Latest news with #non-Congress
Saudi Gazette
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Saudi Gazette
The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
DELHI — In the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the state of 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 centralized 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 centralize 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 materialized. 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 a 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 recognized 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 crystallized 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 centralized 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 the 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, marginalized judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favor of the parliament." Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defense 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 crystallized 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. — BBC
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- 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
United News of India
21 hours ago
- Politics
- United News of India
Cong dismantled simultaneous polls to retain power: Anil Antony
Bengaluru, June 8 (UNI) BJP leader Anil K Antony on Sunday launched a pointed attack on the Congress party, accusing it of derailing India's once-successful system of simultaneous elections for political gain. Supporting the Centre's push for the 'One Nation, One Election' initiative, he said the practice functioned smoothly until it was disrupted by the Congress government under Indira Gandhi after 1967. 'From 1951 to 1967, India conducted Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections together, ensuring stability and good governance,' Antony said at a policy forum here. 'But this changed when Mrs Indira Gandhi came to power. In the following three years, several non-Congress governments were dismissed, and political manipulation led to the collapse of the synchronised election cycle. By the late 1970s, the system had been completely derailed.' Calling this disruption a "self-serving move" by the Congress to retain power, Antony argued that decades of disjointed elections have since burdened the country with administrative delays, fiscal strain, and reduced governance efficiency. He cited the 2023 report of the High-Level Committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which strongly recommended synchronised elections. 'According to the report, implementing 'One Nation, One Election' can boost India's GDP by 1.5% annually — equivalent to ₹4–7 lakh crore — which is nearly 50% of our healthcare budget and one-third of our education budget,' he said. Antony highlighted the heavy toll of India's year-round election cycle. 'In the last 30 years, there hasn't been a single year without elections. Due to the frequent enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, governance comes to a halt for almost five months every year. State and national leaders are in permanent campaign mode instead of focusing on development.' He said that restoring the synchronised election system is not a political move but a nation-first reform aligned with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision of making India a developed nation by 2047. 'This isn't about BJP. Even in 1983, the Election Commission — under a Congress-led government — said India should return to joint elections. Our founding leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani supported this idea in the 1980s. It's about bringing back stability,' Antony said. Citing India's rapid rise from a $2 trillion economy in 2014 to the verge of becoming a $5 trillion economy, Antony argued that electoral reforms are essential to sustain and accelerate this growth. 'We are now the fastest-growing digital economy. The startup boom in cities like Bengaluru — from just 500 startups in 2014 to over 1.25 lakh today — shows the kind of momentum we've built. Reforms like One Nation, One Election will ensure that governance keeps pace.' The High-Level Committee's consultations with lakhs of citizens and experts led to an 800-page report submitted to the President of India, affirming the economic, administrative, and democratic benefits of the reform. Among the members were Union Home Minister Amit Shah, former J\\\\\\\\&K CM Ghulam Nabi Azad, and legal luminary Harish Salve. Asserting that the initiative will 'increase democratic participation, improve administrative efficiency, and reduce unnecessary public expenditure,' Antony urged all stakeholders to support the move. 'Synchronised elections will free the government from continuous electoral distraction and unleash the full potential of governance. It's time to correct the mistake Congress made decades ago and put the nation back on a stable, growth-focused track,' he said. UNI BDN SSP
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Electoral gains in states, a growth-inflation balance remain highlights of the term so far
In 2014, Narendra Modi became the second non-Congress Prime Minister in India to assume office on the strength of his party winning a parliamentary majority of its own. The first time this has happened was in 1977 when the Congress lost power in a landslide election held after the Emergency imposed in 1975. Modi's 2019 victory which saw the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) not just retaining but adding to its 2014 majority sent a loud and clear message that the BJP's parliamentary dominance was no flash in the pan. When read with the failure of the Congress party to resurrect itself – it won a paltry 44 and 52 parliamentary seats in 2014 and 2019 –this gave an impression that Indian politics had become a one-sided contest. The results of 2024 challenged these assumptions. Not only did the BJP lose its parliamentary majority, the Congress made a significant comeback to almost bounce back to the triple-digit mark in the Lok Sabha. Narendra Modi assumed office as the Prime Minister for the third time on June 9, 2024, but the government was seen more as a National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government than the Modi government – the moniker which had gotten attached with it in the last ten years. One year after its sobering performance in the general elections, what many described as the beginning of the end of the BJP's current phase of dominance, where do the BJP and the NDA government stand? Here are three charts which answer this question. The BJP and its allies have gained ground in every state election since except in Jharkhand Nine states and union territories (UTs) have had assembly elections since (or with) the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The BJP, either on its own or along with allies, has gained in terms of seat share and vote share in all of them except Jharkhand if one were to compare the results with the previous assembly elections. If the results were to be aggregated at the parliamentary constituency level, the BJP's performance in post-2024 assembly elections is better than its 2024 Lok Sabha performance in four states, but it won a majority of seats on its own in all but Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand among the remaining five. Even among the latter two, it was part of the winning coalition in Andhra Pradesh. There can be only one takeaway from these numbers: the BJP has been able to recover the ground it lost during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The growth-inflation balance has become more favourable in the last one year Among the most counter-intuitive things the second Narendra Modi government did in the 2024-25 Interim Budget before the 2024 election was to not focus on the imminent elections. Instead, it brought down the fiscal deficit from 5.8% in 2023-24 to 5.1% in 2024-25 according to the interim budget estimates (the actual reduction between 2023-24 and 2024-25 is from 5.6% to 4.8%). In hindsight it was a bad decision which perhaps added to political headwinds for the BJP. While the process of fiscal consolidation continues – something which is in keeping with India's medium term fiscal glide path – the Indian economy has a healthier growth inflation balance for 2024-25 than it had in 2023-24. While growth continues to be a healthy, inflation has come down from 6.5% to 4.6%, the second lowest in the current series. This balance has allowed monetary policy to play a cushioning role even as the fiscal stimulus is withdrawn. But the external environment is the most volatile it has been in a long time Of the 62 national elections held in 2024, only 34 saw the incumbent being returned. The most consequential of all anti-incumbency verdicts was the re-election of Donald Trump in the US. Trump 2.0 has inflicted a tectonic shock to the global economic order by unleashing his trade wars with much more fury than what the world saw in his first term. The meltdown of the global economic order is bad news for India as it tries to exploit manufacturing to buttress its economic growth and non-farm employment. The headwinds from the ongoing economic turbulence are not limited to the future alone. They have heightened economic uncertainty and also acted as a dampener for stock markets in India, which have seen a large outflow of foreign investors. The uncertainty regarding trade is also likely to dampen foreign investments, both in the real economy and the financial markets in India. It is the challenge on the external front rather than domestic politics or economics which is the major challenge to the third Modi government on its first anniversary.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
None from Congress going to jail, other Opposition parties need to think of a Third Front: Atishi
At a time when the Opposition INDIA bloc seems to be struggling to take on the ruling BJP-led NDA, senior AAP leader and Delhi's former Chief Minister Atishi has said that non-Congress, non-BJP parties 'definitely need' to think about a Third Front. Expressing disappointment with the role of the Congress in the INDIA bloc, Atishi accused the party of being in an 'unstated alliance' with the BJP. While leaders of non-Congress Opposition parties, she said, were facing 'persecution' of one kind or another, that was not the case with the Congress. She pointed to what she called 'a pattern' and asked, 'Why do their (Congress) leaders not go to jail?'. Atishi made these remarks in an interview with The Indian Express Wednesday, a day after the AAP skipped a meeting of several INDIA constituents which met in Delhi to discuss a joint letter to the Prime Minister to seek a special session of Parliament to 'discuss the developments following the terror attack in Pahalgam'. Leaders of 16 INDIA parties, including the Congress, TMC, SP, RJD, DMK, JMM, National Conference, Shiv Sena (UBT) and the Left, signed the letter. The AAP, however, chose to send a separate letter to the Prime Minister, demanding a special session. Atishi is currently Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Delhi Assembly. 'I would say I am disappointed with the Congress (role in the INDIA bloc). It was their responsibility to assume a leadership position. For example, if I am a Chief Minister… it is my role to take everyone along… I feel that in the INDIA alliance, Congress is the most senior party. It is the biggest party. It has a footprint in all states. In that context, it was their responsibility to take everyone along,' she said. On the issue of forming a Third Front, Atishi said, 'I think there is definitely a need for non-Congress, non-BJP parties to think about what is happening in the country and the rights of states, the way the persecution of their leaders, etc, is happening – it (Third Front) is definitely something to think about.' Citing an example, she said Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, during a recent trip to Kerala, 'trashed' Chief Minister and CPM leader Pinarayi Vijayan, a key INDIA ally. She accused Gandhi of 'speaking the language of the BJP' and alleged an 'unstated alliance between the Congress and the BJP'. 'There seems to be an unstated alliance between the Congress and the BJP. In the Delhi excise policy matter (there was) no recovery of money, no evidence, no nothing, par saare neta hamare jail chale gaye; par National Herald case mein Congress ka ek bhi neta jail nahin gaya hai (All our leaders went to jail in the Delhi excise policy matter, but not a single Congress leader has gone to jail in the National Herald case),' she said. 'How has this happened… This entire DLF land scam – has Robert Vadra gone to jail? No, he hasn't. Commonwealth Games ka to poora matter hi close ho gaya (the entire Commonwealth Games case has been closed),' she said. 'Just look at the pattern – it is only cases of leaders who join the BJP that are closed… A similar thing is happening with Congress. What does this pattern tell you? How is it that Aam Aadmi Party netas go to jail … you are filing cases against TMC's Abhishek Banerjee, against the daughter of CPM's Pinarayi Vijayan. Why doesn't this happen when it comes to the Congress? Why do their leaders not go to jail? So there is definitely an unstated alliance,' Atishi alleged.
