KERALA CRISIS- Vimochana samaram of Kerala in 1958-59

1. Background

• The political crisis that unfolded in Kerala exactly a decade after independence was probably (one of the) first true litmus test for the Indian democracy.
• It was a political clash involving violence, ideologies, populism, religion and ethnicities in which no actor was blameless, a political theatre that has been repeated innumerable times since. 
• It is also a personal story, one of the leaders – all of whom with the best of intentions – struggling with forces bigger than themselves.
• In 1957, the Communist Party of India won Kerala’s assembly elections by a slim majority, forming the first communist state government in the country. 
• The newly created linguistic state had its first general election in 1957 and the Communists had come to power by popular vote for the first time in history.
• It sent shock waves across the globe, especially in the US, where the cold war was a major policy plank, pursued as an essential means to destroy communism.
• At the height of the Cold War (five years to the Cuban Missile Crisis), this generated tremendous interest from around the world as one of the first democratically-elected communist governments. There were concerns within India as well including New Delhi.
• However, Jawaharlal Nehru, having just returned as Prime Minister in the second national elections, had no qualms. 
• While he saw Indian communists as out of step with contemporary India, he was willing to give the new democratically-elected state government a chance. 
• He was further reassured by the communist party’s promise to act within the constitutional bounds.

2. The Birth of Crisis

• The bills introduced on socialist lines, Initiatives like land reforms and minimum wages were radical enough, but the government seemed to get away with them.
• When it turned to education, the air caught fire. Official attempts to ensure better wages and working conditions for teachers in private schools and colleges should have been welcomed by all, but the effect was the opposite.
• The main reason was that education had become linked with religion. Schools and colleges had become profitable businesses for religious groups and Christian denominations. They wanted no government interference.
• The state was plagued by agitations, strikes and protests. 
• While the protesters employed mob violence and rioting, the government resorted to lathi charges and firing. 
• Around 150,000 protesters were jailed and there were some 248 lathi charges and many protesters were killed.
• The net result of American involvement and local communal networking was that a powerful and effective mass agitation against the EMS government started shaking the state. Popular emotions were expertly aroused, passionate slogans invented, and revolutionary couplets recited by marching crowds.
• In July 1959, Delhi took the unusual step of dismissing the elected government of a state.

3. Emergency laws in India

• In many democratic countries, there arise times when certain powers, which in normal situations are beyond the scope of the government, get vested in it to address situations of emergency. 
• In Germany, the emergency provisions are very much meticulously defined, and India borrowed its emergency laws from Germany. Both Germany and India have national and state emergencies, which are often not present in other major democracies such as the United States of America, which has national and financial emergencies. 
• In India and Germany, the emergency declaration depends on the central executive who has the power of proclaiming it. Furthermore, in both these countries, the consequences of emergencies are specified in the constitution, and hence there is no dependence on the judiciary or its interpretation. This however does not mean that they are free from a judicial review which will be elaborated upon later in this research.
• Therefore, it can be argued that as the emergency provisions of India, both at the national and state level, find their origin in Germany, the two countries continue to share many similarities in this regard.

4. The Result of president Rule

• The governor carries on with the administration of the state on behalf of the President. He or she takes the help of the state’s Chief Secretary and other advisors/administrators whom he or she can appoint.
• The President has the power to declare that the state legislature’s powers would be exercised by the Parliament.
• The state legislative assembly would be either suspended or dissolved by the President.

5. Misuse of President's Rule and Associated recommendations

• It was used for the first time in 1951 in Punjab. Between 1966 and 1977, Indira Gandhi’s government used it about 39 times against various states. 
• In the S.R. Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court of India put forth strict guidelines for the imposition of Article 356.
• The Sarkaria Commission Report (1983) recommended that Article 356 should be used “very sparingly” and only as a last resort.
• The Punchhi Commission recommended that the centre should try to bring only a specific troubled area under its jurisdiction and that too for a brief period, not more than three months.