The Crisis of Democratic Order Class 12 Solutions

Concept used. A correct or incorrect question asks you to test each statement against what the chapter actually says. The Emergency was the state declared on 25 June 1975 under Article 352 of the Constitution on the ground of a threat of internal disturbance. Check each line against the chapter's account of why it was imposed and what it did.

1. (a) Correct. The Emergency was indeed declared in 1975. On the night of 25 June 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi recommended it to President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, who issued the proclamation. So it was declared in 1975 on her advice.
2. (b) Correct. During the Emergency the various Fundamental Rights of citizens stood suspended, including the right to move the Court to restore those rights. The April 1976 Supreme Court ruling even allowed the government to take away the citizen's right to life and liberty. So fundamental rights were suspended.
3. (c) Incorrect. The Emergency was not proclaimed because of economic conditions. The official ground was a ``threat of internal disturbance''. The economic crisis only formed the background to the unrest; it was not the stated reason for the proclamation. This is the false statement.
4. (d) Correct. In the early morning of 26 June 1975, a large number of opposition leaders and workers were arrested. Many opposition leaders were jailed during the Emergency. So this is correct.
5. (e) Correct. The Communist Party of India (CPI), which was supporting the Congress at the time, backed the proclamation of the Emergency. So this statement is correct.

(a) Correct, (b) Correct, (c) Incorrect (the ground was a threat of internal disturbance, not economic conditions), (d) Correct, (e) Correct.

Concept used. An ``odd one out'' question asks you to find the item that does not belong with the others. Here the theme is the lead-up to the proclamation of Emergency in June 1975. The odd one out will be the event that did not come before the Emergency. The odd one out is (e) The findings of the Shah Commission Report.

1. Why the other four belong together. The call for ``Total Revolution'' (a), the Railway Strike of 1974 (b), the Naxalite Movement (c) and the Allahabad High Court verdict of June 1975 (d) all came before the Emergency. They were part of the rising unrest and the political crisis that built up to the proclamation on 25 June 1975.
2. Why (e) is the odd one out. The Shah Commission was appointed in 1977 by the Janata Party government after the Emergency was over, to inquire into the abuses committed during it. Its findings were a consequence of the Emergency, not a cause of its proclamation. So it is the one item that does not fit the ``lead-up'' theme.

The odd one out is (e) The findings of the Shah Commission Report. The Commission was set up in 1977, after the Emergency, to inquire into its excesses, so it was a consequence; the other four preceded and contributed to the proclamation.

Concept used. A matching question asks you to pair each item on the left with the right person or movement. Decide each pair by recalling who gave the slogan or led the event. The correct matches are (a)–ii, (b)–i, (c)–iii, (d)–iv.

1. (a) Total Revolution → (ii) Jayaprakash Narayan. It was Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), leading the Bihar movement, who gave the call for ``total revolution'' in the social, economic and political spheres. So Total Revolution matches JP.
2. (b) Garibi hatao → (i) Indira Gandhi. ``Garibi hatao'' (remove poverty) was the famous slogan given by Indira Gandhi's Congress in the 1971 elections. So Garibi hatao matches Indira Gandhi.
3. (c) Students' Protest → (iii) Bihar Movement. The students' protest of 1974 in Bihar grew into the Bihar movement that JP later led. So the students' protest matches the Bihar Movement.
4. (d) Railway Strike → (iv) George Fernandes. The nationwide railway strike of 1974 was led by George Fernandes through the National Coordination Committee for Railwaymen's Struggle. So the Railway Strike matches George Fernandes.

(a)–ii (Total Revolution, Jayaprakash Narayan), (b)–i (Garibi hatao, Indira Gandhi), (c)–iii (Students' Protest, Bihar Movement), (d)–iv (Railway Strike, George Fernandes).

Concept used. A mid-term election is one held before a government completes its full five-year term, because the ruling government has fallen or lost its majority. The 1980 election was a mid-term poll caused by the collapse of the Janata Party government that had come to power in 1977. Explain why that government fell.

1. The Janata Party lacked unity and direction. The party had been formed quickly in 1977 by merging several opposition groups. Its critics felt it lacked direction, leadership and a common programme. Its only real glue had been opposition to the Emergency, and that could hold it together only for a while.
2. A bitter power struggle at the top. There was stiff competition for the post of Prime Minister among Morarji Desai, Charan Singh and Jagjivan Ram. Morarji Desai became Prime Minister, but this did not end the infighting within the party.
3. The Morarji Desai government lost its majority. The Janata Party split, and the government led by Morarji Desai lost its majority in less than 28 months.
4. The Charan Singh government also collapsed. A new government under Charan Singh was then formed with the outside support of the Congress. But the Congress soon withdrew its support, so the Charan Singh government survived for only about four months and could not face Parliament.
5. Fresh elections became unavoidable. With no stable government left in place, fresh Lok Sabha elections had to be held in January 1980. The Janata Party suffered a comprehensive defeat and the Congress, led by Indira Gandhi, returned to power winning 353 seats.

The 1980 mid-term elections were caused by the collapse of the Janata Party government. The party lacked unity, direction and a common programme, and was torn by a power struggle among Morarji Desai, Charan Singh and Jagjivan Ram. The Janata Party split, Morarji Desai's government lost its majority in under 28 months, and the Charan Singh government that followed fell in about four months when the Congress withdrew support. With no stable government left, fresh elections were held in January 1980.

Concept used. A commission of inquiry is a body set up by the government to investigate a specific matter and report its findings. The Shah Commission was appointed in 1977 by the Janata Party government to look into the excesses committed during the Emergency of 1975 to 1977. The question has two parts: why it was appointed, and what it found.

Why the Shah Commission was appointed.

1. After the Emergency ended and the Janata Party came to power in 1977, it wanted to investigate the various abuses and excesses that had taken place during the Emergency.
2. The Commission was therefore set up to inquire into the controversies and the malpractices of the Emergency period, so that the truth about them could be officially recorded.

What the Shah Commission found.

1. It found that there had been many excesses during the Emergency, including large-scale, often illegal, arrests and the use of preventive detention against people who had committed no offence.
2. It recorded the misuse of authority: the freedom of the press was suspended and newspapers were censored, fundamental rights were taken away, and people were detained without being told the grounds of their arrest.
3. It noted the human costs of the Emergency programmes, such as the forced sterilisations and the forced relocation and demolition of slums, which were concentrated mainly in the northern States.
4. Most importantly for the chapter's argument, it found that the administration and the police had become vulnerable to political pressures: instead of working independently, they had been turned into political instruments of the ruling party.

The Shah Commission was appointed in 1977 by the Janata Party government to investigate the excesses and abuses committed during the Emergency. It found large-scale and often illegal arrests and preventive detentions, press censorship and the suspension of rights, the forced sterilisations and slum demolitions, and, above all, that the administration and the police had become vulnerable to political pressures and were turned into instruments of the ruling party.

Concept used. This asks for the government's own stated reasons, not whether they were justified. The Emergency was declared under Article 352 of the Constitution, which allows an emergency on the ground of an external threat or a threat of internal disturbance. The government's reasons centred on that internal-disturbance ground.

1. A threat of internal disturbance. On 25 June 1975 the government declared that there was a threat of internal disturbances in the country and, on that ground, invoked Article 352 of the Constitution. This was the central reason it gave.
2. The opposition's call to defy the government. The government pointed to the agitation led by Jayaprakash Narayan, who had announced a nationwide satyagraha for Indira Gandhi's resignation and had asked the army, the police and government employees not to obey ``illegal and immoral orders''. The government argued that such appeals threatened to bring the normal working of the government to a standstill.
3. A grave crisis needing special powers. The government claimed that a grave crisis had arisen that made the proclamation of Emergency necessary. It held that normal democratic functioning could not continue in such conditions, so the special powers granted by an Emergency were needed to restore order.

The government said there was a threat of internal disturbance and so invoked Article 352 of the Constitution. It pointed to Jayaprakash Narayan's call for a nationwide satyagraha and his appeal to the army, police and government employees to disobey ``illegal and immoral orders'', arguing that this threatened to paralyse the government. It claimed a grave crisis had arisen that made the Emergency, with its special powers, necessary to maintain order.

Concept used. The question asks for the reasons the opposition defeated the Congress for the first time in 1977. The chapter calls the 1977 election a referendum on the Emergency: a vote in which the public passed its verdict on the Emergency experience. Build the answer around that idea plus the new unity of the opposition.

1. The election became a referendum on the Emergency. The opposition fought the election on the slogan of ``save democracy'', and the campaign focused on the non-democratic character of the Emergency rule. The people's verdict was decisively against the Emergency.
2. Public anger at the excesses. The arrests of thousands of people, the censorship of the press, and the forced sterilisations and slum demolitions had turned public opinion sharply against the Congress, especially in north India where the impact of the Emergency was felt most strongly.
3. The opposition united as the Janata Party. The major opposition parties came together on the eve of the election and formed a single new party, the Janata Party, under the moral leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan. This ensured that the non-Congress votes would not be divided among many parties, a decisive change from earlier elections.
4. Jayaprakash Narayan as a symbol. JP had become the popular symbol of the restoration of democracy. Some Congress leaders opposed to the Emergency, such as Jagjivan Ram, also left and formed the Congress for Democracy, which later merged with the Janata Party, adding to the anti-Congress momentum.
5. Long-term changes in north India. Beyond the Emergency, the middle castes of north India were moving away from the Congress, and the Janata Party became a platform that brought these sections together.

The 1977 election became a referendum on the Emergency, fought on the slogan ``save democracy''. Anger at the arrests, censorship, forced sterilisations and slum demolitions, felt most in north India, turned the public against the Congress. The opposition united into a single Janata Party under Jayaprakash Narayan, so the non-Congress vote was not divided, and defectors like Jagjivan Ram added to the wave. A long-term shift of north Indian middle castes away from the Congress completed the result.

Concept used. This question has four clearly listed parts, so answer each under its own heading. Civil liberties are the basic freedoms of citizens (rights, free press, freedom from arbitrary arrest). The Executive is the government, the Judiciary the courts; their relationship was strained during the Emergency. Take each bullet in turn.

Effects on civil liberties for citizens.

1. The various Fundamental Rights of citizens stood suspended, including the right to move the Court to restore those rights.
2. The government made extensive use of preventive detention, arresting and detaining people not for any offence committed, but on the suspicion that they might commit one. Large-scale arrests followed.
3. Detained persons could not even challenge their arrest through habeas corpus petitions, and the government claimed it need not tell them the grounds of arrest. Citizens were left with almost no protection.

Impact on the Executive and Judiciary relationship.

1. The executive became dominant over the judiciary. Several High Courts had ruled that courts could still hear habeas corpus petitions even during the Emergency, protecting detained citizens.
2. But in April 1976 the Supreme Court, in a constitution-bench ruling, over-ruled the High Courts and accepted the government's plea. It meant that during the Emergency the government could even take away the citizen's right to life and liberty.
3. This is regarded as one of the most controversial judgments of the Supreme Court, as it closed the doors of the judiciary to the citizen and showed the executive overpowering the courts.

Functioning of the Mass Media.

1. The government suspended the freedom of the press. Newspapers were asked to get prior approval for all material before publishing, which is known as press censorship.
2. Some newspapers, like the Indian Express and the Statesman, protested by leaving blank spaces where censored news had been removed. Magazines such as the Seminar and the Mainstream chose to close down rather than submit to censorship.
3. Many journalists were arrested for writing against the Emergency, and underground newsletters and leaflets were circulated to bypass the censors.

Working of the Police and Bureaucracy.

1. The Emergency was actually enforced through the police and the administration, and these institutions could not function independently.
2. According to the Shah Commission Report, the administration and the police became vulnerable to political pressures. They were turned into political instruments of the ruling party rather than neutral public servants.
3. This problem, the chapter stresses, did not vanish even after the Emergency ended.

Civil liberties: fundamental rights were suspended and mass preventive detention left citizens unable to challenge their arrest. Executive and Judiciary: the executive dominated; the April 1976 Supreme Court ruling over-ruled the High Courts and let the government suspend even the right to life and liberty, one of its most controversial judgments. Mass media: press freedom was suspended through censorship, some papers left blank spaces or closed, and journalists were arrested. Police and Bureaucracy: they enforced the Emergency, lost their independence, and, per the Shah Commission, became political instruments of the ruling party.

Concept used. The party system is the pattern of how parties compete and share power in a country. Before 1977 India had a system of Congress dominance. The question asks how the Emergency, and the 1977 election that followed, changed that pattern. Explain the shift with named examples.

1. The end of Congress dominance at the Centre. For the first time since Independence, the Congress was defeated in the 1977 Lok Sabha elections. It won only 154 seats and its share of the popular vote fell below 35 per cent. The long era of one-party dominance was broken.
2. The rise of a united opposition: the Janata Party. The Emergency pushed the scattered opposition parties to unite. On the eve of the 1977 election they merged into a single Janata Party, which won 295 seats, and with its allies took 330 of the 542 seats. A credible non-Congress alternative now existed at the Centre.
3. A brief two-party-like phase. Indian democracy came close to a two-party system in 1977, the Congress on one side and the Janata Party on the other. The chapter notes this was the nearest India had come to such a pattern.
4. The Congress changed its own character. From 1969 the Congress had been shedding its character as an ``umbrella party'' that accommodated many viewpoints. It now identified with a particular ideology, claiming to be the only socialist and pro-poor party, and leaned on the appeal of one leader, Indira Gandhi. Other parties responded by relying on ``non-Congressism''.
5. The rise of backward-caste politics. The 1977 results were partly due to a shift of the backward castes of north India. After 1977 the issue of reservations for ``other backward classes'' grew, and the Mandal Commission was appointed by the Janata government, a lasting change in the party system.

The Emergency broke the long Congress dominance: in 1977 the Congress lost for the first time, falling to 154 seats and under 35 per cent of the vote. The scattered opposition united into the Janata Party (295 seats, 330 with allies), creating a real non-Congress alternative and a brief two-party-like phase. The Congress had also changed from an umbrella party into an ideology-and-leader-based party, prompting others to rely on ``non-Congressism''. After 1977 backward-caste politics rose, leading to the Mandal Commission.

Concept used. This is a passage-based question. Read the passage closely and answer each part using both the passage and the chapter. A two-party system is one in which two major parties dominate and alternate in power. The passage says 1977 came close to this, then broke down.

(a) What made the party system look like a two-party system in 1977.

1. On the eve of the election, the major non-Congress opposition parties merged into a single party, the Janata Party. So the main contest narrowed to two big camps: the Congress on one side and the Janata Party on the other.
2. Because the opposition fought as one bloc rather than many separate parties, the election looked like a straight, two-sided fight, which is why it resembled a two-party system.

(b) Why it is called ``close to'' a two-party system despite many parties.

1. Many more than two parties did exist in 1977. The Janata Party was not a single, unified party but a merger of several different parties and groups that kept their own identities.
2. So India had not truly become a two-party system; it only looked like one because the many opposition groups had temporarily come together to face the Congress. That is why the authors say ``close to'', not ``a'' two-party system.

(c) What caused the splits in the Congress and the Janata parties.

1. The Janata Party split because it was a hurried merger of many groups with different ideologies and no common programme. Once their shared opposition to the Emergency faded, the lack of unity, direction and leadership, plus the power struggle among Morarji Desai, Charan Singh and Jagjivan Ram, pulled it apart.
2. The Congress split as it changed its character. Since 1969 it had been shedding its umbrella character and identifying with one ideology and one leader, Indira Gandhi. After its 1977 defeat these internal differences broke it into two groups.

(a) The opposition merged into a single Janata Party, so the contest became Congress versus Janata, a two-sided fight. (b) It only looked two-party: the Janata Party was itself a merger of many parties that kept their identities, so India had not truly become a two-party system, only come ``close'' to one. (c) The Janata Party split because it was a hurried merger with no common programme and a power struggle once anti-Emergency unity faded; the Congress split because it had become a one-ideology, one-leader party and broke into two groups after its 1977 defeat.