The Crisis of Democratic Order | CBSE Class 12 Political Science Notes

This note covers the economic and political background to the Emergency, the Gujarat and Bihar movements, conflict with the judiciary, the declaration and consequences of Emergency, restrictions on civil liberties, resistance, democratic safeguards, the 1977 elections, the Janata government and changes in the party system.

What economic and political conditions formed the background to the Emergency?

Political strength and growing conflict

Indira Gandhi emerged as a highly popular leader, but political competition became increasingly bitter and polarised. The Congress split sharpened divisions between her and her opponents. A strong governing party therefore coexisted with serious political tensions.

Congress criticised the judiciary for obstructing welfare measures and challenged its approach in the name of democracy and parliamentary supremacy. Opposition parties, meanwhile, argued that politics was becoming personalised and that governmental authority was being turned into personal authority.

Economic pressures after 1971

The Congress campaigned in 1971 with garibi hatao, or removal of poverty. However, social and economic conditions did not improve much after 1971-72. The Bangladesh crisis, war, inflation, weak industrial growth and agricultural difficulties created widespread dissatisfaction.

These conditions helped non-Congress opposition parties organise popular protests. Student unrest became more pronounced. Marxist-Leninist groups, also known as Naxalites, rejected parliamentary politics and used armed methods against the established order; they were especially strong in West Bengal.

Economic hardship supplied the background to the crisis, but it must be distinguished from the constitutional ground used to proclaim Emergency. The government later invoked a perceived threat of internal disturbances, rather than declaring Emergency simply because prices had risen.

How did the Gujarat and Bihar movements challenge the government?

From student grievances to wider mobilisation

Both Gujarat and Bihar had Congress governments. Student protests initially focused on everyday grievances, but opposition participation gave them wider political importance. They became challenges to state governments and were also seen as challenges to Indira Gandhi’s leadership.

In Gujarat, students began an agitation in January 1974 against rising prices of essential goods and corruption in high places. Major opposition parties joined. The agitation spread, and President’s rule was imposed in the state.

Opposition parties demanded fresh assembly elections. Morarji Desai of Congress (O) announced that he would begin an indefinite fast if elections were not held. Under mounting pressure, elections took place in June 1975, and Congress was defeated.

In Bihar, students began protesting in March 1974 against rising prices, food scarcity, unemployment and corruption. They invited Jayaprakash Narayan, who had left active politics for social work, to lead their movement.

Jayaprakash Narayan, or JP, insisted that the movement remain non-violent and extend beyond Bihar. People from different walks of life joined. He called for total revolution in social, economic and political life to establish what he regarded as true democracy.

In 1975, JP led a large march to Parliament. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Congress (O), Bharatiya Lok Dal and Socialist Party supported him. His methods and ideas also attracted criticism, while Indira Gandhi viewed the movement as motivated by personal opposition to her.

Why was the railway strike of 1974 politically significant?

Workers’ demands and government response

The National Coordination Committee for Railwaymen’s Struggle, led by George Fernandes, called a nationwide strike over bonus and service conditions. Railway employees went on strike in May 1974. This added to the wider atmosphere of labour unrest and political agitation.

The railways carried both passengers and goods across the country. A prolonged stoppage therefore threatened economic activity as well as travel. The strike brought labour demands into conflict with the government’s concern about maintaining an essential service.

1. Railway employees pressed demands concerning bonus and service conditions through their national coordinating committee.
2. The government opposed the demands, and railway workers began a nationwide strike in May 1974.
3. The government declared the strike illegal, arrested many leaders and deployed the territorial army to protect railway tracks.
4. The strike ended after twenty days without a settlement because the government refused to concede the workers’ demands.

Rights and the limits of protest

The dispute raised a question about workers’ rights: should employees of essential services use strikes to pursue their demands? The issue connected economic grievances with the broader debate over the permissible forms of protest in a democracy.

The strike occurred alongside the movement led by JP, but it had its own leadership and specific employment demands. Keeping these features distinct helps explain how different kinds of dissatisfaction contributed to the same period of political crisis.

The government’s response also showed how confrontation could intensify. Arrests and refusal to settle the dispute ended the strike, but the episode remained part of the background of labour unrest preceding the Emergency.

How did conflict between Parliament and the judiciary deepen the crisis?

Constitutional powers under dispute

Disagreements concerned the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and the judiciary’s responsibility to protect constitutional limits. The disputes involved Fundamental Rights, the right to property and attempts to give effect to Directive Principles through amendments affecting rights.

The government and Congress argued that judicial decisions obstructed pro-poor programmes. The judiciary rejected important government positions on constitutional amendment. Political differences became closely connected with disputes about the scope of legal authority.

The Kesavananda Bharati case culminated in the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision that the Constitution had basic features which Parliament could not amend. The decision placed a limit on Parliament’s amending power and intensified the institutional disagreement.

Appointment of the Chief Justice

In 1973, the government appointed Justice A. N. Ray as Chief Justice of India, setting aside the seniority of three judges. This departed from the practice of appointing the senior-most Supreme Court judge.

The appointment became controversial because the superseded judges had ruled against the government’s position. People close to the Prime Minister spoke of a judiciary and bureaucracy committed to the vision of the executive and legislature.

Note: The conflict concerned both constitutional interpretation and institutional independence. A disagreement over welfare policy should not obscure the separate question of whether judges and officials could act independently of political pressure.

The crisis reached a new stage when the Allahabad High Court invalidated Indira Gandhi’s election. The constitutional dispute now directly affected the position of the Prime Minister, linking an institutional conflict to an immediate struggle over political leadership.

What sequence of events led to the declaration of Emergency?

The court judgment and opposition mobilisation

On 12 June 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court declared Indira Gandhi’s Lok Sabha election invalid. The case arose from an election petition filed by Raj Narain, who had contested against her in 1971.

The petition challenged her use of government servants in the election campaign. The judgment meant that she was no longer legally an MP and could not remain Prime Minister unless elected to Parliament again within six months.

On 24 June, the Supreme Court granted a partial stay. Pending the appeal, she could remain an MP but could not participate in Lok Sabha proceedings. The opposition continued to demand her resignation.

At Delhi’s Ramlila grounds on 25 June, JP announced a nationwide satyagraha for her resignation. He asked the army, police and government employees not to obey illegal and immoral orders. The government faced the prospect of further disruption.

Declaration and immediate implementation

1. On 25 June 1975, the government invoked Article 352, claiming a threat of internal disturbances.
2. That night, the Prime Minister recommended Emergency to President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, who immediately issued the proclamation.
3. After midnight, electricity was disconnected from major newspaper offices, and many opposition leaders and workers were arrested in the early morning.
4. The Cabinet was informed at a special meeting at 6 a.m. on 26 June, after these actions had taken place.

Definition: Emergency is an extraordinary constitutional situation in which special powers are granted to the government because normal democratic politics is considered unable to function.

Under the Emergency provisions then used, federal distribution of powers became practically suspended, with power concentrated in the Union government. The government also acquired powers to restrict Fundamental Rights. These exceptional powers greatly altered the conditions in which opposition and citizens could act.

The existence of a constitutional provision did not resolve whether its use and implementation respected democratic norms. That distinction is central to understanding why the Emergency was both a constitutional and a political crisis.

How did the Emergency affect civil liberties and the judiciary?

Restrictions on political activity

Political agitation stopped abruptly. Strikes and public protests were disallowed, and many opposition leaders were imprisoned. The government banned the RSS and Jamait-e-Islami, citing fears of social and communal disharmony. Political life became quiet but tense.

Civil liberties were severely restricted. Various Fundamental Rights stood suspended, including citizens’ ability to approach courts to secure their enforcement. Restrictions on political activity were therefore accompanied by restrictions on legal remedies.

The government made extensive use of preventive detention. People were detained on the apprehension that they might commit an offence, rather than because they had already committed one. This enabled large-scale arrests during the Emergency.

Habeas corpus and judicial protection

A habeas corpus petition could be used to challenge detention. Several High Courts held that they could hear such petitions even during Emergency. The government argued that it need not disclose the grounds or reasons for arrest.

In April 1976, a Supreme Court constitution bench overruled the High Courts and accepted the government’s plea. The decision denied effective judicial protection to detained citizens and became one of the Court’s most controversial judgments.

The Shah Commission was appointed in 1977 by the Janata Party government. Its report identified how the police and administration became political instruments of the ruling party.

Their loss of independence mattered because these institutions implemented Emergency measures in everyday life. The problem of political pressure did not simply disappear when Emergency ended.

How were the press and other forms of dissent affected?

Censorship and its visible effects

Press censorship required newspapers to obtain approval before publishing material. Restrictions on reporting reduced the public space for criticism, alongside the arrests of opposition leaders and limits on public meetings and protests.

The Indian Express and the Statesman left blank spaces where reports had been censored. The Nai Dunia editorial page of 27 June 1975 also contained a blank editorial space. Later, leaving blank spaces was itself prohibited.

Newspaper reproduction: Nai Dunia editorial page, 27 June 1975. The reproduced newspaper page has a large blank column on the left, while dense printed columns remain beside it. The empty area makes the removal of editorial material visible.

Seminar and Mainstream chose to close rather than submit to censorship. Journalists were arrested for writing against Emergency. These responses show that censorship affected both the content of publications and decisions about whether publication could continue.

Resistance beyond normal public channels

Some political workers escaped the first wave of arrests, went underground and organised protests. Underground newsletters and leaflets circulated to bypass censorship. Resistance continued, although open defiance was relatively rare.

Kannada writer Shivarama Karanth, a Padma Bhushan recipient, and Hindi writer Fanishwarnath Renu, a Padma Shri recipient, returned their awards in protest against the suspension of democracy. Their actions added a cultural form of dissent to political opposition.

These examples should be considered alongside the constraints under which people acted. A quiet political situation did not necessarily indicate consent. Arrests, censorship and bans on protest had restricted the means through which disagreement could be expressed publicly.

The Emergency thus linked freedom of the press with broader democratic freedoms. Restrictions on information and restrictions on political organisation reinforced one another, making public scrutiny of government much more difficult.

What constitutional changes and democratic lessons followed the Emergency?

Changes during Emergency

An amendment declared that the elections of the Prime Minister, President and Vice-President could not be challenged in court. It followed the Allahabad High Court judgment and formed part of the wider confrontation between political authority and judicial scrutiny.

The 42nd Amendment changed many parts of the Constitution. One change extended the duration of legislatures from five to six years. This was intended as a lasting change, rather than merely an arrangement for the Emergency period.

Elections could also be postponed by one year during Emergency. Together, these provisions meant that elections after 1971 could have been delayed until 1978 instead of taking place in 1976. The government nevertheless announced elections in January 1977.

Safeguards and lessons

The replacement of internal disturbance by armed rebellion and the requirement of written Cabinet advice addressed ambiguities exposed by 1975. They must be distinguished from the conditions under which the original proclamation was made.

The period also left unresolved questions. How should protest rights be balanced with the routine functioning of elected government? How can police and administrators resist political pressure? Democracy requires attention to these questions as well as formal constitutional safeguards.

The later electoral verdict supplied another lesson: voters could punish governments perceived as anti-democratic. The Emergency exposed serious weaknesses, but the restoration of democratic competition also demonstrated the strength of popular commitment to democracy.

Why did the 1977 election become a verdict on the Emergency?

Opposition unity and the campaign

In January 1977, after eighteen months of Emergency, the government decided to hold elections. Political leaders and activists were released. Voting took place in March, leaving opposition parties little time to prepare their campaign.

The major opposition parties formed the Janata Party and accepted JP’s leadership. Some Congress leaders opposed to Emergency also joined it. Jagjivan Ram led another group out of Congress to establish Congress for Democracy, which later merged with Janata.

Janata campaigned against the non-democratic character of Emergency rule and its excesses. Arrests and press censorship were central issues. JP became a symbol of democratic restoration, while the new party reduced the division of non-Congress votes.

The result

Congress received less than 35 per cent of the popular vote. Indira Gandhi lost in Rae Bareli, and Sanjay Gandhi lost in Amethi. The scale of the defeat surprised observers despite the evident difficulties facing Congress.

Calling the election a referendum on Emergency means that the campaign and verdict centred on that experience, especially in northern India. It does not mean that a separate constitutional referendum was held instead of a Lok Sabha election.

The result showed that the electorate could remove a powerful governing party through elections. The opposition’s success depended both on dissatisfaction with Emergency and on cooperation that prevented its electoral support from being scattered among competing parties.

Why did the 1977 election results differ across regions?

The northern defeat and southern strength of Congress

The anti-Congress wave was particularly strong in northern India. Congress lost every constituency in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana and Punjab. It won only one seat each in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

However, the defeat was not uniform. Congress retained many seats in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Orissa and performed very strongly in the southern states. A national change of government therefore coexisted with substantial regional differences.

The legend uses dark green for Janata Party (BLD), orange for Congress, red for Left parties and blue for others. Dark green covers much of the north, while large southern areas are orange. The illustration is not drawn to scale.

Different experiences and changing social support

The impact of Emergency varied between states. Forced relocation, displacement and forced sterilisation were concentrated mainly in the northern states. These experiences contributed to the especially strong reaction against Congress there.

Longer-term changes also mattered. Middle castes in northern India were beginning to move away from Congress. The Janata Party gave many of these groups a common political platform. The election therefore reflected social realignment as well as a reaction to repression.

Regional variation does not cancel the significance of the national result. It shows that a parliamentary verdict combines many local and regional experiences. The same election could remove Congress from national power while confirming its continuing strength in other areas.

Understanding both processes prevents two errors: treating the entire country as having voted identically, and reducing the election to a single cause. Emergency was central, but opposition unity and changing social support also shaped the outcome.

Why did the Janata government collapse and Congress return in 1980?

Competition within the governing party

The Janata Party united opponents of Emergency, but this unity did not ensure cohesion in government. Morarji Desai, Charan Singh and Jagjivan Ram competed for the prime ministership. Desai became Prime Minister, yet the struggle for power continued.

Charan Singh had led the Bharatiya Lok Dal and was a farmers’ leader from Uttar Pradesh. Jagjivan Ram brought extensive experience as a senior Congress minister. Different leaders and political traditions had joined Janata without resolving all their disagreements.

Critics argued that Janata lacked direction, effective leadership and a common programme. Its government did not fundamentally change the policies previously followed by Congress. Opposition to Emergency alone could hold the party together only temporarily.

Breakdown and a fresh electoral verdict

1. The Janata Party split, and Morarji Desai’s government lost its majority in less than twenty-eight months.
2. Charan Singh formed another government on the assurance of support from Congress.
3. Congress withdrew its support, and the Charan Singh government remained in power for only about four months.
4. Fresh Lok Sabha elections in January 1980 brought a comprehensive Janata defeat and returned Indira Gandhi’s Congress with 353 seats.

The 1980 verdict supplied a different lesson from 1977. Voters could punish governments seen as unstable and quarrelsome, just as they could punish those seen as anti-democratic. The ability to defeat Congress did not guarantee effective government afterwards.

Congress’s return should therefore be understood alongside Janata’s internal failures. The two elections demonstrated different dimensions of political accountability: protection of democracy and the capacity to provide a functioning government.

What lasting changes did this crisis bring to Indian democracy?

Changes in the party system

Congress’s return in 1980 did not restore the earlier party system unchanged. Since 1969, it had been moving away from its role as an umbrella party accommodating a wide range of leaders and ideological positions.

Congress increasingly presented itself as socialist and pro-poor. Its appeal depended more on sharp social and ideological divisions and the leadership of Indira Gandhi. Opposition parties increasingly relied on non-Congressism and cooperation to prevent a division of their votes.

The position of backward castes also gained political importance. After the 1977 Lok Sabha election, northern states elected non-Congress governments in which backward-caste leaders played an important role. Reservations for other backward classes became controversial in Bihar.

The Janata government at the Centre appointed the Mandal Commission after the 1977 elections. These developments connected changes in electoral competition with growing attention to the welfare and political representation of backward castes.

A constitutional crisis and a political crisis

The constitutional crisis arose from disputes over the jurisdiction of Parliament and the judiciary. The political crisis was deeper: a government with an absolute majority chose to suspend the normal democratic process and abused extraordinary powers.

The Constitution’s makers had expected political parties to respect democratic norms and the rule of law even during Emergency. The experience revealed the danger when those expectations were not upheld by those exercising governmental power.

A further tension existed between institution-based democracy and spontaneous popular participation. This tension may be attributed to the inability of the party system to incorporate people’s aspirations.

The legacy consequently includes restrictions on rights, their later defence, electoral accountability, opposition cooperation and social change. Democratic strength rested not simply on constitutional wording, but also on citizens, political organisations, courts and officials sustaining democratic practices.

Glossary

• Emergency — An extraordinary constitutional situation granting special governmental powers when normal democratic politics is considered unable to function.
• Internal disturbance — The ground invoked by the government to proclaim the Emergency in June 1975.
• Armed rebellion — The narrower ground subsequently required for the proclamation of an internal Emergency.
• Press censorship — The requirement that newspapers obtain prior approval for material they intend to publish.
• Preventive detention — Arrest and detention based on apprehension of a possible offence rather than an offence already committed.
• Habeas corpus — A judicial remedy through which a detained person can challenge the legality of detention.
• Civil liberties — Individual freedoms whose restriction during Emergency prompted stronger public awareness and subsequent efforts at protection.
• Total revolution — JP’s call for social, economic and political transformation to establish what he considered true democracy.
• Basic features — Features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot amend, as recognised in the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
• Non-Congressism — An opposition approach centred on challenging Congress and preventing the division of non-Congress votes.
• Umbrella party — A party accommodating leaders and workers with a broad range of ideological positions and viewpoints.
• Janata Party — The party formed by major opposition groups before the 1977 elections under JP’s accepted leadership.

Common errors and misconceptions

• Misconception: Inflation was the formal constitutional ground for Emergency. Correct: Economic hardship formed the background, but the government invoked a threat of internal disturbances.
• Misconception: The Gujarat and Bihar movements produced identical immediate results. Correct: Congress lost fresh elections in Gujarat; the Bihar government refused to resign despite agitation.
• Misconception: The Cabinet approved the 1975 declaration before the President acted. Correct: The Cabinet was informed on the morning of 26 June after the proclamation and initial actions.
• Misconception: Preventive detention required conviction for an offence. Correct: It involved detention based on apprehension that an offence might be committed.
• Misconception: Janata Party itself won 330 seats in 1977. Correct: Janata won 295; Janata and its allies together won 330.
• Misconception: Congress lost everywhere in 1977. Correct: Its defeat was strongest in the north, while it remained strong in the southern states.
• Misconception: Congress’s return in 1980 erased the political changes of the period. Correct: Opposition cooperation, changing caste support and the altered character of Congress remained significant.

Exam-style questions with model answers

Q1. Newspapers were required to obtain government approval before publishing material during Emergency. Identify this practice and explain one effect on public criticism. [2 marks]

1. The practice was press censorship, involving official approval before publication.
2. It restricted public criticism because material questioning government actions could be prevented from reaching newspaper readers.

Q2. The government detained people because it feared they might commit offences, even when no offence had yet been committed. Identify this power and distinguish its basis from detention for an already committed offence. [2 marks]

1. This was preventive detention.
2. Its basis was apprehension of a possible future offence, rather than an offence already committed. The distinction concerns the reason for detention described in the question.

Q3. Gujarat students protested against prices and corruption in January 1974; opposition parties joined, Morarji Desai demanded fresh elections, and Congress lost in June 1975. Bihar students protested in March 1974; JP accepted leadership on conditions of non-violence and wider reach, demanded total revolution, but the government refused to resign. Compare the two movements using these facts. [4 marks]

1. Both began as student movements: Gujarat’s agitation started in January 1974, while Bihar’s began in March 1974.
2. Morarji Desai intervened in Gujarat by demanding fresh elections, while JP accepted leadership in Bihar on conditions of non-violence and a movement extending beyond the state.
3. Gujarat’s political demand was fresh assembly elections; Bihar’s movement called for total revolution, giving it a wider programme of change.
4. Congress lost the Gujarat election in June 1975, whereas the Bihar government refused to resign despite the movement against it.

Q4. In 1975, internal disturbance was invoked as the ground for Emergency; the Prime Minister recommended it to the President, and the Cabinet was informed after the proclamation. Subsequent safeguards required armed rebellion for internal Emergency and written Union Cabinet advice. Explain how the two safeguards addressed the earlier situation. [4 marks]

1. The ground for internal Emergency changed from internal disturbance to armed rebellion.
2. This narrowed the ground for proclamation, addressing the broad internal-disturbance justification used in 1975.
3. The President must receive advice to proclaim Emergency in writing from the Union Cabinet.
4. This requires collective Cabinet advice before proclamation, addressing the 1975 sequence in which the Prime Minister recommended Emergency and the Cabinet was informed afterwards.

Q5. During Emergency, protests and strikes were disallowed, opposition leaders and workers were arrested, newspapers needed prior approval, preventive detention was widely used, and the Supreme Court accepted the government’s position against detention challenges in April 1976. The Shah Commission Report identified political pressure on police and administrators. Explain the effects on democratic freedoms and institutions. [6 marks]

1. Bans on protests and strikes restricted collective political action, removing important public means of expressing disagreement.
2. Arrests of opposition leaders and workers weakened organised opposition by removing them from political activity.
3. Preventive detention restricted personal liberty by allowing detention on apprehension of a future offence, without an offence already having been committed.
4. Prior approval of newspaper material imposed censorship, restricting criticism and information about government actions.
5. The Supreme Court’s April 1976 decision closed the route to judicial protection against detention, weakening safeguards for citizens’ life and liberty.
6. Political pressure prevented police and administrators from functioning independently and turned them into instruments of the ruling party.

Q6. In 1977, Congress won 154 seats and less than 35 per cent of votes; Janata won 295 seats, while Janata and allies won 330 of 542. Janata united opposition parties and campaigned against Emergency arrests and censorship. Congress suffered heavily in the north but remained strong in the south. Explain the outcome without treating it as geographically uniform. [6 marks]

1. Congress won only 154 seats and less than 35 per cent of the vote, showing a decisive national defeat.
2. Janata’s 295 seats gave it a clear majority on its own; the 330-seat total includes its allies.
3. Opposition unity prevented the division of non-Congress votes and strengthened the challenge to Congress.
4. The campaign against arrests and censorship made the election a verdict on Emergency rule and the restoration of democracy.
5. Heavy Congress losses in northern India showed a particularly strong regional reaction against Emergency.
6. Congress remained strong in southern India, so its national defeat did not represent an identical verdict in every region.

Q7. Janata united opponents of Emergency but faced leadership competition and lacked a common programme. It split; Desai lost his majority in less than twenty-eight months. Charan Singh relied on Congress support, which was withdrawn. In January 1980 Congress returned with 353 seats. Explain the government’s collapse and the lesson of the election. [5 marks]

1. Opposition to Emergency created a basis for electoral unity but did not settle leadership disagreements or provide an agreed programme for government.
2. Continuing competition weakened Janata’s cohesion. The party split, and Desai’s government lost its parliamentary majority.
3. Charan Singh’s government depended on support from Congress. Its withdrawal deprived the new government of the support on which it had been formed.
4. The fresh election returned Congress with 353 seats, showing that the earlier opposition victory did not guarantee continuing public support.
5. The lesson was that voters could punish a government perceived as unstable and quarrelsome, making effective government another dimension of democratic accountability.

Q8. Congress increasingly relied on a socialist and pro-poor identity and Indira Gandhi’s leadership rather than its earlier umbrella character. Opposition parties sought to prevent divided non-Congress votes. Backward-caste leaders gained importance in northern states after 1977, and the Janata government appointed the Mandal Commission. Explain four lasting changes indicated by these developments. [4 marks]

1. Congress shed its umbrella character and adopted a sharper socialist and pro-poor ideological identity.
2. Congress’s electoral appeal increasingly depended on the leadership of Indira Gandhi, making the appeal of one leader central to its political success.
3. Opposition parties increasingly cooperated to prevent the division of non-Congress votes and challenge Congress.
4. Backward-caste welfare and representation gained political importance, reflected in the rise of their leaders and the appointment of the Mandal Commission.

Key takeaways

• Economic hardship, student movements, labour unrest and judicial conflict combined to create the background to the Emergency.
• The 1975 declaration invoked internal disturbances; later safeguards required armed rebellion and written advice from the Union Cabinet.
• Emergency restricted civil liberties through censorship, detention, bans on protest and weakened access to judicial protection.
• Resistance included underground political activity, uncensored leaflets, blank newspaper spaces and the return of literary awards.
• Opposition unity and anger over Emergency helped Janata win in 1977, although Congress retained substantial regional strength.
• Janata’s internal divisions undermined its government, and Congress returned with 353 seats in January 1980.
• The crisis changed party competition, increased attention to backward-caste welfare and strengthened awareness of the value of civil liberties.
• The experience exposed weaknesses in democratic institutions while demonstrating voters’ capacity to punish repression and governmental instability.

Test yourself

What conditions did JP set before accepting leadership of the Bihar movement?

He required the movement to remain non-violent and to extend beyond Bihar.

Who led the coordinating committee behind the railway strike, and what were its demands?

George Fernandes led the committee; the demands concerned bonus and railway employees’ service conditions.

What limit did the Kesavananda Bharati decision place on Parliament?

It held that Parliament could not amend the basic features of the Constitution.

When was the Cabinet informed of the Emergency declaration?

At 6 a.m. on 26 June 1975, after the proclamation and initial actions had taken place.

How did preventive detention differ from action for an offence already committed?

Preventive detention rested on apprehension that an offence might be committed in the future.

How many seats did Janata itself win, and how many did it win with allies?

Janata itself won 295 seats; Janata and its allies together won 330 out of 542 seats.

Why should Congress’s 1977 defeat not be described as uniform across India?

It lost heavily in northern India but remained strong in the southern states and retained seats elsewhere.

What different lessons emerged from the elections of 1977 and 1980?

Voters could punish anti-democratic government, as in 1977, and unstable, quarrelsome government, as in 1980.