Was Sanjay proving too wild even for Indira Gandhi, asks former PM's principal secretary in book
Live Events
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
As principal secretary to Indira Gandhi in the run up to the Emergency and during her authoritarian regime of 21 months, P N Dhar had a rare insight into the goings-on of the period, and one central character who gets the most unflattering portrayal in his otherwise sober account of the era is the former prime minister 's younger son Sanjay Gandhi In his book 'Indira Gandhi, the Emergency, and Indian Democracy ', Dhar says the PMH (Prime Minister's Home) became a hive of "extra-constitutional" activities as leaders junior in the Congress hierarchy but having the ears of an increasingly distrustful prime minister and another set of functionaries loyal to her son undermined the PMS (Prime Minister's Secretariat).Critical of the power centralised in the PMS, Morarji Desai reduced its strength and rechristened it as Prime Minister's Office, a moniker which has continued, after replacing Indira Gandhi.Sanjay Gandhi and his loyalists like Haryana leader Bansi Lal gained ascendency in the Congress during the era. Even the prime minister was left alarmed by their move to have state assemblies pass resolutions in support of forming a constituent assembly for sweeping changes in the Constitution.Aware of her obsessive love for Sanjay Gandhi, Dhar said in the book published in 2000 that he would normally have attributed all this to temporary annoyance."But it was more than a passing mood this time. I knew how carefully she had kept Sanjay out of all discussions on constitutional reforms. I also knew how much she had resented the passage of the constituent assembly resolutions by the three assemblies without her knowledge, but with Sanjay's approval. Was Sanjay proving too wild even for her?" he wondered.He said the main purpose of the constituent assembly appeared to be continuing the Emergency regime and postponing elections. Bansi Lal told Dhar that it would be to make "behan ji" (Indira Gandhi) president for life.When the Congress suffered a stunning loss in the March 1977 elections after the Emergency was lifted, Delhi turned into a "vast whispering gallery" echoing with stories of Indira Gandhi's alleged crimes and the plans of the Janata Party, which had won a majority, to destroy her and Sanjay Gandhi.She was more worried about Sanjay Gandhi and found herself isolated in her own family."Rajiv had no sympathy for his brother. He came to see me, very concerned about his mother and full of anger against his brother. He said he had been a helpless observer of his brother's doings," Dhar writes.He said the Congress' defeat in the Gujarat assembly elections, which were held after the assembly was dissolved following student protests over a host of issues including corruption, and the Allahabad High Court 's decision to disqualify Indira Gandhi from the Lok Sabha on the same day in June 1975 paved the way for the declaration of Emergency as the Jayaprakash Narayan-led opposition "cast off all restraint" to oust her.He said, "Indira Gandhi withdrew into her lonely self. At the moment of her supreme political crisis, she distrusted everybody except her younger son Sanjay."Sanjay Gandhi disliked his mother's colleagues and aides who had opposed his Maruti car project, or had otherwise not taken him seriously, Dhar said."He knew he would get into serious trouble if his mother were not around to protect him. For all her childhood insecurities, Indira Gandhi had compensated, one should say over-compensated, her sons, particularly Sanjay, with love and care. She was blind to his shortcomings. Her concern for Sanjay's future well-being was not an inconsiderable factor in her fateful decision," Dhar said.Indira Gandhi, he added, accepted the self-serving opinion of her party colleagues that the JP-led opposition's attacks on them were really attacks on her.The Communist Party of India, her ally during the Emergency, had dubbed JP's agitation as a fascist movement supported by the US, a theory she embraced as she decided to suspend democracy, jail opposition leaders and censor the press to continue her rule.In the book written with a distance afforded to bureaucrats, no leading figure associated with the Emergency who comes in contact with Dhar comes out an unblemished hero, not even the venerable JP, whose call for 'Sampoorna Kranti' (total revolution) and mass agitation for removing duly elected Congress governments in states and the Centre are questioned for their defiance of the rule of law and constitutional democracy.However, the leadership of JP, as Jayaprakash Narayan was often called, was instrumental in galvanising popular sentiments against Indira Gandhi as his role in the Quit India Movement had cast him in a heroic mould and his rejection of Jawaharlal Nehru's offer of a Cabinet post gave him high moral stature in a country where renunciation of power is held in high esteem, Dhar noted.Soon after extending the tenure of the fifth Lok Sabha for another year till February 1978 on November 1976, Indira Gandhi was shown by Dhar a report of "extreme coercion" inflicted on a group of school teachers for not fulfilling their sterilisation quota, one of the five-point programmes of Sanjay Gandhi beyond the 20-point programme of her government."She fell silent after reading it. This was the first time she did not dismiss such allegations as false as had become her habit. After a long pause, she asked me in a tired voice how long I thought the Emergency should continue," he said."Odd as it might seem, some Congressmen who believed that their party would lose in the elections also supported the idea of holding them."They were so disgusted with Sanjay and his associates that they did not hesitate to tell his mother the opposite of what they believed would be the outcome of the elections," he added.Dhar wrote that he invited the then chief election commissioner on January 1, 1977, for tea at home and took him into confidence for holding elections.The delighted CEC sent him a bottle of whiskey in the evening. On January 18, 1977, Gandhi announced that the Lok Sabha had been dissolved and fresh elections would be held two months later, leaving the opposition, people and the press stunned.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
43 minutes ago
- The Print
Bypoll boost for AAP after Delhi debacle, Kerala brings cheer to Congress & TMC retains edge in Bengal
The victory of AAP candidate Sanjeev Arora—who will now have to vacate his Rajya Sabha seat—in Ludhiana (West) also opens the door for the party to send one of its top leaders to the Upper House of the Parliament. The AAP, which plunged into despair after losing power in its home turf of Delhi 4 months ago, not only retained the Ludhiana West assembly seat in Punjab, the only state it currently governs, but also held on to the Visavadar constituency in BJP-ruled Gujarat, and that too with a bigger margin. New Delhi: The assembly bypolls results of five assembly seats across four states declared Monday came as a booster shot for a beleaguered Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), provided a leg up to the Congress in a pre-election year in Kerala, and reminded the BJP of the formidable Trinamool fort in West Bengal. AAP's decision to nominate Arora, a businessman with assets worth nearly Rs 500 crore, as its candidate for the Ludhiana (West) seat sparked speculation that Arvind Kejriwal—former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP National Convener—was set to enter the Rajya Sabha. However, on Monday, Kejriwal himself dismissed these reports, stating that he does not plan to do so. He kept alive the possibility of former Delhi deputy CM Manish Sisodia making the move instead, saying that the party's Political Affairs Committee will pick Arora's replacement. AAP's former Gujarat unit chief Gopal Italia, who was a popular face of the Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti that spearheaded the reservation protests in the state in 2015, defeated BJP's Kirit Patel by a margin of 17,000 votes in Visavadar. In the 2022 assembly polls, Bhupendrabhai Bhayani had won the seat as an AAP candidate, only to switch over to the BJP, necessitating the bypoll. Arora, meanwhile, bagged Ludhiana (West), defeating the Congress's Bharat Bhushan Ashu by 10,637 votes. The AAP's Gurpreet Singh Gogi, who died in January this year after accidentally shooting himself while cleaning his firearm at home, had won the seat in the 2022 assembly polls. 'This shows that the people of Punjab are very happy with the work of our government. The people of Gujarat are now fed up with BJP and they are seeing hope in the Aam Aadmi Party. Both the Congress and BJP contested the elections together in these places with the same objective—defeating the AAP. But people rejected both these parties,' Kejriwal posted on X. In Kerala's Nilambur constituency, Aryadan Shoukath of the Congress, which leads the United Democratic Front, in Opposition for the last decade, defeated the CPI(M)'s M. Swaraj by 11,077 votes. P.V. Anvar, whose resignation as a Left-backed independent MLA necessitated the bypoll, finished third with 19,760 votes contesting as an Independent. The Congress had pulled out all the stops to win the seat, which falls under the Wayanad Lok Sabha constituency represented by Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, who campaigned extensively for Shoukath. The ruling CPI(M), a member of the opposition's INDIA bloc, turned it into a prestige battle by bringing in Chief Minister Pinrayai Vijayan to canvas for Swaraj. 'We worked as a team, each one with commitment and single pointed focus, that is the most important lesson of this success…Most of all a big thank you to my sisters and brothers of Nilambur for your support. Your trust and belief in the values of our constitution, and in the UDF's vision for progress will be the guiding light for our way forward,' Priyanka posted on X. In the run up to the polls, the CPI(M) and the Congress had called each other 'communal' in Kerala; the AAP had accused the Congress of being 'treacherous' in Gujarat; while the Congress-Left alliance in West Bengal had alleged a TMC-BJP 'nexus' in West Bengal. It's not just in Kerala, Punjab and Gujarat that INDIA bloc allies were locked in a bitter contest in the bypolls. Even in West Bengal's Kaliganj seat, the Congress-Left alliance had a candidate in the fray, even as the fight was primarily between the TMC and the BJP. In the end, the TMC's Alifa Ahmed, the daughter of Nasiruddin Ahmed whose death led to the bypoll, won the seat by a margin of 50,049 votes against the BJP's Abhijit Ghosh. Kabil Uddin Sheikh of the Congress, which had won the seat in 2016, finished third with 28,348 votes. In Gujarat's Kadi, the only constituency where the BJP and the Congress had a direct contest, the former comfortably triumphed, winning by a margin of 39,452 votes. (Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri) Also read: UDF eyes comeback in Kerala with Nilambur bypoll win, Independent PV Anvar plays spoiler for CPI(M)
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Chance For Arvind Kejriwal As AAP Seat In Rajya Sabha Falls Vacant
New Delhi: Aam Aadmi Party's ability to retain one seat in the Gujarat by-election and Ludhiana has not only underscored its growing grassroots grip but also holds out hope for party chief Arvind Kejriwal's entry into Rajya Sabha. In Gujarat, AAP's former state party chief leader Gopal Italia won the Visavadar seat - which fell vacant after AAP's sitting MLA Bhupendra Bhayani resigned and joined the ruling BJP. AAP has also retained its Ludhiana (West) assembly seat. AAP's Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, Sanjeev Arora, defeated his closest rival and two-time legislator Bharat Bhushan Ashu of the Congress by a margin of 10,637 votes. The victory of AAP, which swept Punjab two years ago, indicated that the party's pull among voters with its "overall development and pro-people policies" remains intact despite persistent criticism from the Opposition Congress and the Shiromani Akali Dal. Mr Arora's victory also creates an opening in parliament's Upper house that Mr Kejriwal is expected to fill. The former Delhi Chief Minister -- arrested and jailed in the Delhi excise policy case -- had to step down from his post in September last year, passing the baton to senior party leader Aatishi. There was expectation that he would be back at the helm after the assembly polls in Delhi. Mr Kejriwal had promised that he would be back only after a clean chit from the people. But the party, which had won three consecutive terms in Delhi, lost the election and the BJP came to power. Mr Kejriwal, however, denied that he would step into the upper house immediately. At a press conference held this afternoon, he said, "Kejriwal is not going to the Rajya Sabha, the party's Political Affairs Committee will take a call (on this issue)." For now, Mr Kejriwal apparently focussed on celebrating the party's victory. Thanking the people of Punjab and Gujarat, Mr Kejriwal said the people in both states have made it clear that they reject the BJP and the Congress. "Many congratulations to all of you on the splendid victory of Aam Aadmi Party in Visavadar seat of Gujarat and Ludhiana West seat of Punjab. Many congratulations and many thanks to the people of Gujarat and Punjab. In both the places, the victory margin has been almost double as compared to the last election," Mr Kejriwal said in a post on X in Hindi. "Both the parties, Congress and BJP, contested the elections together in both the places. Both of them had the same objective - to defeat AAP. But people rejected both these parties in both the places," he claimed in the post. Two assembly bypolls were held in Gujarat, one each in Kerala, West Bengal, and Punjab, on Tuesday. Polling took place at the Assembly constituencies of Kadi (SC) and Visavadar in Gujarat, Nilambur in Kerala, Ludhiana West in Punjab and Kaliganj in West Bengal.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
When can US go to war? Here's what its Constitution says
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
