Forgotten History of the Indian Brush with the President’s rule

In the mid-1970s, in the introduction of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, India entered the period when civil liberties were rejected and most of the political opposition was imprisoned.

Behind this authoritarian curtain, its Congressional Party government quietly began to redo the country – not as democracy, which is introduced in checks and remains, but as a centralized state managing command and control, historian Schrrate Ragavan reveals in his new book.

In Indirian Gandhi and the years that turned India, Professor Raghavan shows how the leading bureaucrats of Gandhi and the party loyalists began to press on the presidential system – the one that would centralize the executive power headed the “obstruction” judicial system and reduced the parliament to the symbolic choir.

Partially inspired by Charles de Gaul FranceThe impetus for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to go beyond the restrictions of parliamentary democracy – even if it never fulfilled.

It all started, writes prof. Raghavan, in September 1975, when the BC Nero, an experienced diplomat and a close assistant Gandhi, wrote a letter that came to an emergency as “an excursion force of huge courage and force obtained through popular support” and called for Gandhi to take advantage of the moment.

Parliamentary democracy “failed to respond to our needs,” Nera writes. In this system, the executive branch constantly depended on the support of the legislative body “, which seeks popularity and stops any unpleasant measure.”

According to Neru, India was needed directly elected by the president – released from parliamentary dependence and able to make “harsh, unpleasant and unpopular decisions” in national interests, writes Professor Ragan.

The model to which he pointed out was France de Gaulle – a concentration of power in a strong president. Nero was a single, seven -year presidential term, a proportional representation in the parliament and state legislative bodies, a judicial system with the coversing powers and the press, causing strict defamation laws. For example, he even suggested depriving fundamental rights – the right to equality or freedom of speech – their justice.

Nero called on Indra Gandhi “to make these major changes to the Constitution now that you have most of the two -thirds.” His ideas were “adopted with enthusiasm” by the secretary of the Prime Minister of the Mon. Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nera permission to discuss these ideas with his party leaders, but said “very clearly and decisively” that he should not give the impression that they had a stamp of her approval.

Professor Raghavan writes that ideas met with the supported support of the heads of the senior congresses such as Ram and Foreign Minister Swaro Singh. Harian’s chief minister was stupid: “Get rid of this electoral nonsense. M karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of the two major ministers who did not participate in the design – was not impressed.

When Nero reported Gandhi, she remained non -profit, Professor Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest assistants to study the proposals further.

A document called “A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some proposals”, developed in secret and extended among the trusted advisers appeared. He suggested the president with powers, more than even their American counterpart, including control over lawsuits and legislation. The new “Supreme Council of the Forestry” under the leadership of the President will interpret “Laws and Constitution” – effectively establishing the Supreme Court.

Gandhi sent this document to Dhara, who recognized it “perverted the constitution into ambiguous authoritarian direction.” Congressional President DK Barois tested water, calling on the “careful revision” of the Constitution at the annual session of the 1975 party.

The idea has never fully crystallized into an official proposal. But his shadow came over Act on amendments forty secondsAccepted in 1976, which expanded the powers of the parliament, the trial and further centralized executive body.

The amendment made a strike on the laws tougher, requiring a supercar “The main structure of doctrine” This restricted the power of the parliament.

He also handed over to the Federal Government, which holds the powers to post the Armed Forces in the States, announce emergencies concerning the region and extend the president’s rules – a direct federal rule – from six months to a year. It also exhibits elections that are of the reach system.

It was not yet a presidential system, but it moved its genetic imprint – a powerful leader, a marginalized judicial system and weakened checks and residues. The state -owned newspaper warned that “one confident blow the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favor of the parliament.”

Meanwhile, Gandhi’s loyalists were going. Defense Minister Bansa Lal called “Life Power” for it as Prime Minister, and Congress members in the Northern states Harian, Punjab and Uttar -Prades have unambiguously called for a new warehouse in October 1976.

“The Prime Minister was embarrassed. She decided to abandon these steps and accelerate the adoption of the bill on amendments to the parliament,” Prof. writes. Ragan.

By December 1976, the bill was adopted by both houses of parliament and ratified 13 state legislatures and signed by the President.

After the defeat of Gandhi in 1977, a short party of Jonat – Patchwork Anti -Gand, quickly passed to cancel the damage. Through Forty -third and Forty -fourth Amendments, he unscrew the key parts forty seconds, cut off authoritarian provisions and restoration of democratic checks and residues.

In January 1980, Gandhi was dismissed from power after the Jonato government fell from internal units and the fight for leadership. It is interesting that two years later, the known votes in the party again conditioned the idea of ​​the presidential system.

In 1982, when President Sanjiva Reddie ended, Gandhi seriously found that he had retreated to the Prime Minister to become President of India.

Later, her chief secretary showed that it was “very serious” about this step. She was tired of holding a congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to provide her party “shocking that gave her a new incentive.”

She ultimately retreated. Instead, she raised Zail Singh, her loyal interior minister, to the presidency.

Despite the serious flirting, India never jump into the presidential system. Did Gandhi hold back a deep tactical politician? Was there no national appetite for radical changes, and India’s parliamentary system turned out to be sticky?

In the early 1970s, a hint of the president’s drift appeared, since the parliamentary democracy of India – especially after 1967 – became more competitive and unstable, marked by the weak coalitions, reports Prof. At about this time, the votes began to assume that the presidential system could be better suited to India. The emergency became a moment when these ideas crystallized into serious political thinking.

“The goal was to redo the system the ways that immediately strengthened its power. There was no grand long -term design – most of the long consequences of it (Gandhi) were probably unintentional,” said Professor Ragawan in the BBC.

“During the emergency, its main purpose was short -term: to protect its office from any call. Forty second amendments were developed to make sure that even the judicial system could not be on its way.”

Itching for the presidential system in Congress has never faded. Already in April 1984, the senior minister Vasant Sate launched a nationwide discussion, which advocated the transition to the presidential management – even being in power.

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