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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Eric Adams signs executive order adopting Holocaust remembrance group's definition of antisemitism
Mayor Eric Adams signed an executive order Sunday adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism, as he vowed to ramp up the city campaign to combat Jew hatred. He also introduced legislation urging the City Council to approve the IHRA definition, which would make it official law. The IHRA definition is considered by many Jewish leaders to be the standard in fighting antisemitism. 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities,' the IHRA definition states. Adams announced the order during a discussion with Dr. Phil Sunday night at the Tribeca Synagogue. It comes as he faces re-election and plans to run as an independent on an 'End Semitism' ballot line. 'Antisemitism is a vile disease that's been spreading across our nation and our city. What's worse, since Hamas' terror attacks on October 7, 2023, we have seen this hateful rhetoric become normalized on our campuses, in our communities, and online as antisemitic propaganda far too often masquerades as 'activism,'' Adams said. More than half of the hate crimes reported in the city in March victimized Jews, even though they account for just 11 percent of the population, the mayor noted. 'We know this moment demands bold, decisive action to crack down on anti-Jewish hatred,' Adams said. 'Today, we signed a landmark executive order to adopt an internationally recognized definition of antisemitism, but we must go further. I am calling on the City Council to join this commitment to target antisemitism everywhere it exists and immediately pass a bill to codify this definition into law. It's time we all come together to eradicate this hatred from our city, once and for all.' At the state level, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo — who's also running for mayor — issued an order barring state entities from doing business with firms that back the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel before his resignation. Gov. Kathy Hochul has retained the policy. State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli has his own pro-Israel policy. In 2021, he announced that he pulled $111 million in investments out of the firm that owns Ben & Jerry's because of the ice cream maker's boycott of Israel's occupied territories. DiNapoli is the sole manager of the $274 billion state Common Retirement Fund.
Hamilton Spectator
3 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Who's that knocking at your door? It's Anthony Weiner on a comeback tour
NEW YORK (AP) — Imagine this: You're home for the evening, winding down. There's a knock at the door. Who's there? It's Anthony Weiner. And he wants your vote. Yes, that Weiner: The guy whose once-promising political career was derailed by sexting scandals and then seemingly ended forever when he was imprisoned for sending sexually explicit messages to a 15-year-old girl. But now Weiner's hoping to convince enough voters in lower Manhattan that he deserves yet another chance in a comeback bid for a seat on the New York City Council. On a recent weekday at an apartment complex in the Lower East Side, the former congressman, 60, was knocking on doors, reintroducing himself to voters and reminding them about the election. And, on this Thursday at least, the would-be constituents aren't slamming their doors in the registered sex offender's face . 'It's Anthony Weiner!' the candidate said after knocking on a door. A man opens the door, his face lighting up with surprise. 'It is Anthony Weiner!' the man said, a big smile spreading across his face. After some pleasantries and a reminder about the race, the man had an important question for the candidate: 'Mind if I get a picture with you?' And so it went as Weiner walked down floor after floor, knocking on doors. A quick hello here, a fast thank you there. Campaign literature flowed into hands. People seemed happy to see him. It isn't always this friendly. Weiner said he still struggles with how to speak about his scandal, calling it the 'fundamental, unsolvable problem of the campaign.' 'Sometimes it's with like real painful, kind of, honesty about what happened and sometimes it's a little bit defensive, and sometimes, like, a woman at this street fair last week, she's like, 'I love you and I'm going to vote for you, but I voted for you before and how can I ever trust you?'' he said. But, he notes, some people would rather talk about anything else. 'They're like, 'I don't want to hear about that. I want to hear about me and I want to hear about how come there aren't cops on the street and I want to hear about why my taxes are so high,'' he said. From Congress to prison Weiner, a brash and ambitious politician whose New York accent and wily, kinetic style made for solid theater on the House floor, was once someone worth watching in the Democratic Party. Back then, he represented a district in parts of Brooklyn and Queens. His latest return to the political stage — this time for a City Council seat that covers Union Square and the East Village — pits him against state lawmaker Harvey Epstein, whose name's unfortunate proximity to convicted sex offenders Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein inspired a 'Saturday Night Live' bit , along with a handful of other low-key candidates. The primary, on June 24, is considered the defining contest of the election, given the district's heavy Democratic bent. It's hard to know how it'll turn out in a low-turnout, early-summer primary where there's no deep political polling. The comeback attempt comes more than a decade after his career imploded for sending a lewd picture of himself to a college student over Twitter in 2011. He first tried to claim his account was hacked but eventually admitted to having inappropriate online interactions with at least six other women and resigned from Congress after serving there for more than a decade. After leaving Washington, Weiner mounted a campaign for New York City mayor but was again undone after it was disclosed that he sent explicit photos under the alias 'Carlos Danger' to at least one woman after leaving the House. The revelation tanked his mayoral bid. Along the way, his marriage collapsed. In 2017, his scandal entered the criminal realm after prosecutors said he had illicit online contact with a high school student. During the proceedings, Weiner's lawyer said he probably exchanged thousands of messages with hundreds of women over the years and had been communicating with up to 19 women when he encountered the student. He eventually pleaded guilty to transferring obscene material to a minor and was sentenced to 21 months in prison. He was required to register as a sex offender after his release in 2019. Since then, he's worked as the CEO of a countertop company in Brooklyn and hosted a radio show where he would muse about politics, eventually finding himself ginning up his own ideas and wondering: Why not get back in the game? He opened a campaign account and donations started flowing in. He'd go out on the street and people wanted to sign his petitions. 'I knew I had things I wanted to say and I knew that I thought it was important that everyone try to do something at this point,' he said. The elephant in the room Still, his scandals are so much an elephant in the room that his campaign recently started circulating a mailer that, on one side, features a massive elephant alongside the text 'Anthony Weiner knows you may have questions.' On the other side, a note from Weiner reads: 'Since I am asking you for your vote again, I want to address the elephant in the room.' It goes on: 'I accepted responsibility, I did my time (literally) and paid my debt to society in full.' A man who answered one of Weiner's door knocks told the candidate that he saw the mailer and said it was a smart move to address the scandals head-on. The two then dove into political issues, chatting about crime, the subway and homeless people. As the conversation was coming in for a landing, the man told Weiner that showing up at his door to speak with him showed that he cared. He declined to give his name to an Associated Press reporter who approached him after Weiner had said goodbye and taken off down a flight of stairs. After a few more meet-and-greets, Weiner wrapped up for the day. He left he complex, hopped on a bicycle and zipped off down the street. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Miami Herald
4 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Trade, inflation fears will grab limelight
There are several economic reports worth looking at this week, but pay closer attention to two economic events. One will come from London. The other comes Friday from Michigan. Get $100 off TheStreet Pro - our best deal of the summer won't last long! Your portfolio will thank you Both events can cause investors to buy or sell stocks, bonds or even houses. Futures trading Sunday evening suggests stocks will open modestly lower on Monday. In between are two inflation reports probably that will probably paint a benign inflation picture - for now. Related: Markets start to gear up for summer drama The London event is the meeting between U.S. and Chinese trade officials trying to hammer out a workable tariff deal. It's not clear if anything major will come from the meeting, but one can hope. The last time there were talks, the two sides agreed on May 21 to come to an agreement on the issues in 90 days. That would mean by Aug. 11. But little has happened since, and the Trump Administration is getting impatient. The U.S, team will include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. China's team will be led by Vice Premier He Lifeng. At the time of their first meeting in Switzerland in May, the Chinese were charging 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. The U.S. had imposed 145% in tariffs on Chinese goods. Related: Scott Galloway sends blunt message to Elon Musk After the May meeting, the tariffs on Chinese goods were dropped to an average 51%. The Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods were dropped to an average 32.6%. (Sounds reasonable, but they could wipe out a retailer's annual profit.) Complicating matters is China produces 90 % of rare earth metals, important materials for use in electric vehicles and other products work. And the country is now holding back on export licenses so non-Chinese companies can buy the materials. Without the rare earths, assembly lines could shut down. It sounds dull but isn't. China is a major source of everything from semiconductors and auto parts to Apple (AAPL) iPhones. Oh, and let's not forget: Most toys made for the holiday season are produced in China. If the London meeting goes badly, financial markets could swoon again. After President Trump announced the U.S. tariff proposals on April 3, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 10.5% in two days. Stocks soared on the decision to negotiate. On April 8, the S&P 500 was down as much as 15.3% for 2025. It's now up 2% on the year. Related: Veteran investor makes surprising Fed rate call after jobs report Friday's event is the first cut of the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Survey for June. (The second comes out at month's end.) The Michigan survey has been avidly followed this year because it suggests extreme worries about the economy, inflation and tariffs. And its findings, optimistic or rotten, have moved markets. The criticism of the survey is that it generates soft data - basically irrational one-off reactions compared with data based on statistics that have shelf life. Fair enough. But the survey and the Conference Board's Confidence Index grab National Federation of Business will release its own confidence index on Tuesday. Its members have complained for most of the year that the Trump Tariff proposals are making business planning impossible. So, while many businesses are holding on to workers, they're being very cautious on spending for, say, new plant and equipment. Thursday's Initial Jobless Claims report may be concerning. It's been rising in the last few weeks. This past week, the claims estimate climbed to 247,000, up from 239,000 the week before. No one wants to see jobless rates climb, least of all the Trump Administration. In truth, the gains over the last year have been on a slow drift higher. Nothing, in fact, like the first week of April 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, when 6.1 million people were laid off in a week. More Personal Finance: Denmark raises retirement age to 70 – Could Social Security be next?Dave Ramsey sends strong message on Social Security, 401(k)sBuffett's Berkshire predicts major housing market shift soon The two inflation reports are widely watched and discussed and will be again this week. The odds the reports won't change the inflation picture the inflation changing much. The Consumer Price Index comes out at 8:30 on Wednesday. The report from the Labor Department is likely to show a 0.2% change in prices from April to May and a 2.3% change year over year. That's unchanged from April. Stripping out energy and food prices, the one-month change is likely to be 0.2% and the year-over-year change holding steady at 2.8%, the same as in April. Related: Surprising Trump, Musk rift worsens a huge Tesla problem The index is built to estimate what's happening to prices for stuff and services consumers buy. During the winter, it showed that egg prices rose during the winter as bird flu invaded many poultry farms. But in April, egg prices fell. Look for indications tariffs are affecting consumer prices. You may see signs in costs for apparel, new and used cars, and meat. At 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, the BLS's Producer Price Index comes out. This measures the selling prices producers get for goods and services. It may show a 0.5% decline month to month but a 2.4% increase year over year. The core estimates are down 0.1% month-to-month and 2.9% year-over-year. Are these bad numbers? The Federal Reserve thinks so because the central bank wants U.S. inflation at no more than 2%. President Trump thinks the numbers are fine because he wants the Fed to cut interest rates. He has sort of a point: It would take prices rising at 2.9% a year about 24 years to double. Remember when the CPI year-over-year change briefly hit 9% in the summer of 2022? Sustained Inflation that high a rate would double prices in 7.5 years. But that would create its own problems, wouldn't it? Related: Veteran fund manager who predicted April rally updates S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
