From declared emergency to undeclared emergency
Country is remembering those dark days of emergency imposed by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The very memory of those days is to uphold the significance of democracy. We need to go through this memory only to remind ourselves that the nation needn’t witness those uncertain days again.
Even if the ‘dictator’ is our own, we should follow him like meek sheep. One of the most renowned poets refers to this time in his works and says ‘how does it matter whether the sword was our own or was a foreign one?’ The memory of this phase should encourage us to strengthen the democracy further. There is no point in using this premise to just criticize a particular party.
Indira Gandhi does not signify emergency alone. Her strengths stretch beyond this dark phase too. Her contribution in strengthening India cannot be refuted. Land tenancy act and nationalisation of banks were some bold decisions she took to help the lowest strata of the society. She earned the wrath of the upper castes, rich and powerful in the meantime. If Indira Gandhi is just remembered for emergency alone like the BJP likes to project, why did people bring her back to power with a resounding victory?
It’s a very opportunist politics to project her as the architect of emergency alone, restricting her to Congress party and criticize her alone. It is important to remember the context in which emergency was imposed on the country, and the negative effects it created. Congress and RSS both organisations have reaped rich benefits of this phase. Many reports indicated RSS was also hand in glove with attacks on muslims during this time. The cons should be taken into cognizance in the context of not allowing this phase to repeat again.
Senior most leader of BJP L K Advani who had gone to jail during the dark times, has said in the past that this country is on the threshold of facing another emergency-like situation. He was referring to the current happenings in BJP. Another senior BJP leader who quit the party in Rajasthan, said he would fight against the ‘undeclared emergency’ in the country. BJP ally Shivasena is also speaking the same language. We need to remember during emergency, the freedom of expression was curtailed. Journalists and opposition party leaders were jailed. The people at lowest strata in the society never felt the heat of this time. The upper class people misused this term to their benefit. Muslims were attacked. The poor never understood what exactly was transpiring in the country. Including Karnataka, many states implemented land tenancy act during this time. But one can never defend this highly venomous act against small benefits.
The BJP leaders are criticizing emergency phase in strongest of terms. They must remember what happened in our own country during demonetization. People had to stand in queue before banks and ATMs to draw their own hard earned money. Some even died waiting in these queues. This step had a massive negative effect on rural India and people are still living through the ill effects of this time. Did this make sense in any form? No one can defend this either. Demo led to major benefits to the rich and miseries to the poor. RBI suffered losses. BJP became the richest party. Farmers today cannot sell livestock according to their preference. This situation didn’t exist even during emergency, per se.
Just the way as groups had attacked random people during emergency due to breakdown of law and order, Gau Rakshaks are attacking people and cattle traders. Farmers who care for cattle are victims of higher crimes committed against them. Hence today when we speak, we need to keep in context the new situation that’s almost on par with the old days of emergency. Dark and vulnerable indeed. Journalist Gauri Lankesh was murdered during this time and another media agency NDTV has been under continuous attack for its stance since the recent days. We may well refer to the past, but the new days of almost emergency are here for all of us to see. We need to devise a plan to face this and register out opposition in strong terms.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Nicobar Tribal Council Alleges FRA Violations in Great Nicobar Wildlife Sanctuaries
Sri Vijaypuram (Port Blair): The Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar has alleged fresh violations of the Forest Rights Act in the notification of three wildlife sanctuaries linked to the Centre’s ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, even as the Calcutta High Court is set to hear petitions challenging the mega project over similar concerns next month.
The Union government had, in October 2022, notified three wildlife sanctuaries in parts of Little Nicobar Island, Menchal Island and Meroe Island for the conservation of leatherback turtles, megapodes and coral ecosystems. The move came after the government acknowledged that the proposed infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island would affect coral colonies and nesting habitats of endangered species.
However, the tribal council has maintained that the sanctuaries were declared without consultation with the Nicobarese communities who traditionally inhabit and manage these islands.
In a letter dated April 23 addressed to the Assistant Conservator of Forests of the Nicobar Forest Division, the council reiterated its opposition to the sanctuaries and objected to the formation of a committee to determine eco-sensitive zones around the protected areas.
The council said its chairman had not been consulted before being included in the committee and was informed of his membership only a month after the committee was constituted.
The three notified sanctuaries include the Leatherback Turtle Sanctuary in parts of Little Nicobar Island, the Megapode Sanctuary covering the entire Menchal Island and the Coral Sanctuary spanning the whole of Meroe Island.
According to the council, Menchal and Meroe islands hold deep cultural and spiritual significance for the Nicobarese community, which believes the islands are inhabited by the spirits of their ancestors.
The council demanded that the sanctuary notifications be revoked and the eco-sensitive zone committee dissolved, alleging that both decisions were taken against the wishes of the indigenous community.
Meanwhile, Jairam Ramesh has written to Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in the process of obtaining consent for diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project.
Ramesh argued that consent should have been obtained through the Tribal Council representing the Nicobarese communities instead of through Gram Sabhas representing settler families. He also questioned how the government-controlled Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti could provide consent on behalf of the Shompen community, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.
He urged the Tribal Affairs Ministry to intervene and seek withdrawal of clearances granted for the project under the Forest Rights Act.
Earlier, Ramesh had also written to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav alleging that environmental impact studies for the project were conducted in haste and without the detailed seasonal assessments mandated under environmental laws.
The dispute dates back to 2022 when the Andaman and Nicobar administration initiated the process for notifying the three sanctuaries before holding Special Gram Sabhas for diversion of forest land linked to the Great Nicobar project.
In May that year, the administration invited objections and claims regarding the proposed sanctuaries. Subsequently, on July 19, the Nicobar Deputy Commissioner certified that no objections or claims had been received.
The tribal council later wrote to the district administration stating that the notification process was carried out without ensuring that residents of Little Nicobar Island were informed as required by law. It alleged that no public announcements seeking objections were made in villages such as Bahua, Muhincoihn and Kiyang, whose residents traditionally use and manage parts of the notified areas.
The council said the Nicobarese community had protected the islands and wildlife for generations through customary practices and traditional belief systems.
It further argued that the sanctuaries would interfere with long-standing rights over forests and coastal areas. They noted that these areas are used for rituals, plantations, collection of forest produce, construction of huts and canoes, harvesting medicinal plants and worship.
In November 2024, the council objected to draft Island Coastal Regulation Zone plans, demanding basic infrastructure, instead of proposed eco-tourism activities in the sanctuaries. The council demanded better public restrooms, jetties, water facilities, pathways, and mobile connectivity.
The Nicobar administration issued a clarification in May 2025, stating that the sanctuaries would not affect hunting rights available to Scheduled Tribes in the Nicobar Islands. The council, however, rejected the clarification, stating that their dependence on forests and coasts extended far beyond hunting activities.
Earlier this month, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court dismissed preliminary objections raised by the Union government against petitions challenging the diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project. The matter has now been listed for final hearing in June.
