Talk:The Emergency (India)

message: The emergency may have showed how democracy could be treathened from within (which was something that seems to have gone unanticipated by those who wrote the constitution) whereas the election of 1977 showed that people where commited to democracy and were not just blindly voting Indira Gandhi to power. After the 1976 election the constitution was ammended to bring more safegards as to how emergency is declared and to laws prohibiting the revoking of certains rights enjoyed by citizens for whatever reasons (this includes unlawful arrest, and the right to challenge it).  
Democracy in India therefore really came out stronger than it was before. It also broke the hold of a single party dominating politics in India... slowly every state in the country developed a competitive multiple party environment.  in some states, like in UP and Bihar, they cease to exist as a power base.
Shouldn't the above content or something along this lines belong in the article?
hydkat(ballyhoo back :) 19:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One impact of the emergency: 

message: Hi, the section on "elections in 1977" refers to a possible threat of military intervention by Field Marshall Maneckshaw as a possible reason for Indira Gandhi calling elections. This is extremely unlikely, especially as TN Raina was Chief of Army Staff then, and Maneckshaw had been retired for four years. Is there any reason not to delete this claim? -- Kunal (Talk) 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was a rumour like that. Plus I remember reading somewhere that the late prime minister did take them very seriously. I could be wrong. --hydkat 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds very unlikely and out of character.  I'm going to get rid of that statement unless someone can provide a citation for this rumor.  bostonbrahmin 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maneckshaw's role? 

message: It's a common misconception that castration was common during the Emergency.  Actually, this is a result of the fact that the victims equated a vasectomy with castration, and used the Hindi word for castration to describe what happened to them.  See Time magazine's report from 1977.  So I've removed the reference to castration.  -- Lexmercatoria 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Castration and vasectomy are indeed two different operations. The general rule was vasectomy of men who had two or more children. The rare, stray incidents of castration were a result of  personal vendettas between haves and have-nots rather than government policy or machinery). A few misguided haves utilized their power and clout to push lower caste people to become outcastes, mainly by threatening doctors and paramedics who were at vasectomy camps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.124.192.19 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castration 

message: Can any one tell, is it emergency is declared by prime minister or president, who have the authority? 
If so, it is by president why is that indira gandhi is so famous?
:The President is obliged to rule according to the advice of the council of ministers.  Real executive power lies with the prime minister. bostonbrahmin 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is authority 

message: I don't suppose anyone will object, but I've moved this page following WP:NC's golden rule :"what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." Relata refero 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the discussion for this move? If you are going to rename the page :Indian Emergency (1975–1977) to :The Emergency (India), then surely it should be correctly pointing to :State of Emergency in India and leave :Indian Emergency (1975–1977) where it is? Your move gives the 1975-1977 emergency, a 21 month period of time, more importance than the 1962-1968 emergency, imho, a more significant event. Where are your sources for the statement: "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"? You don't provide any supporting evidence or argument for your move with anything, you just assume no one will object. I don't think that was not the way to do this; some discussion and finding a consensus would the appropriate way to go so your fellow editors can be involved. ww2censor 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: State of Emergency in India deals with the constitutional provision for the declaration of Emergencies. If you believe the 62-68 implementation has anything like the name recognition of the 75-77 Emergency - which most people believe was the only implementation of the provision - then provide citations. I have assumed nobody would object because someone would have to be really unaware of basic Indian history in order to do so, and such people are unlikely to be watching or interested in this page. I have already noted that the Emergency is generally accepted to be India's greatest political crisis. Relata refero 05:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why, when Relata refero states "I have already noted that the Emergency is generally accepted to be India's greatest political crisis", that he still does not provide any sources for his statement. Maybe he don't have any, because I would love him to prove me wrong and I am sure he are well aware that verifiability is a cornerstone Wikipedia. ww2censor 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "India in 1975: Democracy in Eclipse", ND Palmer - Asian Survey, vol 16 no 5. "IN 1975 India experienced its greatest political crisis since independence ... the proclamation of a national emergency in June." Opening lines. Happy? -- Relata refero (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.Unquestionably the emergency was the greatest political crisis India faced since independence -- Shyamsunder 08:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Relata refero, why do you find it so difficult to add that source to the article page? I still fail to understand your reluctance to use sources for the "greatest political crisis". Surely there are more than just one quote to be had? ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several, several. But I believe I've made my point. I'll be off to the other page shortly to arrange for the disambiguation. Relata refero (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I include it here for reference.
:Indira Gandhi was arrogant and was sarrounded by unreliable men and at home Sanjay was pushing himself meddling as an extra conststutional center of power. She became intolerant to dissent and her utterances and body language became one of an autocrat.She encouraged jokers like Dev Kanth Barua, the then rubber stamp President of Congress to say that "Indira is India"Delhi durbar of Indira was filled with sycophants and the main opposition party Jan Sangh started giving her jitters with their constant attack on her,her policies. She also found that within Congress so much discontent was growing. And when the Allahabad HC verdict went against her, she had noithing else to consider as she held herself above law of the land, had managed a liar as President of India ( Fakkrudin ali ahmed was placed as having given false witness in the Presidential election case againt the election of VV Giri)to sign on dotted lines. And thus Emergency was declared by a lady whose bringing up was under stressful conditions with a womanising father and a bedridden mother, she craved for real love which eluded her.Her youth was also wasted like this and she also had a wrong marriage.Her frustration however was intelligentlyconcealed by her and she never showed it.The moment the Emergency was announced the first reaction came from the RSS and throughout India their cadres staged public protests.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.95.123.6 (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  REmoved POV paragraph 

message: Normally a state of emergency is declared for proper legal purposes - to deal with disaster or war. In this case it was effectively a civilian coup and the powers were invoked for purely political purposes. That is not reflected in the introduction.
Also the reference to people being "imprisoned and the press was censored. Several other atrocities were reported" is not logical. Imprisonment and censorship are not atrocities.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Feel free to make the changes.—indopug (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: What was the international reaction to the Emergency? Surely India's image abroad must have been affected? best, 137.205.171.161 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  International reactions? 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/new-book-flays-indira-gandhis-decision-to-impose-emergency/706495.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Greetings everyone, a date range is from when using a dash e.g. 1900–1910. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Er "Use a dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both:  (not );  (not )"—indopug (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date ranges 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Emergency (India). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309151210/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/aaJustice-Sinha-who-set-aside-Indira-Gandhis-election-dies-at-87/287227/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/aaJustice-Sinha-who-set-aside-Indira-Gandhis-election-dies-at-87/287227/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211074251/http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/20000713/e1.htm to http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/20000713/e1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The part about the charges against the Prime Minister which were upheld and upon which she was convicted being minor and frivolous is particularly POV is there is no cited source.  Also, it should be clarified if "The Times" cited is The Times of India or that of London.  2600:1004:B112:B4CD:20A2:F2AF:A83A:BD1D (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raj Narain verdict 

message: An article cited as a source does not exist - citation #51. That source is cited for multiple points in this page. Have added a request for more citations to allow time for correction of the same. Will remove the cited source in case it is not corrected and if it remains as a deadlink. Niv.eno.nesohc (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link to be removed 

message: Anyone know the answer 42.109.129.37 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See the "prelude" section Taiwanesetoast888 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background of national emergency in 1975 

message: Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes against humanity category removal