National Herald case: Sonia should know her guided tour of Indira Gandhi's legacy cannot start and end in 1977

by Ashok K Singh On 8 December when she was told about the Delhi High Court order, the Congress president Sonia Gandhi realised she had reached the end of her rope in the National Herald case. She had two options: Bow down to the majesty of law; or turn defiant in an act of desperation. She chose the latter. In an act upended by desperation and bravado, Sonia Gandhi in a flash thought of her mother-in-law. Indira Gandhi had often defied the rule of law, showed contempt for the judiciary, had disregard for the Constitution and thumbed her nose at the will of the people. [caption id=“attachment_2541860” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Rahul and Sonia Gandhi in a file photo. Reuters[/caption] Didn’t her mother-in-law as the prime minister dismiss state governments invoking article 356 over flimsy founds? Didn’t she show utter disregard for Parliament by simply not attending the House? Wasn’t she the most intolerant prime minister the country had had, who was not prepared to brook any opposition, even the most legitimate criticism, against her? Didn’t she accuse the then tallest opposition leaders, including non-partisan Jayaprakash Narayan, of being hand-in-glove with ‘foreign hand’? Isn’t her suppression of the 1974 railway strike a record in brutality and atrocities against workers? As for the judiciary, Indira Gandhi had gone on to supersede three Supreme Court judges to handpick the Chief Justice of India. She had defied the Supreme Court verdict on 24 June upholding the Allahabad High Court unseating her from the Lok Sabha. And she proclaimed the Emergency the very next day by throwing all who opposed her including those in her own party in jail. Was that the image of her mother-in-law on her mind when Sonia Gandhi’s retorted, “I’m not scared of anyone, I’m daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi”? Was the politics of victimhood, so well exemplified by his grandmother Indira Gandhi, on his mind when the Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi said “It’s most certainly a political vendetta”? The mother-son duo has spoken their mind in a moment of reckoning. But here’s the problem: The Family wants us to recall Indira Gandhi’s dogged fight back to power after Emergency which was helped along by the Janata Party’s less than intelligent revenge politics but not what led to all that. The Family wants us to begin and end this guided memory tour in 1977. But it is impossible to separate Indira the political fighter from Indira the dictatorial administrator who undermined democratic institutions like no one before her or after. Which Indira Gandhi was the daughter-in-law recalling when she was digging into history to convey a political message on a day when she was facing the majesty of law? The only context one can think of is that of a consummate politician combining melodrama, opportunism and timing to turn adversity into advantage as a leader in the opposition during the brief Janata Party interregnum between March 1977 and December 1979. After losing the elections in 1977, when she faced the Shah Commission of inquiry into the excesses committed by her government during the Emergency, Indira Gandhi was quick to term the Commission itself as an act of political vendetta. Instead of cooperating with the Commission she turned defiant. The Shah Commission wound up with unfinished agenda not because Indira Gandhi was innocent of the excesses committed during the Emergency but because of the Janata Party leaders’ internal bickering. Ultimately the Janata Party government shot itself in the foot by botching up the arrest of Indira Gandhi on 3 October, 1977. She turned her arrest into a political show by her calculated defiance and symbolism of political martyrdom. She and her advisers acted on a well-scripted drama which had bitterly squabbling and fractious Janata Party leaders on the one side and a shrewd Indira Gandhi having successfully turned the charges of corruption and excesses as a case of vendetta. She resurrected her political fortunes after the botched-up arrest. Sonia at this stage would like to convince her demoralised Congress party and even more dejected and sceptical party leaders that she is capable of resurrecting the party’s fortunes just as Indira Gandhi had done. To that end, she wants her party to believe that she is capable of her mother-in-law’s melodramatic moves and politics of brinkmanship to garner people’s sympathy by playing the victim. It’s another matter that in the cynical display of political opportunism, the rule of law and the majesty of justice are itself being challenged and scoffed at. But she seems to forget this minor fact: Indira could play the victim because she was arrested and hounded on a petty, frivolous case. Sonia and Rahul are facing charges in a case where the Delhi High Court has said there is prima facie “criminality”. Small difference? We will see in due course. The writer is a journalist and commentator