The forgotten story of India’s brush with presidential rule

During the mid -seventies of the twentieth century, under the imposition of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi Emergency, India entered a period in which civil freedoms were suspended and many political opposition were imprisoned.

Behind this authoritarian curtain, the Congress Party government has quietly began to re -imagine the country – not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a central state governed by leadership and control, historian Sri Raghavan reveals in his new book.

In Indira Gandhi and the years that transformed India, Professor Raghavan explains how the major bureaucrats and loyalists in the party began to pressure a presidential system – a system that focuses on the executive authority, the “judicial” judicial plans and reduces parliament into a symbolic chain.

Partially inspired by Charles de Gaulles FranceThe pressure for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to overcome the restrictions of parliamentary democracy – even if it is not completely fulfilled.

Everything began, Professor Raghavan writes, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and assistant close to Gandhi, wrote a letter constructed in emergency situations as a “courageous tour and a massive authority produced by popular support” and urged Gandhi to seize the moment.

Nehro wrote that parliamentary democracy “was unable to provide the answer to our needs.” In this system, the executive authority was constantly relied on supporting the elected legislative body “which is looking for popularity and stopping any unpleasant action.”

What India needs, as Nehru said, a direct elected president – was liberated from parliamentary dependence and is able to make “difficult, unpleasant and unpopular decisions” in the national interest, as Professor Raghavan wrote.

The model he referred to is France De Gaulle – Power focuses on a strong presidency. Nehro imagine a seven -year presidential term, women’s representation in Parliament and the legislative bodies of the state, and a judiciary with traditional powers and a press installed on strict defamation laws. He even suggested stripping basic rights – the right to equality or freedom of expression, for example – of their ability.

Nahu Andra Gandhi urged “to make these basic changes in the constitution now when you have two -thirds of the majority.” His ideas were “received” with the euphoria of the ritual “by the Secretary of Prime Minister PN Dhar. Then Gandhi gave the approval of Nehru to discuss these ideas with the leaders of her party, but she said” very clearly and certainly “that he should not convey the impression that they obtained a conclusion of her approval.

Professor Raghavan wrote that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders such as Gagivan Ram and Foreign Minister Swran Singh. Haryana Prime Minister was explicitly: “Get this nonsense in the elections. If you just ask me, make our sister [Indira Gandhi] The president for life and there is no need to do anything else. ”

When I informed Nahu to Gandhi, she remained inconclusive, as Professor Raghavan wrote. She ordered her closest aides to explore the proposals more.

What appeared is a document entitled “A new view of our constitution: some suggestions”, which were formulated in secrecy and distributed among the trusted advisers. She suggested a president with greater powers than his American counterpart, including controlling judicial appointments and legislation. The new “Supreme Judicial Council”, headed by the President, would explain the “laws and constitution” – and it effectively revives the Supreme Court.

Gandhi sent this document to Dar, which was realized by “the twisted constitution in a mysterious authoritarian direction.” The President of Congress DK Barooah tested the water by publicly calling for a “comprehensive re -examination” of the constitution at the party’s annual session of 1975.

The idea was not completely crystallized to an official proposal. But her shadow waved on the horizon Forty -second amendment lawIt was approved in 1976, which expanded the parliament authorities, a limited judicial review and the other central executive authority.

This amendment made more difficult laws by claiming the five or seven judges, and aims to reduce the constitution “The basic structure” This limits parliamentary authority.

The full authority of the federal government also handed over the deployment of the armed forces in the states, the declaration of emergency situations in the region, and the expansion of the President – the direct federal base – from six months to a year. He also put election disputes within the reach of the judiciary.

This was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint – a strong executive authority, a judicial authority that marginalizes the weakness of checks and balances. State State newspaper warned that “with one certain stroke, the amendment tends to a constitutional balance in favor of Parliament.”

Meanwhile, the loyalists in Gandhi went to everything. Defense Minister Pansey Lal urged her “lifeline” for her as prime minister, while members of the Congress in the northern states of Haryana called the Punjab, and the Wardish without the vast to a new circle association in October 1976.

“I was surprised by the Prime Minister. She decided to make these moves and the fastest passage of the draft amendment law in Parliament,” wrote Professor Raghavan.

By December 1976, the draft law was approved by Parliament’s two councils and was believed by 13 legislative fragments and was signed on the law.

After the defeat of Gandhi in 1977, the short -term Jatata party – a mixture of anti -Gandhi forces – moved quickly to retract the damage. through Forty third and Forty -fourth Amendments, main parts of the forty -second, the abolition of authoritarian rulings, and the restoration of democratic checks and balances.

Gandhi was washed away to power in January 1980, after the collapse of the Jatata Party government due to internal divisions and leadership conflicts. It is strange, two years later, prominent voices in the party have shown the idea of ​​the presidential system.

In 1982, with the end of the term of President Sanjevi Reddy, Gandhi looked seriously in step aspiring as prime minister to become President of India.

Her main secretary later revealed that she was “very dangerous” in this step. I was tired of carrying the Congress Party on its back and saw the presidency as a way to “treat a shock to its party, and thus give it a new incentive.”

In the end, it retreated. Instead, Zel Singh, the Savior Interior Minister, raised the presidency.

Despite the linear flirtation, India has never jumped into a presidential system. Will Gandhi, a deep tactical politician, hinder herself? Or was there no national appetite for radical change, and the parliamentary system in India has proven sticky?

There was a hint of presidential erosion in the early 1970s, as the Indian parliamentary democracy – especially after 1967 – became more competitive and unstable, characterized by fragile coalitions, according to Professor Raghavan. At this time, the sounds began to indicate that the presidential system may suit India better. The emergency has become the moment when these ideas crystallized into dangerous political thinking.

“The goal was to reshape the system in ways to reinforce it immediately on power. There was no long -term design – most of the permanent consequences of it [Gandhi’s] “The rule is likely to be unintended,” Professor Raghavan told the BBC.

“During the state of emergency, its primary goal was in the short term: to protect its office from any challenge.

Itching of a presidential system inside Congress has never faded. In late April 1984, the great minister, Vasant Sashi, launched a discussion of the country defending the transition to presidential rule – even while he was in power.

But after six months, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikhs’s personal guards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation died suddenly. India remained a parliamentary democracy.