This time, as we remember the Emergency, let us not forget the Sangh's historic betrayal, deception, and the superficial differences between the BJP and Congress.
Published Jun 25, 2025 | 11:28 AM ⚊ Updated Jun 25, 2025 | 11:28 AM
Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
Synopsis: As with every year, the Sangh Parivar, instead of reflecting on the thousand wounds they have inflicted upon the Constitution over the past eleven years, continue to remind us of the blow Indira Gandhi delivered to the Constitution fifty years ago. Through this, they attempt to mask their own fascist rule – one that is far more insidious. The surrender letters written by the supreme RSS leader, Sarsanghchalak Balasaheb Deoras, who was imprisoned during the Emergency, from Yerwada Jail to Indira Gandhi, as well as the letter he wrote to Vinoba Bhave requesting him to influence Indira Gandhi to consider it, help us understand the true role of the RSS and Jan Sangh during the Emergency.
Today is 25 June.
It has now been fifty years since Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency on the country.
The cruelty of that period’s authoritarianism was, comparatively speaking, less severe in certain southern states like Karnataka than in North India. One possible explanation for this, in Karnataka’s case, could lie in the populist programmes of Devaraj Urs.
For the same reason, even though Indira Gandhi and her party suffered a devastating defeat in the elections held after the Emergency was lifted, they still managed a sweeping victory in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
That said, India today finds itself not merely under an authoritarianism worse than the Emergency – it is enduring a more terrifying, more prolonged, and fascistic undeclared authoritarianism.
Could it be that India’s failure to learn the right lessons from Indira’s Emergency paved the way for this current fascist phase?
After all, the political opposition to that first authoritarianism offered leadership roles to the Sangh Parivar: fascist-authoritarian forces which, at the time, had not yet attained mainstream legitimacy. In doing so, it inadvertently conferred democratic respectability on those very forces. The Sangh fascists have since entrenched themselves deeply within the democratic framework, using it to expand their reach exponentially.
Looking back, was it a mistake to understand Indira’s authoritarianism purely as a betrayal of electoral democracy?
Is there a deeper lesson here – that even though the formal trappings of electoral democracy existed post-independence, the persistence of social, economic, and cultural authoritarianism ultimately enabled political authoritarianism as well?
And does that not mean the anti-authoritarian movement of the time made a grave error in aligning with those very forces that upheld social, cultural, and economic authoritarianism?
If so, should the current struggle against this undeclared fascist authoritarianism take heed – and expand its resistance beyond the electoral or political realm to also challenge authoritarianism in the social, economic, and cultural spheres?
Rather than absorbing the lessons of Indira’s Emergency, there are now arguments – even from progressive quarters – suggesting that her authoritarianism was somehow progressive or at least justifiable when compared to today’s fascist variant under the Sangh.
But these were the very justifications Indira herself offered when declaring the Emergency – and at the time, many progressives, including some on the Left, lent her their support.
Yet, having witnessed and suffered through the brutality of that period and the nature of Indira’s politics both during and after, many of them eventually revised their positions and condemned the Emergency outright.
That these same arguments are now being revived only reveals the profound helplessness of our present moment.
From 1969 onwards, Indira Gandhi introduced a series of radical measures: the 20-point programme, bank nationalisation, land reforms, and the abolition of privy purses.
She maintained amicable relations with Soviet Russia – something that did not sit well with the United States, leader of the capitalist world.
America, in turn, allied with opposition parties in an effort to bring down Indira’s government.
This forms one of the central arguments of those who now defend the Emergency – that Indira Gandhi did not impose authoritarian rule merely to preserve her own power, but to shield India from an American conspiracy.
At that time, the CIA was actively destabilising countries such as Chile, Cuba, and other socialist, communist, or genuinely nationalist nations that defied American dominance.
It is a matter of record that the United States sought to install puppet regimes by orchestrating the assassinations of prime ministers and presidents in such nations.
It is also true that many of Indira Gandhi’s political opponents – particularly the Sangh Parivar – had connections with the United States.
And indeed, Jayaprakash Narayan, the figurehead of the anti-Indira movement, openly urged the police and military to refuse cooperation with the government, a call that undeniably sowed political instability.
But is it entirely accurate to say that the United States was opposed to Indira Gandhi’s government for these reasons alone?
At the time, American imperialism was engaged in targeted political assassinations and campaigns of disruption in countries that had nationalised American, British, French, and other colonial powers’ investments – moves that directly impacted Western economic interests.
These nations prioritised the welfare of farmers and workers over capitalist profit, earning the enmity of global capital.
For these reasons, capitalist forces from the West conspired alongside America to topple such governments.
In doing so, they even permitted genuinely socialist and communist movements to gain political ground within their own borders.
It is this context – of economic affronts to American imperialism and committed adherence to anti-capitalist paths – that provoked the United States to destabilise those regimes.
Yet, in contrast, neither Indira Gandhi’s government nor Nehru’s before her, for all their rhetoric of socialism, were ever truly anti-American.
Seen in this light, countries like Chile, Cuba, and Mossadegh’s Iran (prior to 1955) pursued aggressive nationalisation of foreign assets.
India, however, whether under Nehru or Indira, far from nationalising foreign capital, created avenues for its expansion.
Although there was cooperation and investment from Soviet Russia in India’s major public sector industries and defence sector, from as early as 1947, Nehru’s government created avenues for American neo-colonialism to take root in the agricultural sector.
Later, after 1965, the Indira government implemented the American-directed “Green Revolution” precisely to forestall the possibility of a “Red Revolution” in India.
Moreover, the 1969 bank nationalisation was aimed not so much at providing banking facilities to the general public as it was at providing financial capital to large Indian capitalists at concessional rates, with the objective of developing the country along a capitalist path.
The half-heartedly declared land reforms were implemented only in places where people’s movements were strong; elsewhere, the Indira government showed no intention of enforcing them or confronting entrenched feudal interests.
Politically as well, Indira Gandhi stood firmly opposed to communism.
In fact, Indira holds the distinction of having dismissed the world’s first democratically elected communist government, which had come to power in Kerala in 1958.
When she came to power in 1971, although some communists, impressed by her left-leaning slogans, saw a socialist in her, throughout her tenure she followed the “Tata Plan,” which had been advocated under the leadership of India’s major capitalist Tata.
The Emergency was likewise welcomed by India’s major capitalists as a means to instil “discipline” among workers.
Even the brutal, communal forced sterilisation campaigns of the period were hailed by Tata as acts of patriotism.
Conversely, those who bore the brunt of the repression and atrocities during the Emergency were wage workers, socialists, communists, and Naxalites.
Initially, the capitalist, pro-American RSS ideologues were against the Emergency, but later they became fully pro-Indira.
Their support for Indira continued without hindrance even after she returned to power in 1980 for a second term.
Thus, unlike the regimes in Chile or Cuba, the Indira government and those that followed were neither anti-American imperialist, nor anti-capitalist, nor pro-socialist or pro-communist.
Consequently, neither the United States nor the RSS had any reason to oppose or overthrow Indira.
Therefore, the genuine democrats of the country must understand more deeply the dangers of the Emergency, the political-economic context that made it possible, and the constitutional possibilities that allowed it.
It is necessary to grasp the essence of class interests present in the authoritarianism of both then and now.
Hence, to remain alert and ensure such a disaster does not happen again in this country, it is essential that the people of this country remember this day as a day of vigilance.
As with every year, the Sangh Parivar, instead of reflecting on the thousand wounds they have inflicted upon the Constitution over the past eleven years, continue to remind us of the blow Indira Gandhi delivered to the Constitution fifty years ago.
Through this, they attempt to mask their own fascist rule – one that is far more insidious.
If Indira’s Emergency was limited to the political sphere, Modi’s has destabilised not only the nation’s politics, society, and culture, but also every aspect of daily life.
If Indira’s Emergency lasted just 20 months, Modi’s authoritarianism has endured for over eleven years. It has taken root within society and embedded itself within constitutional institutions.
If the 20-month Indira Emergency gave rise to massive outrage in the country’s politics and society, the fact that Modi’s fascism has not yet met with such resistance is evident even in the election results of the past eleven years.
As ever, the Sangh Parivar uses this occasion not only to label the Congress as anti-democratic but also to systematically spread the falsehood that only their party opposed authoritarianism during the Emergency.
But why, then, did the Sangh Parivar support that dreadful Emergency?
History shows that the Sangh Parivar and the then-Jan Sangh did not oppose the Emergency with the same courage or commitment as other democratic forces.
Instead, they engaged in quiet compromises and behind-the-scenes negotiations with Indira Gandhi’s regime.
Not only that – their leaders, much like their ideological predecessor Savarkar, wrote letters of surrender from jail, expressing support for the Emergency.
The BJP–Sangh Parivar has continually sought to hide these shameful chapters of history and their opportunistic, anti-people stance.
Yet the writings from that period, and the historical records of their own leaders, provide ample evidence of their covert support for the Emergency.
Every year on 25 June, BJP and RSS members boast on Facebook about how they saved India from the Emergency, posting the front pages of newspapers from 26 June 1977, reporting on the arrests of Vajpayee, Morarji, and other leaders.
However, those who suffered more deaths and losses during the Emergency than the BJP leaders were the socialists, Lohiaites, CPM, and thousands of leaders and workers from the Naxalite parties.
This becomes evident when one examines the files from the then Home Department and secret reports.
Be that as it may – did Atal Bihari Vajpayee actually serve jail time during the Emergency?
Decidedly not.
Throughout those 20 months, Vajpayee spent most of his time at home – out on parole.
And to obtain parole, he even submitted a written undertaking pledging not to oppose the Emergency!
It was not the communists or the socialists who brought this to public attention with supporting documentation.
Rather, it was Subramanian Swamy, a senior leader of the BJP.
In a detailed article titled The Unlearnt Lessons of Emergency, published in The Hindu on 13 June 2000, Swamy revealed how several leaders from the RSS and Jan Sangh had engaged in secret negotiations with Indira Gandhi.
In that piece, he also disclosed that Atal Bihari Vajpayee reached an understanding with Indira Gandhi just days after his arrest.
Vajpayee submitted a written undertaking in which he pledged that, if released on parole, he would not participate in any anti-government activities.
He was subsequently released and, as Swamy noted, acted in accordance with the government’s directions for the entire period he was outside.
This, of course, is neither surprising nor unprecedented.
Vajpayee had done something similar even before independence. While watching a demonstration during the 1942 Quit India Movement, Vajpayee was arrested by the British government.
Even then, he was released from custody after giving up the names of his fellow activists and submitting a written statement promising never again to participate in any anti-British activity.
In the same article, Subramanian Swamy recounts how, by December 1976, RSS leaders had decided to sign a surrender document pledging full and unequivocal support for Indira Gandhi’s Emergency.
In fact, after the Emergency was declared, the responsibility of continuing organisational activities without opposing the government was entrusted to senior RSS leader Madhavrao Mule.
The responsibility of negotiation and reconciliation with the government was assigned to Ranade. Subramanian Swamy was tasked with garnering support from foreign governments – including the United States – for the anti-Emergency movement abroad.
However, in November 1976, Madhavrao Mule, with regret, advised Swamy to cease his efforts.
“The RSS had finalised the document of surrender to be signed at the end of January 1977,” Madhavrao Mule informed me with regret, wrote Subramanian Swamy in that article.
This decision to surrender, taken by RSS leaders, was also documented by TV Rajeswar, then head of the Intelligence Bureau, in his book India – Crucial Years.
Likewise, this event was also recorded by veteran journalist HY Sharada Prasad, who was Indira Gandhi’s Information Advisor at the time. His son, Ravi V Sharada Prasad, later recounted it in an article published by The Print.
Most importantly, the surrender letters written by the supreme RSS leader, Sarsanghchalak Madhukar Deoras alias Balasaheb Deoras, who was imprisoned during the Emergency, from Yerwada Jail to Indira Gandhi, as well as the letter he wrote to Vinoba Bhave requesting him to influence Indira Gandhi to consider it, help us understand the true role of the RSS and Jan Sangh during the Emergency – and also to recognise their pretence.
At the end of his book in Hindi, Hindu Sangathan aur Sattawadi Rajniti, Balasaheb Deoras included all these letters in the form of an appendix.
An English version of these letters was compiled by Brahm Dutt, then a leader of the Indian Lok Dal, in his book Five-Headed Monster: A Factual Narrative of the Genesis of the Janata Party.
Similarly, Christophe Jaffrelot – who has conducted decades-long grassroots research on India’s political and social transformations – along with fellow scholar Pratinav Anil, presented the outcome of several years of study in the 2021 book India’s First Dictatorship: The Emergency, 1975–77.
This work also includes English translations of Deoras’s letters.
Following the declaration of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi delivered her Independence Day address from the Red Fort on 15 August.
In that speech – much like all authoritarians throughout history – she claimed that the decision to impose the Emergency was crucial for the security of the nation, and labelled those opposing it as traitors. Democrats across the country denounced the speech and her increasingly autocratic stance.
Yet, in stark contrast, RSS Sarsanghchalak Deoras, in his first letter to Indira Gandhi dated 22 August 1975, openly praised the speech.
Not only did he commend it, but he described it as timely and balanced.
He goes on to say that he is writing this letter to dispel the government’s misunderstandings about the RSS, assuring that although the RSS is engaged in organising Hindus, it has never been opposed to Indira Gandhi’s government. And finally, he writes:
“In view of all these matters, I humbly request that the ban on the RSS be lifted. It would give me great pleasure to meet you personally, if you find it appropriate…”
Thus, in the very first letter, not only does he express agreement with the Emergency, but ultimately, his request is not for the Emergency to be lifted, but for the ban on the RSS to be removed!
This is the RSS!
Indira Gandhi gave no response to the letter from the Sarsanghchalak of the RSS.
Meanwhile, during the Emergency, media outlets and even the Supreme Court – ever ready to crawl when merely asked to bend – dutifully complied with Indira Gandhi’s directives.
This was exemplified by the overturning of the Allahabad High Court’s verdict, which had invalidated Indira Gandhi’s election.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court reversed the decision, thereby upholding her position. All democrats – both imprisoned and free – unanimously condemned this collapse of judicial independence as yet another extension of dictatorial rule.
But what did the Sarsanghchalak do?
On 10 November 1975, Deoras penned a second letter to Indira Gandhi, beginning with a note of congratulation on the Supreme Court’s ruling:
“Let me congratulate you as five judges of the Supreme Court have declared the validity of your election.”
He then goes on, throughout the letter, once again trying to assure that the RSS is not opposed to the government or the Emergency. Finally, he concludes by saying that if the ban on the RSS were lifted:
“The selfless energy of lakhs of RSS volunteers can be used in the government’s nation-building efforts.”
In other words, if the ban on the RSS is lifted, its volunteers are willing to work hand-in-hand with Indira Gandhi’s dictatorial government – a direct assurance offered openly by the Sarsanghchalak.
Yet even then, the Indira government refused to relent.
At that point, the Sarsanghchalak wrote yet another letter, this time seeking the mediation of Vinoba Bhave – who not only held sway over Indira Gandhi but was also a philosophical ally of the RSS.
This is because, by the end of February, Indira Gandhi was scheduled to visit Bhave’s ashram. Thus, Deoras appeals to him to exert influence during that meeting to have the ban on the RSS lifted. And he states that if the ban is lifted:
“…a condition will prevail as to enable the volunteers of the Sangh to participate in the planned programme of action relating to country’s progress and prosperity under the leadership of the prime minister.”
In other words, Deoras, once again, openly expressed his willingness to cooperate with Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian regime.
This is the true face of the RSS leadership during the Emergency.
At a time when Indira Gandhi was systematically dismantling civil liberties and throttling democracy itself across the nation, the RSS and Jan Sangh were trying to secure their way out of repression by offering behind-the-scenes assurances of cooperation with that very repression.
As a continuation of this, the Uttar Pradesh unit of the Jan Sangh, on the first anniversary of the Emergency – 25 June 1976 – not only declared full support to the Indira government, but also took a vow that they would not take part in any anti-government activities.
Not just that – 34 Jan Sangh leaders from Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh went on to join Indira Gandhi’s Congress.
All of this culminated in a formal surrender document that the RSS had readied and was prepared to sign by the end of January 1977, in agreement with the Indira government.
But before that could happen, Indira Gandhi had already lifted the Emergency, and thus the RSS did not have to sign the surrender document. That’s all.
Even after this, Balasaheb Deoras continued to hold Indira Gandhi in high regard.
When Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980, she had abandoned all her earlier “socialist-secular” stance. In Kashmir and Punjab, she ushered in a dangerous brand of Hindutva politics, proclaiming:
“If the Hindu is in danger, the nation is in danger. Therefore, to protect the nation, strong leadership is required.”
The Sarsanghchalak Deoras began openly praising her.
With Indira now implementing the RSS’s agenda herself, Deoras even declared that the BJP was not essential to the RSS.
Following Indira Gandhi’s assassination, the RSS repaid its debt by actively participating in the anti-Sikh pogrom that ensued.
This is the RSS.
This is the BJP. This is their so-called love for democracy!
This time, as we remember the Emergency, let us not forget this historic betrayal, deception, and the superficial differences between the BJP and Congress.
Let us learn from it – and begin a true resistance against today’s Modi 3.0 dictatorship.
(The writer is an an activist and a columnist based in Bengaluru. Translated from Kannada and edited by Dese Gowda)
