Latest news with #andtheYearsThatTransformedIndia
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
During the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the Emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed. 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
Scroll.in
05-06-2025
- Business
- Scroll.in
Srinath Raghavan
How Indira Gandhi's nationalisation of banks enhanced the infrastructural power of the Indian state An excerpt from 'Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India', by Srinath Raghavan. Srinath Raghavan · 4 minutes ago How the US managed the presence of 200,000 soldiers in India in World War II with dynamic propaganda America needed to foster sympathy for its troops in India while steering them clear of the country's politics, Srinath Raghavan writes in a new book. Srinath Raghavan · Jun 15, 2018 · 08:30 am No officers, no equipment, no money – or, how the Indian army had to be built Not enough suitable candidates, and an economy in the doldrums, made things very difficult. Srinath Raghavan · Apr 24, 2016 · 08:30 am
Time of India
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Indira, and the ‘samvidhan change karo' moment
June 25 marks 50 years of the Emergency. In this excerpt from his new book ' and the Years That Transformed India', historian Srinath Raghavan writes about the PM who wanted to be president Not content with excising rights guaranteed by the Constitution , the Emergency regime also contemplated far-reaching constitutional changes. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Dictatorships, it has been argued, can be 'commissarial' or 'sovereign'. A commissarial dictatorship seeks to defend the existing constitutional order by suspending normal laws. A sovereign dictatorship, by contrast, seeks — in the name of the people — to establish a new constitutional order. Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency claiming the former, but she gradually began moving towards the latter. The underlying impulse was to cement the dominance of the executive and to institutionalize her Caesarism. The vehicle for both was the idea of a directly elected executive presidency. As it happened, she did not go all the way there; but she did succeed in molesting the Constitution. Three distinct impulses prodded the prime minister to consider deeper changes to the Constitution. The first came from sycophantic partymen who believed, after the Allahabad high court judgment, that the judiciary must be cut to size. The second came from individuals in the govt and the party who had wanted all along to roll back judicial restraints on the Parliament's powers to amend the Constitution. And the third came from bureaucratic advisors with considerable governmental experience. As early as mid-August 1975, there was vague talk of taking a second look at the constitution. Asked what changes she was contemplating, Indira Gandhi said, 'I am not thinking in terms of a Constituent Assembly or a new Constitution. A second look does not mean an alternative Constitution.' Yet she also felt that 'we can and should have a look at the provisions and procedures we have.' Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Proposals for more extensive and far-reaching changes came from B K felt that democratic institutions on the British model had 'not been able to provide the answer to our needs.' …The model he had in mind was the French Fifth Republic. This had been the outcome of Charles de Gaulle's ascension to power — by coup d'état — in May 1958 against the backdrop of a crisis-ridden Fourth Republic and his decision to create a new constitutional order that was ratified by a referendum. Drawing on the Gaullist model, Nehru suggested a directly elected president of the republic. However, unlike in France, the president should have only a single, seven-year term. Parliament should be elected on a system of proportional representation (not the English first-past the-post system) — as should state for the judiciary, he advocated 'American practice' — presumably appointing Supreme Court justices for life. And yet he wanted to limit the scope of prerogative writs. He also asked the PM to examine the 'possibility of making fundamental rights non-justiciable.' To strengthen rule of law, he suggested increasing the number of lower courts and specialized tribunals. Turning to the press, he observed that there was 'no reason why, like many other countries, we should not have a Press Law to make the press responsible.' Further, he advised Indira Gandhi to 'strengthen greatly' the existing libel laws: 'define more closely what is meant by bringing Government into contempt and hatred, and make it an offence to publish unproved statements without taking sufficient steps to be satisfied about their truth.' Nehru suggested appointing three commissions — on the Constitution, the judiciary, and the press — to report in four months. Parliament could discuss their recommendations in the summer. She could then dissolve Parliament and hold elections in the autumn of 1976. Nehru did not envisage a French-style referendum on the new constitution: after all, there had been none on the original Constitution of 1950. So beholden was the party to the PM that when Nehru met senior Congressmen — Jagjivan Ram, Swaran Singh, and Y B Chavan — they readily agreed to support these changes if she wanted them…Nehru then met and sounded out the only two non-Congress chief ministers. M Karunanidhi of was unimpressed. It was evident to him that Indira Gandhi would be the first president. By contrast, Babubhai Patel of Gujarat bubbled with enthusiasm: 'there could be nothing more suited to Indian conditions' than such a constitution. The Congress CM of Punjab (later president), Zail Singh , said that whatever Indira Gandhi wanted was fine by him. The CM of Haryana, who was close to Sanjay Gandhi , was blunter still: 'Get rid of all this election nonsense. If you ask me, just make our sister President for life and there's no need to do anything else.' When Nehru reported back to Indira Gandhi, she remained noncommittal. In the event, the prime minister passed on Nehru's letter to the troika of advisors to whom she had turned in the past: party president D.K. Barooah, Bengal chief minister S.S. Ray, and party treasurer Rajni Patel. The last approached another Congressman from Bombay, AR Antulay…The outcome of their confabulations was a shoddy paper titled 'A Fresh Look at our Constitution: Some Suggestions'.. . Drawing on American, French, and other European practices, it proposed a presidential system. The president would be the chief executive of the nation, directly elected for a six-year term. Unlike Nehru's proposal, it gave no specified limit on the number of terms in office. 'Since our President is thus elected by popular mandate,' the paper maintained, 'he should . . .enjoy more authority and powers than even USA President.' This was precisely what the paper proceeded to suggest. Half of the council of ministers appointed by the president would be members of parliament, hence 'unlike the USA the legislature will not be too independent of the executive.' The president would exercise more sweeping powers over the judiciary. The president would appoint all judges in consultation with the council of ministers or the state governments. A 'Superior Council of Judiciary' would be chaired by the president with the chief justice of India and the law minister as vice chairpersons.. .Apart from deciding 'administrative matters pertaining to the judiciary,' this council would be 'the authority to interpret laws and the Constitution; as also to determine the validity of legislation.' In rendering the constitutional courts toothless, the document cited such shining examples of constitutional democracy as Greece and Guatemala. The prime minister passed on a copy of this confidential document to Dhar, who recognized that it 'twisted the Constitution in an unambiguously authoritarian direction.' Barooah overreached himself when, in a bid to test the waters, he leaked the document. The reaction was almost uniformly critical, leading Indira Gandhi to distance herself from its contents. Edited excerpts courtesy of Penguin Random House India
