I am writing in reponse to the Statement of the CC of the CGPI dated 5 June 2017 entitled '42nd anniversary of the declaration of National Emergency: Behind the signboard of democracy stands the brutal dictatorship of the biggest monopolies' carried in the June 16-30, 2017 issue of MEL. The National Emergency was a watershed in the history of post-1947 India and understanding the precise class character and the underlying complexion thereof is crucial for the movement and for the working class in order for the revolutionary camp to go forward.
In bullet form the crucial aspects of that period may be summarized as:
on 25 June 1974 the government of Indira Gandhi advised the President Fakruddin Ali Ahmed to declare a National Emergency in view of a threat to India from internal disturbances,
all civil rights were suspended during the 20 month period that ensued, including the ban of protests and rallies, arrest, torture and murder of any voices of dissent including those of communists, and dismissal of non-Congress governments, viz., brutal suppression of all voices of dissent,
a demagogic 20-point programme was unveiled as if the Emergency was in the interests of poor people, to cloak the crackdown on working class and toiling masses, and such anti-people activities as forced sterilization, and destruction of housing of poor people.
The above said, the fact that not even the full cabinet and Parliament were taken into confidence exposes the nature of political power in India, and that the 'democracy' that prevails in India is a hoax, and a cover for the fascist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, even in the ranks of the bourgeoisie, it was the monopoly houses that used this opportunity to establish their hegemony and to send a warning to all other contenders for leadership position that any challenge would be met with brute force.
Indeed, as the statement points out, '...communist movement was presented with the opportunity of thoroughly exposing the system of democracy and organising the working class and people around the alternative. ... replacing the brutal dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with a new political power of the workers and peasants.' Also, the statement accurately points out that the division in the communist movement, and the divergent stands of dominant sections of the communist movement facilitated the fraud of 'restoration of democracy'.
A. Narayan, Bangalore