The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country - not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralised state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new book.
In Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi's top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system - one that would centralise executive power, sideline an "obstructionist" judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic chorus.
Inspired in part by Charles de Gaulle's France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy - even if it never fully materialised.
It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a "tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support" and urged Gandhi to seize the moment.
Parliamentary democracy had "not been able to provide the answer to our needs", Nehru wrote. In this system the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature "which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure".
What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president - freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking "tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions" in the national interest, Prof Raghavan writes.
The model he pointed to was de Gaulle's France - concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights - right to equality or freedom of speech, for example - of their justiciability.
Nehru urged Indira Gandhi to "make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority". His ideas were "received with rapture" by the prime minister's secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said "very clearly and emphatically" that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval.
Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: "Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there's no need to do anything else". M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted - was unimpressed.
When Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further.
What emerged was a document titled "A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions", drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new "Superior Council of Judiciary", chaired by the president, would interpret "laws and the Constitution" - effectively neutering the Supreme Court.
Gandhi sent this document to Dhar, who recognised it "twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction". Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a "thorough re-examination" of the Constitution at the party's 1975 annual session.
The idea never fully crystallised into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament's powers, limited judicial review and further centralised executive authority.
The amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution's 'basic structure doctrine' that limited parliament's power.
It also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend President's Rule - direct federal rule - from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary's reach.
This was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint - a powerful executive, marginalised judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the parliament."
Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defence minister Bansi Lal urged "lifelong power" for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976.
"The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament," writes Prof Raghavan.
By December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the president.
After Gandhi's shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party - a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces - moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and balances.
Gandhi was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential system.
In 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy's term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India.
Her principal secretary later revealed she was "very serious" about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a "shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus".
Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the presidency.
Despite serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India's parliamentary system proved sticky?
There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India's parliamentary democracy - especially after 1967 - grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallised into serious political thinking.
"The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design - most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi's] rule were likely unintended," Prof Raghavan told the BBC.
"During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn't stand in her way."
The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance - even while in power.
But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy.
India media: Papers remember 1975 emergency
Indira Gandhi: The Centre of Everything
India's State of Emergency
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
We can't win the fight to end HIV if we cut funding and access to medication
The fight to end HIV in our lifetimes just received a game-changing innovation. In June, the FDA approved Yeztugo (lenacapavir), a groundbreaking HIV prevention treatment that requires just two injections per year — and scored 99 percent effectiveness in trials. This monumental scientific breakthrough is poised to transform the lives of people who have found it hard to keep up with daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis, providing an option that fits better into their everyday lives. But as exciting as this development is, it could be undermined by the Trump administration's proposal to cut nearly $1 billion from federal HIV prevention programs. Innovations like lenacapavir could be a key tool to ending the epidemic, but only if we have the resources and policy to deliver it directly to those who need them most. Although lenacapavir's efficacy is groundbreaking, access remains another story. With a price tag hovering around $28,000 a year, this medication risks being out of reach for the very communities who need it most. We're still waiting to see how programs managed by Gilead Sciences, which developed the treatments, and the broader insurance markets will step up. And it's not just the cost of the drug itself. It's the labs, the provider visits, the follow-ups — each one a potential roadblock for someone trying to stay safe. Federal leadership is essential to ensuring this new HIV prevention tool reaches the communities who need it most. This includes updating clinical guidelines, funding support services and supporting the infrastructure that makes access possible. Unfortunately, the Trump administration and the Republican majorities in Congress are putting access to lifesaving innovations at risk. The administration's attacks on HIV prevention, including its proposals to eliminate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's HIV budget and efforts to dismantle public health systems, threaten progress. The Republican budget reconciliation bill that President Trump signed over the July 4 weekend includes deep cuts to Medicaid — the largest payer for HIV care in the U.S. Without strong federal investment and coordination, expanding access to new tools and ending the HIV epidemic is at serious risk. Despite the real strides we have made in HIV prevention, those of us in the lesbian, gay, and transgender community — especially non-white Southerners in rural areas or navigating poverty — know that not every prevention strategy reaches us, works for us, or is built with us in mind. Our realities demand options that reflect the full truth of who we are and how we live. Lenacapavir offers real, powerful hope, but let's be clear: Science alone won't save us. What will make the difference is equitable and intentional policies that center our communities and a public health infrastructure that doesn't leave us behind. These numbers don't shift on their own. Yes, we have made progress over time. But the hard truth is that Black Americans still account for 43 percent of all new HIV diagnoses in the U.S., despite being just 13 percent of the population. The data is even more stark for Black transgender women: 44 percent are living with HIV, and their lifetime risk remains unacceptably high. And we cannot ignore the geography of this epidemic. The South accounts for 52 percent of all new HIV diagnoses in the U.S. That's not a coincidence — it is the result of systemic failures: limited access to healthcare, persistent stigma, lack of comprehensive sex education and the absence of strong non-discrimination protections. These barriers don't just prevent care — they trap people in cycles where prevention tools are out of reach. Among gay and bisexual Black men, the risk of contracting HIV is still 50 percent over a lifetime. Prevention tools like pre-exposure prophylaxis and lenacapavir hold promise, but they only matter if people can actually access them, without fear, shame or coercion. Ending this epidemic means creating environments where people are safe to make informed choices about their own health. The fight to end the HIV epidemic is not just about what happens in labs — it's about how we make these innovations real for our communities. Science is doing its part. Now is the time to urge Congress to reject any cuts to CDC HIV prevention efforts and to fully fund the HIV response. We have the tools to end this epidemic, but not if we dismantle the very systems our communities rely on to survive. The promise of lenacapavir, and the hope it represents, is too great to let fall through the cracks of policy neglect. The question is, will we make the choice to ensure that this breakthrough reaches all of us? Science has given us the tools. Now, we must ensure that everyone has the opportunity to use them.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Japanese PM's coalition loses majority in upper house election
Japanese prime minister Shigeru Ishiba's ruling coalition has failed to secure a majority in the 248-seat upper house in a crucial parliamentary election, NHK public television said. Mr Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner Komeito needed to win 50 seats on top of the 75 seats they already had to reach the goal. With two more seats to be decided, the coalition had only 46 seats. The loss is another blow to Mr Ishiba's coalition, making it a minority in both houses following its October defeat in the lower house election, and worsening Japan's political instability. It was the first time the LDP had lost a majority in both houses of parliament since the party's foundation in 1955. Despite the loss, Mr Ishiba expressed determination to stay on to tackle challenges such as US tariff threats, but he could face calls from within his party to step down or find another coalition partner. 'I will fulfil my responsibility as head of the number one party and work for the country,' he said. Mr Ishiba had set the bar low, wanting a simple majority of 125 seats, which meant his LDP and its Buddhist-backed junior coalition partner Komeito needed to win 50 to add to the 75 seats they already had. Exit poll results released seconds after the ballots closed on Sunday night mostly showed a major setback for Mr Ishiba's coalition. The LDP alone won 38 seats, better than most exit poll projections of 32, and still the number one party in the parliament, known as the Diet. 'It's a tough situation. I take it humbly and sincerely,' Mr Ishiba told a live interview with NHK. He said the poor showing was because his government's measures to combat price increases had yet to reach many people. The poor performance in the election will not immediately trigger a change of government because the upper house lacks the power to file a no-confidence motion against a leader, but it will certainly deepen uncertainty over his fate and Japan's political stability. Mr Ishiba could face calls from within the LDP party to step down or find another coalition partner. Soaring prices, lagging incomes and burdensome social security payments are the top issues for frustrated, cash-strapped voters. Stricter measures targeting foreign residents and visitors also emerged as a key issue, with a surging right-wing populist party leading the campaign. Sunday's vote comes after Mr Ishiba's coalition lost a majority in the October lower house election, stung by past corruption scandals, and his government has since been forced into making concessions to the opposition to get legislation through parliament. It has been unable to quickly deliver effective measures to mitigate rising prices, including Japan's traditional staple of rice, and dwindling wages. US president Donald Trump has added to the pressure, complaining about a lack of progress in trade negotiations and the lack of sales of US vehicles and American-grown rice to Japan despite a shortfall in domestic stocks of the grain. A 25% tariff due to take effect on August 1 has been another blow for Mr Ishiba. Mr Ishiba resisted any compromise before the election, but the prospect for a breakthrough after the election is just as unclear because the minority government would have difficulty forming a consensus with the opposition. Frustrated voters were rapidly turning to emerging populist parties. But the eight main opposition groups were too fractured to forge a common platform as a united front and gain voter support as a viable alternative.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Hold him to account': Warning to Albo
The Greens and the opposition are vowing to pump the breaks on Anthony Albanese's agenda as parliament resumes this week. The Prime Minister commands a massive 94-seat majority in the House of Representatives, but the Senate is another matter. Labor will need to work with either the Greens or the Coalition to pass legislation through the chamber – a task far easier said than done. For many of the Albanese government's more progressive items, such as legislating penalty rates, the Greens are more natural partners, but Senator Nick McKim said on Monday his party would hold Mr Albanese 'to account'. 'The results were pretty clear in the Senate and I wasn't that happy with the PM telling the Senate and the Greens to get out of the way shortly after the election,' Senator McKim told Nine's Today. 'We haven't been put into the Australian parliament to get out of the Prime Minister's way. 'We've been put in there to hold him to account. 'And we do expect him to deliver, and we expect him to engage in some of the really meaningful issues, whether it's climate change, whether it's protecting nature, whether it's the housing crisis in Australia.' He went on to say the Greens needed 'to see solutions that are commensurate with the scale of the challenges facing the country'. 'We're here to work constructively and cooperatively with Labor,' Senator McKim said. 'We hope that they would take the same approach to us.' Meanwhile, demoted Liberal senator Jane Hume took a similar line. She was opposition finance spokeswoman under Peter Dutton and championed some of the Coalition's most controversial policies. Senator Hume was booted from the frontbench after Labor's federal election landslide decimated the Liberal Party. Acknowledging the Coalition had 'hit a low point in their primary vote', she pledged to 'work every day' to claw back support. 'We're going to work every day to rebuild trust with the Australian people, to make sure that they know that we're listening to their concerns and responding to them, sticking with our values,' Senator Hume told Sky News. 'Of course, those important values of reward for effort, lower taxes, growing the economy, managing the budget responsibly. 'But at the same time, we have to make sure that this three years we are holding this very bad government to account, because the last three years delivered nothing other than a cost of living crisis where people saw their standard of living go backwards and economic growth stagnating. 'The last thing we need is another talk fest – we need an economic plan.' More to come.
