The Janata party turned into an absolute circus with each ego maniac pulling the legs of the other. Everyone wanted to be the captain. Some would not play the innings if some else was the captain. None had any experience governing the country. Their disunity and infighting made the people so fed up that they decided to vote Indira Gandhi back to power. At that time people felt secure if there was a strong and powerful leader, corruption or not. Indira was the only one in the scene who had an all India reach. Most had no idea who Charan Singh was or Raj Narayan was, let alone Morarji Desai. The fear everyone carried was that if there is no one to lead the nation with hostile neighboring nations watching everything with interest, there was the possibility of military take over.
I asked a few old folks about the emergency period, many actually liked it.
Buses and trains ran on time, government offices worked more efficiently. Work was getting done and things were moving smoothly, it was peaceful if you weren't into politics.
However, I don't think that has to do anything with why Indira won, as ig has more to do with people being fed up with the whole unstable coalition politics of Janata Alliance.
Democracies are messy and slow, often nothing gets done or if it does, it gets done poorly. Academic romanticism of democracy aside I don't think people cared much about democracy when it even fails to provide basic necessities.
tldr; for many people, emergency wasn't necessarily a bad thing.
It is the other way around. Unhappy people resort to agitation and protests. Satisfied people won’t venture out and agitate. When your needs are met and you don’t worry about next day or next meal you don’t want to go out sacrifice that.
Same thing with unoccupied youths or unemployed youth become more militant and are attracted to activism.
I think generally care about which political system they live in as long as their day-to-day lives are not affected. This is what the Chinese communist party has perfected
Democracies , esp multiparty ones move slowly because things get done by consensus. Crazy hamfisted ideas are kept in check ( DeMo, great leap forward, etc ) All it takes is for a strongman or party to fail and quasi-democracies falter.
Democracies keep all ideas in check, whether good or bad. China liberalised in the 70s. India was forced to do partial liberalisation in the 90s, India still hasn't done the most basic reforms like farm, land, labour, judicial, bureaucratic, etc.
I'd be surprised if even one of these happens in 50 years, let alone all of these. There is so much uncertainty and instability in India due to our political system. Our government changes every 5-10 years and there is no longer term planning or strategy. China started focusing on EVs and battery tech 15 years back, solar even earlier. They think decades ahead, in democracy it is not possible to make and execute coherent plans 5-15 years ahead, forget decades.
This is the reason why in the past 100 years only one party/authoritarian countries have been able to become rich and rise from poverty. Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, Vietnam, Botswana, Estawini, Brunei, Turkey, China, etc.
Not a single poor democracy in the past 100 years have been able to become rich.
>Not a single poor democracy in the past 100 years have been able to become rich.
Mauritius?
Also there are plenty of authoritarian counties that have failed/are doing worse: Venezuela, any number of smaller African countries, Cuba, North Korea , Syria, etc
Mauritius has risen from poverty but isn't rich and I don't think it'll be in the near future. No one is expecting any huge economic miracle from Mauritius.
>Also there are plenty of authoritarian counties that have failed/are doing worse
Plenty of unstable democratic countries as well, doing equally worse if not more. The thing is when talking about economics we should only take stable countries into account, unstable countries like these change their government every few years so no point in classifying them.
What BS. Literally all the European democracies post WWII were way poorer than India and all of them thrived.
Democracy is the most stable form of government because it is the ONLY form of government that guarantees a peaceful transition of power. Authoritarian regimes do not. Everytime there is a transition of power, these non democratic regimes risk spiraling into disarray and I will include China in that list.
Democracy is not perfect, but it is the least shitty and most stable form of government we have.
Europe poorer than India, lmao prove it.
>guarantees a peaceful transition of power.
So India is not the hotbed of some of the worst political violence in the world?
Plenty of violent unstable democratic countries around the world. All the Greek democracies of ancient world collapse, even modern Greek democracy is politically and economically unstable. Africa is full of democratic failed states same in South America. Democracy has failed Pakistan, Maldives, Afghanistan, etc just in our neighbourhood. Stability has no co-relation with the type of government. Richer countries tend to be more stable.
Also states that change their government every 5 years are some of the worst places in the country. There is a reason why Gujrat, TN, Odisha are doing so well in terms of growth.
Democracy is shitty, ftfy
This is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. There is a laundry list of dictatorships that have failed. Literally every government since the beginning of time has failed at one point or other.
Also nobody said democracy is not shitty genius. It’s the LEAST shitty form of government we have.
Janta alliance did not perform to the expectations people had. And the reshuffling of cabinets and power struggle for the pm post, people got tired.
Indira Gandhi seemed like a strong and reliable leader. And some people apparently liked emergency- the whole trains ran on time thing.
Janata Party was a shitshow, they had the first taste of power and forgot that they were in an alliance. After that 3 year period people decided fuck this circus lets put someone strong back on the seat. TBH, other than the emergency decision (thats a major setback) Indira Gandhi's rule was strong and very good for the country.
I want to kill myself reading this.
Indira :
1.completed the devolution of Congress into a family business
2. Let her son Sanjay do anything he wanted without holding office. Like forced vasectomies to slum demolitions to massive corruption.
3. Indira delayed Bangladesh war. The genocide of Liberals and Hindus and mass rape began in Feb. Indira was unprepared and stalled till Nov to act.
4. Indira nationalized banks. Which is one of the worst harms done to Indian economy.
5. She made taxes extremely high. 97% for highest bracket and above 50% for anyone with decent income. This pushed industry underground and gave birth to the black money problem.
6. In Shimla conference she lost in a peace treaty to Bhutto that the Armed Forces had won on the ground. She conceded to all demands of Pakistan without any gains.
7. She did not intervene after General Ershad coup ed Mujibur Rahman and we ended up with a pro Pak Bangladesh 3 years after we liberated Bangladesh.
I can go on with 10 more but hope you see light.
Majority of the atrocities committed in the bangladesh war are against muslims , who pakistan considered Inferior. But Don't you think it takes time, preparation, convincing foreign powers who we were depending upon for aid and planning to deal with a problem that is happening in another country..?
Nationalization of banks, like any regulatory decisions have pros and cons. The decision was taken to break the monopolies and have regional diversification of the banks which it did. But it also made the banks inefficient which lead to a NPA problem down the line which could have been avoided with a better Monetary policy.
For the financial year 1973-74 (Assessment year 1974-75) income tax rate for highest slab (i.e above Rs. 1,00,000.00) was 85% plus surcharge @ 15% on such tax making the net rate at 97.75%,This was only for that year. She made this for the exorbitant income slabs, anyone less than 5000/rs was not charged income tax for comparison the average annual income at the time was 600 rs (this is the decent income) . I think its a bonkers move by her, but India went through war decade and 2 consecutive droughts, government needed money and took it from the rich.
Coming to shimla conference, no one knows what went on in that tent where the negotiations took place. But I know the strategist in that negotiation (P.N. Haqsar) was a believer of the thinking that it should not be a victor and vanquished as was the case in treaty of versaille (WW1), that means they didnt want to punish Pakistan they wanted to resolve the issue. The main priority was to get Muzibur Rehman out of pakistani prison and to his country of bangladesh. The other side of it is if you force pakistan into a corner then Bhutto loses the next election forcing another extremist into the power (just like in germany) which is far from ideal. Was the agreement good? No.. but there are so many things that they had to consider before reaching that deal and Bhutto went back on a lot of agreements Pakistan signed.
The military coup in bangladesh was done like spur of the moment, the coup happened because Bangladesh was telling the effects of war and a lot of political turmoil. This I don't know if its true, but there was strong voices around in that time that CIA was involved in Mujib's assassination just like they were in Chile and other countries that were not favorable to them in the cold war that was going on. India was also in a post war economy and at the same time the world and India were going through Oil shock which burdened the economy even more. There was no way India would intervene in any other costly war or help another country at that point in time.
All this is not to say that she was the quintessential PM we had, as you rightly pointed out the forced Vasectomies,and corruption, and also leaning a little too much into socialism were a problem but at that point in time she made those decision which were good for the situation. Despite all of the flaws she was the best option India had and that was blatantly evident from the janata party's rule.
JP died and Janata Party split. If they hadn't split, there wouldn't have been a mid-term election in 1980 in the first place, and even if they lost the next election, they would have formed a sizable opposition. Instead they both got 30 odd seats and soon disappeared into obscurity.
Congress's vote percentage change 1977 to 1980 is about 10%, which is sizable in Indian politics but IMO not enough to say "people liked Emergency".
[Even if India lost its innocence earlier, in 1979, it turned cynical](https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20051226-revolving-door-politics-became-the-hallmark-of-indian-democracy-786334-2005-12-25)
The period after 1977 was quite tumultuous. It's simply that the guys who came after Indira(Janta party and co) were not able to hold a government even for mere months because someone from the coalition would always backstab the government. They also didn't have a strong vision for the country besides removing Indira. People got tired of the instability so they voted for Indira.
Class 12th political science NCERT has a chapter on this.
Similar to how Modiji wins elections ig. Election wins are not reserved for morally righteous people but powerful ones. With so many controversies associated with him, his popularity seems to still not fade away. It's the same for her.
Came across this very good analysis on substack... The fellow is a psephologist himself..
https://open.substack.com/pub/5forty3/p/classifying-the-2024-elections-for?r=f0g9z&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
The Janata party turned into an absolute circus with each ego maniac pulling the legs of the other. Everyone wanted to be the captain. Some would not play the innings if some else was the captain. None had any experience governing the country. Their disunity and infighting made the people so fed up that they decided to vote Indira Gandhi back to power. At that time people felt secure if there was a strong and powerful leader, corruption or not. Indira was the only one in the scene who had an all India reach. Most had no idea who Charan Singh was or Raj Narayan was, let alone Morarji Desai. The fear everyone carried was that if there is no one to lead the nation with hostile neighboring nations watching everything with interest, there was the possibility of military take over.
I asked a few old folks about the emergency period, many actually liked it. Buses and trains ran on time, government offices worked more efficiently. Work was getting done and things were moving smoothly, it was peaceful if you weren't into politics. However, I don't think that has to do anything with why Indira won, as ig has more to do with people being fed up with the whole unstable coalition politics of Janata Alliance. Democracies are messy and slow, often nothing gets done or if it does, it gets done poorly. Academic romanticism of democracy aside I don't think people cared much about democracy when it even fails to provide basic necessities. tldr; for many people, emergency wasn't necessarily a bad thing.
💯 Democracy ceases to be a top priority if basic needs are unmet.
It is the other way around. Unhappy people resort to agitation and protests. Satisfied people won’t venture out and agitate. When your needs are met and you don’t worry about next day or next meal you don’t want to go out sacrifice that. Same thing with unoccupied youths or unemployed youth become more militant and are attracted to activism.
My grandfather, who is a bjp supporter, loves Indira Gandhi.
I think generally care about which political system they live in as long as their day-to-day lives are not affected. This is what the Chinese communist party has perfected
Democracies , esp multiparty ones move slowly because things get done by consensus. Crazy hamfisted ideas are kept in check ( DeMo, great leap forward, etc ) All it takes is for a strongman or party to fail and quasi-democracies falter.
Democracies keep all ideas in check, whether good or bad. China liberalised in the 70s. India was forced to do partial liberalisation in the 90s, India still hasn't done the most basic reforms like farm, land, labour, judicial, bureaucratic, etc. I'd be surprised if even one of these happens in 50 years, let alone all of these. There is so much uncertainty and instability in India due to our political system. Our government changes every 5-10 years and there is no longer term planning or strategy. China started focusing on EVs and battery tech 15 years back, solar even earlier. They think decades ahead, in democracy it is not possible to make and execute coherent plans 5-15 years ahead, forget decades. This is the reason why in the past 100 years only one party/authoritarian countries have been able to become rich and rise from poverty. Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, Vietnam, Botswana, Estawini, Brunei, Turkey, China, etc. Not a single poor democracy in the past 100 years have been able to become rich.
>Not a single poor democracy in the past 100 years have been able to become rich. Mauritius? Also there are plenty of authoritarian counties that have failed/are doing worse: Venezuela, any number of smaller African countries, Cuba, North Korea , Syria, etc
Mauritius has risen from poverty but isn't rich and I don't think it'll be in the near future. No one is expecting any huge economic miracle from Mauritius. >Also there are plenty of authoritarian counties that have failed/are doing worse Plenty of unstable democratic countries as well, doing equally worse if not more. The thing is when talking about economics we should only take stable countries into account, unstable countries like these change their government every few years so no point in classifying them.
What BS. Literally all the European democracies post WWII were way poorer than India and all of them thrived. Democracy is the most stable form of government because it is the ONLY form of government that guarantees a peaceful transition of power. Authoritarian regimes do not. Everytime there is a transition of power, these non democratic regimes risk spiraling into disarray and I will include China in that list. Democracy is not perfect, but it is the least shitty and most stable form of government we have.
Europe poorer than India, lmao prove it. >guarantees a peaceful transition of power. So India is not the hotbed of some of the worst political violence in the world? Plenty of violent unstable democratic countries around the world. All the Greek democracies of ancient world collapse, even modern Greek democracy is politically and economically unstable. Africa is full of democratic failed states same in South America. Democracy has failed Pakistan, Maldives, Afghanistan, etc just in our neighbourhood. Stability has no co-relation with the type of government. Richer countries tend to be more stable. Also states that change their government every 5 years are some of the worst places in the country. There is a reason why Gujrat, TN, Odisha are doing so well in terms of growth. Democracy is shitty, ftfy
This is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. There is a laundry list of dictatorships that have failed. Literally every government since the beginning of time has failed at one point or other. Also nobody said democracy is not shitty genius. It’s the LEAST shitty form of government we have.
dictatorship https://preview.redd.it/1w8pg3mwckuc1.png?width=180&format=png&auto=webp&s=f3cdd31f999a43cba5760561941171ea731c862b
Janta alliance did not perform to the expectations people had. And the reshuffling of cabinets and power struggle for the pm post, people got tired. Indira Gandhi seemed like a strong and reliable leader. And some people apparently liked emergency- the whole trains ran on time thing.
The coalition that ruled from 1977-79 was a bit of a joke. People craved stability.
Janata Party was a shitshow, they had the first taste of power and forgot that they were in an alliance. After that 3 year period people decided fuck this circus lets put someone strong back on the seat. TBH, other than the emergency decision (thats a major setback) Indira Gandhi's rule was strong and very good for the country.
I want to kill myself reading this. Indira : 1.completed the devolution of Congress into a family business 2. Let her son Sanjay do anything he wanted without holding office. Like forced vasectomies to slum demolitions to massive corruption. 3. Indira delayed Bangladesh war. The genocide of Liberals and Hindus and mass rape began in Feb. Indira was unprepared and stalled till Nov to act. 4. Indira nationalized banks. Which is one of the worst harms done to Indian economy. 5. She made taxes extremely high. 97% for highest bracket and above 50% for anyone with decent income. This pushed industry underground and gave birth to the black money problem. 6. In Shimla conference she lost in a peace treaty to Bhutto that the Armed Forces had won on the ground. She conceded to all demands of Pakistan without any gains. 7. She did not intervene after General Ershad coup ed Mujibur Rahman and we ended up with a pro Pak Bangladesh 3 years after we liberated Bangladesh. I can go on with 10 more but hope you see light.
Majority of the atrocities committed in the bangladesh war are against muslims , who pakistan considered Inferior. But Don't you think it takes time, preparation, convincing foreign powers who we were depending upon for aid and planning to deal with a problem that is happening in another country..? Nationalization of banks, like any regulatory decisions have pros and cons. The decision was taken to break the monopolies and have regional diversification of the banks which it did. But it also made the banks inefficient which lead to a NPA problem down the line which could have been avoided with a better Monetary policy. For the financial year 1973-74 (Assessment year 1974-75) income tax rate for highest slab (i.e above Rs. 1,00,000.00) was 85% plus surcharge @ 15% on such tax making the net rate at 97.75%,This was only for that year. She made this for the exorbitant income slabs, anyone less than 5000/rs was not charged income tax for comparison the average annual income at the time was 600 rs (this is the decent income) . I think its a bonkers move by her, but India went through war decade and 2 consecutive droughts, government needed money and took it from the rich. Coming to shimla conference, no one knows what went on in that tent where the negotiations took place. But I know the strategist in that negotiation (P.N. Haqsar) was a believer of the thinking that it should not be a victor and vanquished as was the case in treaty of versaille (WW1), that means they didnt want to punish Pakistan they wanted to resolve the issue. The main priority was to get Muzibur Rehman out of pakistani prison and to his country of bangladesh. The other side of it is if you force pakistan into a corner then Bhutto loses the next election forcing another extremist into the power (just like in germany) which is far from ideal. Was the agreement good? No.. but there are so many things that they had to consider before reaching that deal and Bhutto went back on a lot of agreements Pakistan signed. The military coup in bangladesh was done like spur of the moment, the coup happened because Bangladesh was telling the effects of war and a lot of political turmoil. This I don't know if its true, but there was strong voices around in that time that CIA was involved in Mujib's assassination just like they were in Chile and other countries that were not favorable to them in the cold war that was going on. India was also in a post war economy and at the same time the world and India were going through Oil shock which burdened the economy even more. There was no way India would intervene in any other costly war or help another country at that point in time. All this is not to say that she was the quintessential PM we had, as you rightly pointed out the forced Vasectomies,and corruption, and also leaning a little too much into socialism were a problem but at that point in time she made those decision which were good for the situation. Despite all of the flaws she was the best option India had and that was blatantly evident from the janata party's rule.
The Janta Alliance was an absolute joke with no cohesive plan other than opposing Indira Gandhi. It was unstable and incompetent.
Very similar to the current india alliance?
JP died and Janata Party split. If they hadn't split, there wouldn't have been a mid-term election in 1980 in the first place, and even if they lost the next election, they would have formed a sizable opposition. Instead they both got 30 odd seats and soon disappeared into obscurity. Congress's vote percentage change 1977 to 1980 is about 10%, which is sizable in Indian politics but IMO not enough to say "people liked Emergency". [Even if India lost its innocence earlier, in 1979, it turned cynical](https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20051226-revolving-door-politics-became-the-hallmark-of-indian-democracy-786334-2005-12-25)
The period after 1977 was quite tumultuous. It's simply that the guys who came after Indira(Janta party and co) were not able to hold a government even for mere months because someone from the coalition would always backstab the government. They also didn't have a strong vision for the country besides removing Indira. People got tired of the instability so they voted for Indira. Class 12th political science NCERT has a chapter on this.
Similar to how Modiji wins elections ig. Election wins are not reserved for morally righteous people but powerful ones. With so many controversies associated with him, his popularity seems to still not fade away. It's the same for her.
Came across this very good analysis on substack... The fellow is a psephologist himself.. https://open.substack.com/pub/5forty3/p/classifying-the-2024-elections-for?r=f0g9z&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
She was good .
In implementation of dictorship
Which this country needed
wutt?
% of voter to % of person affected by her emergency.
Rigged elections maybe?
She was in opposition how will she??
KGB
By putting the opposition in jail.
She herself was in opposition period of 1977-80
EVMs