through extra-constitutional means.