Anil Maheshwari
During the dark days of the Emergency in 1975, Shamim Ahmad Shamim, an Independent member of Lok Sabha from Srinagar (Kashmir), dared to take the Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, to task. On the first day of the First Session of the Lok Sabha on 21 July 1975, he did not mince words in denouncing the Prime Minister and her despotic decision to impose Emergency. His voice was one of the few members in the house who rose to the demand of the time. Notable among others were A. K. Gopalan (CPI-M), Mohan Dharia (Cong) and Purushottam Ganesh Mavalankar (Ind).
Shamim Ahmad Shamim said that he was at a loss when honourable members from the ruling bench expressed their views on the suspension of a particular right of members in the Lok Sabha on the suspension of question hours. “Perhaps they do not understand that the situation has altered. I am grateful to the Prime Minister who expressed in unequivocal terms and held the opposition parties responsible for the altered situation. We were born in a different Bharat. This session of the Lok Sabha is being held in a different Bharat. Even then, honourable members demand their right to put questions. Honourable members have expressed their dissension over the denial of the provision of placing call attention motions. Perhaps they are not tuned to radio sets and are not reading censored newspapers. Many changes have taken place. The Prime Minister has expressed in unambiguous terms that the situation before imposing the emergency was not ordinary. We have to discuss on the declaration of emergency.
“In the past, several members made representations that the Government should prohibit the activities of organisations such as RSS and Jamait-i-Islami, but the Government, despite possessing powers, failed to initiate any action. Now the Government has banned these organisations. Why this action after 12 June 1975 (the day when the election petition against Mrs Gandhi was allowed by the Allahabad High Court)? The Government should have taken action against such organisations and political parties that were acting objectionably. Stern action should have been taken against four or five persons who were indulging in corruption and breach of discipline. Instead of doing so, the Government has made the entire country subject to harassment.
“The weakened opposition took advantage of using the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in its favour. The opposition did not wait till the decision of the Supreme Court on this matter. But Mrs Gandhi wanted to crush her opposition by using the provisions under the emergency. Though she is not a despot but she is acting as a dictator. It seems that she has lost her faith in democratic institutions. If such a situation exists, she should not mince words to announce that she wants to change the present system of governance.
Next day (23 July 1975), Shamim Ahmad Shamim said that before the imposition of the emergency, the issue of whether the personal satisfaction of the President of India could be challenged in the court of law or not was raging. But the Law Minister preferred to bring the amendment so that, using the cloak of emergency, he could get any motion demanding g amendment or enact a law passed from the house.
“It is alleged that the courts are frequently interfering in the progressive functioning of the Government. I have always been a supporter of this Government in taking progressive measures. If the Government contemplates that the courts are impediments to implementing progressive measures, I urge the Government to enact a law to abolish courts.
“Democracy is an extremely inconvenient system as people can express themselves against the Government, but in a democracy, the will of the majority runs large. And now it seems that the majority does not care for the opinion of minorities. This house has witnessed the dramatic performances of opposition to oppose, but only that part of the bill that was sanctioned by the majority.
“These days, an absurd argument is advanced that since the imposition of the emergency, there is marked improvement in efficiency. It means that the past 27 years have been fruitless, and this house is a useless part of that development. What does this argument say?
“As far as the independence of the Press is concerned, we have clamped an emergency on that. And the argument for doing so is that if the circulation of rumours is not contained, the country will be ruined. I want to say that either give total independence to the Press or not. It should not happen that the press publishes only the news that you want to see published. The essence of democracy is that the opinion of the ruling party, along with the opposition, should be placed without any distinction and let the public decide who is correct. You know what newspapers wrote about you in 1971, and even then, the public voted you to power. Why was this apprehension given birth that rumours floated by the opposition would dismantle the structure of your Government? You have become mortally afraid of the public since 12 March (perhaps he meant 12 June). Before that, you enjoyed public support. Had this bill been brought with a good intention, I would have supported it, but you have brought it to undermine the prestige of the judiciary. You have no faith in the judicial system.
“All unconcerned issues have been raised under the cover of emergency. Submitting the present amendment, it was said that some issues required clarity. If such a correction or amendment was needed at all, then why was MISA used again and again? This law is for apprehending smugglers or helping them! The smugglers should have been apprehended much earlier. But such action was not taken since the smugglers used to provide election funds to the Congress and other political parties. Now, in a hasty decision, these smugglers and political leaders have been arrested at the same time.
“I have differences with Sh Morarji Desai and Sh Jaiprakash Narain, but I refuse to believe that they were smugglers. Then why have they been put under arrest? They have been considered a danger to the security of the country. When Morarji Desai observed a fast; the Prime Minister herself appealed to him to break his fast and accepted his demands. Mrs Gandhi wanted to talk to Jaiprakash Narain, but following the decision of Justice Sinha, the situation stood altered and Jaiprakash Narain has been considered a danger to the security of the country.
“Emergency was clamped on 25 June. Since then, Mrs Indira Gandhi has been speaking the language of a dictator. We, inhabitants of Kashmir, used to tell supporters of Pakistan amongst us that we never intended to be a part of Pakistan since Pakistan opted for dictatorship while India reels under democracy, where everyone enjoyed.
After two days, on 25 July, Shamim Ahmad Shamim again intervened. He said that late Jawaharlal Nehru, father of the present Prime Minister, had opined on the freedom of newspapers, “I have no iota of doubt that if the Government dislikes the independence used by newspapers and considers such action dangerous, even then curtailing the independence of the press is wrong. You get nothing by imposing curtailment of the freedom of newspapers; rather, you curb the opinion that flourishes further.
Instead of following the sane advice of her father, Smt. Indira Gandhi’s action of curbing the freedom of the press is helping the dissemination of those thoughts that she wanted to curb. Late Sh Jawaharlal Nehru had added in this regard, “Therefore, I shall prefer an independent press compared to a controlled press, even though the independence of the press could be impregnated with dangers.”
Mrs Gandhi’s claim that the session of Parliament is going on is itself proof of democracy in the country. But this session of Parliament resembles the mock parliament sessions in schools and colleges by students. Every member is silent. Their mouths are shut. The entire opposition is under arrest and thus is prevented from attending the parliament.
“In Part VII of the bill, it is said, “Any person (including foreigners) who is under house arrest under this act, shall remain deprived of natural or individual liberty, granted by law and constitution.
“It seems that the Home Minister is not satisfied with making amendments in the Indian Penal Code. He is bent on killing even that natural law which the human race has achieved after a struggle of thousands of years. Through this bill, he is depriving the common man even of natural justice. By damaging the natural law, he is damaging the reputation of the human race, the glorious culture of Bharat, overriding the message imbibed in the autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi and philosophy in the writings of Pandit Nehru.”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
