Emergency is the byword for political evil in India, but few remember the circumstances leading up to its imposition.
Apart from the political turmoil caused by the J.P. movement, the decisive factor was the disqualification of the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, by the Allahabad high court on grounds that appear trivial when compared to the brazen violations of the model code of conduct by the high functionaries of the government today.
Believe it or not, the grounds on which the prime minister was convicted by Justice Jagmohan Sinha on June 12, 1975, were: the height of the rostrums from which Indira Gandhi spoke and the involvement of a government servant in the electoral process.
Yashpal Kapoor, Indira Gandhi’s close associate in the PMO, was her election agent. While Kapoor had submitted his resignation before accepting the political assignment, it had not been formally accepted by the date when the election meeting happened. The rostrums were prepared by the Uttar Pradesh government, which also supplied electricity for her meetings,
The fiery opposition leader, socialist Raj Narain, filed a case and Indira had to testify in court on March 19, 1975, for five hours. The court finally declared her guilty of violating the model code and set aside her election, giving her 20 days to appeal in the Supreme Court.
Indira was probably the most popular prime minister India has seen: she had won 352 seats in 1971 with 40.78% of the vote. The conviction meant she could not contest elections and hold any office for six years.
While her decision to impose the Emergency was unjustified, what will a student of law, or a judge, think today of that verdict? Can anybody, even in their wildest dreams, think of Prime Minister Narendra Modi being convicted and disqualified for the height of a rostrum or an official assisting him in electioneering? Has the law of the land changed?
Also read | ‘The Difference Between Then and Now’: Prabir Purkayastha on Emergency and the Modi Years
No prime minister in the history of independent India has triggered as many complaints of model code violations as has Narendra Modi. But the Election Commission and the courts have persistently refused to even issue warnings to him.
Modi gives political speeches at government events, attacking his opponents. Reports of district authorities submitting bills for buses and snacks for organising such events of the prime minister have become routine.
The Congress has over the past few years held several press conferences to question the Election Commission on whether Modi and home minister Amit Shah enjoy immunity from the law.
Indira Gandhi’s is the not the only example of the institutions cracking down on popular leaders for violations of the code.
Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray was barred from contesting elections for six years and disenfranchised by the Election Commission for the same length of time for making a communal appeal in a by-election in 1987. Thackeray had asked Hindus to vote for a fellow Hindu and said it would be a triumph for Hinduism. He blatantly spoke against Muslims in multiple speeches.
While the Bombay high court held Thackeray guilty of violating the model code, the Supreme Court said while hearing the case: “We cannot help recording our distress at these kinds of speeches given by a top leader of a political party. The lack of restraint in the language used and the derogatory terms used therein to refer to a group of people in an election speech is indeed to be condemned.
“This (judgment) is essential not only for maintaining decency and propriety in the election campaign, but also for the preservation of the proper and time-honoured values forming part of our cultural heritage and for a free and fair poll in a secular democracy.
“The offending speeches in the present case discarded the cherished values of our rich cultural heritage and tended to erode the secular polity. We say this with the fervent hope that our observation has some chastening effect in the future election campaigns.”
While several Supreme Court judgements have ruled that caste and religion cannot be used for political mobilisation, Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, bars “the promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate”.
In 2017, the then Chief Justice of India, T.S. Thakur, wrote in a verdict: “The constitution forbids the state from mixing religion with politics. The state being secular in character will not identify itself with any one of the religions or religious denominations. This necessarily implies that religion will not play any role in the governance of the country, which must at all times be secular in nature. Election is a secular exercise just as the functions of the elected representatives must be secular in both outlook and practice.”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been consciously referring to the construction of Ram Temple and asking voters to punish parties that stayed away from the consecration ceremony in Ayodhya. He has said the Congress manifesto bears the Muslim League’s imprint, in what is being seen as an attempt to divide on religious lines.
The BJP candidate from Meerut, Arun Govil, is campaigning with a photograph of Lord Ram in his hands.
In 2019, the prime minister said about Wayanad where Rahul Gandhi was contesting from: “Congress ke naamdaar ne microscope le kar Bharat mein ek aisi seat khoji hai jahan par vo muqabala karne ki taaqat rakh sake. Seat bhi aisi jahan par desh ki majority minority mein hai. (The Congress dynast used a microscope to find a constituency in India where he has the strength to fight. A seat where India’s majority is in minority).”
Home minister Amit Shah, speaking in Gujarat, went so far as to say “they were taught a lesson in 2002”. In the Gujarat riots of 2002, most of those killed were Muslims.
In the Karnataka election, Modi asked voters to punish the Congress in the name of Bajrangbali, equating the Congress’s attack on the Bajrang Dal with an attack on Lord Hanuman.
Also in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath asked the “rashtravadi samaj” (nationalist society) to defeat the supporters of the Popular Front of India chanting slogans of “Bajrangbali” and “Har-Har Mahadev”.
Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma often gives incendiary speeches.
But neither the judiciary nor the Election Commission has come down on them in the manner they had dealt with Indira and Thackeray.
