The forgotten history of India’s brush with presidential governance

In the mid-1970s, in the imposition of the emergency situation of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, India entered a period in which civil freedoms were stopped and much of the political opposition was closed.

Behind this authoritarian curtain, her government of the Congress Party quietly rethinks the country – not as a democracy, rooted in inspections and balances, but as a centralized state run by command and control, the historian Srinat Ragav revealed in his new book.

In Indira Gandhi and the years that transformed India, Prof. Ragavan shows how the best bureaucrats and Gandhi party loyalty began to insist on a presidential system – the one that would centralize the executive, leave a “obstruction” judicial system and reduce the parliament to a symbolic choir.

Inspired partly by Charles de Gaulle FranceThe impetus for a stronger presidency in India reflects a clear ambition to move beyond the restrictions of parliamentary democracy – even if it never has been fully realized.

It all started, writes Prof. Raganan in September 1975, when BC Nerhu, an experienced diplomat and a close assistant to Gandhi, wrote a letter welcoming the emergency as a “tour of enormous courage and power produced by popular support” and called on Gandhi to take advantage of the moment.

The parliamentary democracy “failed to give the answer to our needs,” Nehru writes. In this system, the executive power is constantly dependent on the support of a selected legislative body, “seeking popularity and stops any unpleasant measure.”

What India needed, said Nehru, was a directly elected president – released from parliamentary dependence and capable of making “difficult, unpleasant and unpopular decisions” in national interest, writes Prof. Ragavan.

The model he pointed out was De Gaulle’s concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nerhu imagined one, seven -year presidential term, proportionate representation in parliament and state legislative bodies, a judicial system with limited powers and a press conference transferred with strict slander laws. He even suggested, for example, to undress the fundamental rights – the right to equality or freedom of expression – to their justice.

Nerhu called on Indira Gandhi to “make these major changes to the Constitution now that you have two -thirds of the majority.” His ideas were “delighted” by Prime Minister of Prime Minister PN Dhar. Gandhi then approved of Nehru to discuss these ideas with her party leaders, but said “very clear and categorical” that he should not give the impression that they have the seal of her approval.

Prof. Raghavan writes that ideas are encountered with enthusiastic support from senior congress leaders such as Guadered Ram and Foreign Minister Suran Singh. The Chief Minister of the State Harian was dumb: “Get rid of these election nonsense. If you ask me, just make our sister (Indira Gandhi) president for life and there is no need to do anything else.” M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of the two non -congress ministers was not impressed.

When Nehru reports back to Gandhi, she remains selfless, writes Prof. Ragavan. She instructs her closest assistants to further explore the proposals.

What appeared was a document entitled “A New A look at our Constitution: Some suggestions”, made secret and distributed among reliable advisers. He has proposed a president with powers more than even their American counterparts, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new “Supreme Council of the Judiciary”, chaired by the President, will interpret the “laws and the constitution” – an effective castration of the Supreme Court.

Gandhi sent this Dhar document, who acknowledged him that he “distorted the constitution in an ambiguous authoritarian direction.” The President of the Congress DK Barooah tried out the waters by publicly calling for a “in -depth review” of the Constitution of the Party’s annual session of 1975.

The idea never crystallizes completely in a formal proposal. But his shadow was outlined on Forty -Second Amendment ActAdopted in 1976, which expands the powers of parliament, a limited judicial review and a more centralized executive body.

The amendment made it difficult for the laws more difficult by requiring super masters of five or seven judges and aimed to resolve the constitution “Doctrine for basic structure” This limited the power of parliament.

He also handed over to the federal government, which covers power to unleash the armed forces in the countries, to declare emergencies specific to the region, and to expand the president’s rule – a direct federal rule – from six months to a year. He also put election disputes beyond the scope of the judiciary.

It was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic footprint – a powerful executive, marginalized judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The statesman’s newspaper warned that “with a secure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favor of parliament.”

Meanwhile, Gandhi’s loyalists have joined.

“The prime minister was amazed. She decided to break through these moves and to accelerate the adoption of the bill to amend in parliament,” writes Prof. Ragavan.

Until December 1976, the bill was also adopted by parliament of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislative bodies and signed by law by the President.

After Gandhi’s shock defeat in 1977, the short -lived Giana Party – Anti -Gandhi Forces Patch – quickly moved to cancel the damage. Through Forty -third and Forty -fourth Changes, he has repented key parts of the forty seconds, detached authoritarian provisions and restores democratic checks and balances.

Gandhi returned to power in January 1980 after the Gian’s government had collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. It is curious that two years later prominent votes in the party again reconciled the idea of ​​a presidential system.

In 1982, with the end of President Sanjiva’s term of office, Gandhi was seriously considering withdrawing as a Prime Minister to become president of India.

Later, her Secretary -General revealed that she was “very serious” about this move. She was tired of carrying the congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver “shock treatment to his party, thus giving him a new incentive.”

In the end, she gave way. Instead, she raised a bump, her loyal minister of the home, to the Presidency.

Despite the serious flirtation, India never made a jump to the presidential system. Is Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, lingers? Or there was no national appetite for a radical change, and the parliamentary system of India turned out to be sticky?

In the early 1970s, there was a hint of the president, as the parliamentary democracy of India – especially after 1967 – became more competitive and unstable, marked by the fragile coalitions, according to Prof. Ragavan. Around that time, the voices began to suggest that the presidential system could fit into India better. The emergency situation was the moment when these ideas crystallized in serious political thinking.

“The goal was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her power. There was no grand long -term design – most of the lasting consequences of her rule (Gandhi) were probably involuntary,” Prof. Ragavan told the BBC.

“During the emergency situation, its main goal was short -term: to protect its office from any challenge. The forties second amendment was created to ensure that even the judiciary could not interfere with the path.”

The itching of the presidential system within Congress has never faded. As early as April 1984, Senior Minister Vasan Sate began a national debate, which advocated to move to the President’s rule – even while in power.

But six months later, Indira Gandhi was killed by her Sikhist bodyguards in Delhi, and with it the conversation died sharply. India remained parliamentary democracy.