Indira Gandhi's Dictatorship Digs In

For a country living in a state of emergency, India seemed surprisingly normal last week. Shops remained open and crowds thronged the streets; trading continued on the stock exchanges and schools held classes; even the trains ran more or less on schedule. Indeed, for most of India's 600 million citizens, it apparently was business as usual. If anything, life in New Delhi seemed more orderly than ever: the typically mad swirl of traffic was restrained, and queues for buses were models of decorum.

State of Emergency. Despite the surface calm, however, reported TIME Correspondent William Stewart from New Delhi, there was no question that India and its imperious Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, were struggling through a political crisis that would profoundly affect the country's future. The state of emergency, proclaimed on June 26 at Mrs. Gandhi's behest, had suspended political freedoms and given her near dictatorial powers. Banned were 26 minor political factions representing the most extreme leftist and rightist movements. More than 1,000 political dissidents--of all ideological shadings--already have been jailed, uninformed of the charges against them and with no hope for a speedy trial. Though their names have not been made public, government spokesmen admit privately that the prisoners include many leaders of India's opposition parties, as well as elder statesman Jayaprakash Narayan, 72, an associate of India's pacifist father-figure Mohandas Gandhi (see box following page).

Strict censorship has prevented the once lively Indian press (some 830 daily newspapers) from printing anything other than official handouts about the crisis. Government proscriptions against "unauthorized, irresponsible or demoralizing news items" last week were extended from articles and editorials to cartoons, photos and even advertisements. This further muzzling of the press may have been in response to a few cases of surreptitious sniping at the government's measures; in Kerala, for example, one paper ran a cartoon depicting Mrs. Gandhi dressed as Louis XIV with a caption reading "I am India." The censors also closely monitored the dispatches of foreign newsmen. Last week the government summarily expelled Washington Post Correspondent Lewis M. Simons, who had stirred official ire by reporting that the army did not solidly back Mrs. Gandhi.

Although it shocked world opinion, Mrs. Gandhi's suspension of civil liberties was technically within the bounds of India's constitution. Last week she defended her actions in a series of radio addresses and speeches. Instead of apologizing for suspending political rights, she emphasized that some authoritarianism was needed to thwart "a deep-rooted conspiracy" that would have "led to economic chaos and collapse," making India "vulnerable to fissiparous tendencies and external danger."

Using the kind of argument that has always been favored by dictators seeking to justify their abrogation of political processes, Mrs. Gandhi declared: "In India, democracy has given too much freedom to people." Newspapers and opposition politicians, she added, "were trying to misuse [democracy] and weaken the nation's conscience."

Apparently in response to the largely negative world reaction, Mrs. Gandhi tried to mend some foreign policy fences last week. Singled out for special attention was the U.S.--a nation for which she usually reserves biting sarcasm or sanctimonious criticism. When she received a group of visiting American teachers, the Prime Minister was all smiles, stressing that her country "is seriously trying for better relations with the U.S." and that President Gerald Ford would be welcome to visit India.

No Evidence. Despite the fusillade of accusations against the imprisoned political leaders, the government has released no evidence supporting its charges. Thus many veteran Western diplomats in New Delhi question whether there was any such alleged "conspiracy." To be sure, the opposition's determination to gain power might have led to some violence, but it may also be true that Mrs. Gandhi views the imposition of a state of emergency as a convenient method of retaining power. Judging by her own statements and those of her supporters, there is little question that she equates her own survival as Prime Minister with the long-term welfare of India.

Sense of Urgency. As if to prove that, Mrs. Gandhi proposed a 20-point reform program that if enacted, might move India well along the path toward a socialist society. Among her proposals: liquidation of the debts of the rural poor, abolition of indentured labor, division and redistribution of large landholdings, increased public housing in rural areas, expanded irrigation networks, and severe new penalties for black marketeers, tax evaders and smugglers.

There was little in this sweeping reform program that had not been previously proposed. Thus some critics argued that it was primarily aimed at deflecting attention from the suspension of political liberties. They note that the Prime Minister hardly needed an emergency to effect these reforms, because her Congress Party--which controls 355 of Parliament's 516 seats, as well as 19 of India's 22 state governments--has the power to vote into law any economic programs she wishes.

In fact, however, the ethnic and geographic differences within the huge country have often meant that enacted reforms were not vigorously enforced by the states, which have considerable power under India's federal system. With the new clout given the central government by the emergency, New Delhi may now be able to force the states to execute reforms. The emergency might also create a sense of urgency within the Congress Party and a willingness to close ranks even on the normally divisive economic issues.

The big question remains when and whether Mrs. Gandhi will relinquish her authoritarian powers. Senior government officials insist that the emergency will end "as soon as possible." According to some Western diplomats, that timetable could mean anywhere from a year to 18 months. The Indian constitution requires that a state-of-emergency decree must be approved by Parliament within 60 days in order for it to remain effective. If the Prime Minister were to convene Parliament while opposition leaders are still imprisoned, she would be risking a potentially widespread outcry. On the other hand, freeing the political prisoners would allow them to use Parliament as a national platform from which to resume their attacks. Given the alternatives, Mrs. Gandhi may be tempted to ignore the constitution and not recall Parliament, but still insist that the emergency is in force.

Nation's Spirit. In her radio address last week, the Prime Minister declared: "There is a chance now to regain the nation's spirit of adventure. Let us get on with the job." Whether India in the future will be approaching that job peacefully and democratically is very much up to Mrs. Gandhi--and what she does in the next few months.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.