6 min readJun 26, 2026 05:54 AM IST
First published on: Jun 25, 2026 at 06:20 AM IST
It’s a question I am often asked and my reply pleases neither side of the political spectrum in these polarised times. Having witnessed firsthand Indira Gandhi’s 1975 Emergency, I am frequently quizzed whether the situation in the country is really better 50 years down the line. If I suggest that today’s restrictions on the media are not as draconian as the ones between 1975 and 1977, those left aghast by the creeping authoritarianism of Narendra Modi’s rule view me as someone who has sold out to the government. But can sledgehammer legislation that upheld prior censorship, putting dissidents behind bars indefinitely without even the farce of a trial, temporarily suspending the sacred constitutional right of habeas corpus, etc. be better than whatever is happening in the country today? The government’s cheerleaders are equally unhappy with my response. The Emergency may have been worse, but are we insidiously and slowly heading in the very same direction?
India today is not a shining example of the democracy that the framers of our Constitution envisaged. Recently, the Delhi High Court pulled up the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing for high-handedly shutting down the portal NewsClick six years ago, arresting the editor and invoking anti-terror laws against him. Television channels devote far too much time to propagating government narratives through BJP spokespersons or fellow travellers, even if this is couched as debate. This format generates more sound than light. Journalists would be better employed following their true calling — investigating and reporting the news on the ground. Media correspondents increasingly resort to self-censorship and soft-peddle uncomfortable truths for fear of offending people in power and being cut off from news sources essential for their livelihoods. US President Donald Trump last week unwittingly affirmed the suspicion that Indian journalists nowadays shy away from asking uncomfortable questions, remarking approvingly to Prime Minister Modi at a joint press conference in France, “Your reporters are much nicer than mine.’’
Today’s nomenclature for yesteryear’s censor is media adviser, embedded in the party or the government. They are usually professional communication experts who have little connect with the John Stuart Mill school of a free marketplace of ideas. Callow media consultants strive simply to choreograph a narrative as if media management is a marketing ad or a public-relations exercise. Unnecessarily toxic trolling of contrary viewpoints on social media and the harassment of media dissenters and political opponents by utilising government investigative agencies are today’s tools of censorship. The justification for violating citizens’ rights is the all-encompassing “national security’’ bogey, which has been cited to amend IT rules so that the government can even access alleged “unlawful’’ internet chatter.
Today’s media managers need to learn a lesson in pragmatism and politeness from successful past media advisers, in party and government, such as V N Gadgil, J P Mathur, Sharada Prasad, B G Verghese, Govindacharya, Ashok Tandon, Harish Khare and Arun Jaitley. They managed better outcomes by befriending journalists through easy access, tolerance and a polite exchange of differing viewpoints, rather than cutting off sources of information when opposing views were expressed. In a country as diverse as India, with a culture of outspokenness, debate and argument, truth cannot be suppressed for long, particularly in the days of social media. So why make the mistake that Indira Gandhi made 50 years back in assuming that opposing viewpoints can be wished away?
Increasingly, those in power believe they are not directly answerable to the people. The government’s radio silence over major mess-ups in the NEET and CBSE examinations, affecting lakhs of students, is a telling example. To respond to public complaints is perceived as a weakness by today’s regime. The lack of internal debate in the ruling party, too, is perturbing. The BJP parliamentary board rarely meets and when it does, it merely rubber stamps decisions taken elsewhere. The surprise elevation of inexperienced junior party persons as chief ministers, without any prior consultations, is yet another instance of the absence of inner-party democracy. No less concerning is the falling standard of independence and probity of constitutional bodies meant to uphold democratic values. The Election Commission’s blatant exclusion of over 90 lakh names from the West Bengal SIR rolls unnecessarily put a question mark over an election where the public mood was clearly against Mamata Banerjee. Recently, the way TMC and Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs have jumped ship overnight reinforces the cynical belief that most Indian politicians have a price. The crux of a true democracy is securing a majority in Parliament through an ethical recourse to the ballot box, not by winning over opposition legislators by whatever means, fair or foul, post elections. In the ongoing ruthless mission to secure a two-thirds majority, one recalls uneasily just how Indira Gandhi utilised her brute two-thirds majority to subvert our Constitution and push through Emergency rule.
As the country marks the half-century anniversary of the Emergency, many ruling party supporters wax eloquent on Indira Gandhi’s Emergency excesses as a warning to future generations not to go down that discredited path and derail democracy. Ironically, many of the practices of the Emergency are actually being emulated today. Even the unnecessary sycophancy of rulers in advertisements, bill boards and at public events seems ominously reminiscent of that black period and recalls Congress President D K Barooah’s fawning slogan, “Indira is India and India is Indira.’’
The writer is contributing editor, The Indian Express
Ironically, many of the practices of the Emergency are actually being emulated today. (Illustration: C R Sasikumar) 
Share
