Forgot the story of India brush with the presidential rule star-news.press/wp

During the mid-1970s, under the imposition of the extraordinary Minister of Indira Gandhi, India entered the period in which civil liberties and most of the political opposition in prison were suspended.

Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Government of the Congress began to re-recovered the country – not as a democracy rooted in checks and balance, but as a centralized condition managed by the command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new book.

In Indira Gandhi and for years that have turned into India, Prof Raghavan shows that the upper bureaucrats and the party and party loyalists began to be pushed for the presidential government, the Bedding “the obstruction” of the judiciary and reduces parliament in a symbolic choir.

Inspired by part of Charles de Gaulle’s France, the pressure for the stronger presidency in India is reflected in the clear ambition to move beyond the restrictions on parliamentary democracy – even if it is never fully materialized.

It all started, written by Prof Raghavan, in September 1975. year, when he was a spicy diplomat and a close assistant Gandhi, he wrote a letter that was made as “the tour of the popular support” and called Gandhi to be able to.

Parliamentary democracy “failed to answer our needs,” he wrote Nehru. In this system, the executive government has continuously depended on the support of the elected legislative authorities “which requires popularity and stops any inconvenient measure.”

What India should, Nehru said, was directly elected president – released from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking “heavy, unpleasant and unpopular decisions” in the national interest, reporting prof. Raghavan.

The model that pointed out that De Gaulle’s France – concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a unique, seven-year presidential concept, proportional representation in parliament and state legislation, judiciary with reduced powers and printed with strict defamation laws. He even suggested to remove the fundamental rights – the right to equality or freedom of speech, for example – their power.

Nehru invited Indira Gandhi to “make these fundamental changes to the Constitution now that you have two thirds of the majority.” His ideas were “received with the abolition” by the Secretary of the Prime Minister PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave nois approval to discuss these ideas with their parties leaders, but “very clearly and clearly” that you should not take the impression that they had a seal of their approval.

Prof Raghavan writes that ideas met with enthusiastic support of the older leaders of the Congress like Jajivan Rama and the Foreign Minister of Swaraning Singh. The Chief Minister of Haryana was dull: “Release this election nonsense. If you ask me, just make the president of our sister (Indira Gandhi) for a living and there is no need for nothing else.” M Karunanidhi from Tamil Nadu – One of the two major ministers who did not consult – was unimpressed.

When Nehru reported to Gandhi, she remained non-uncut, reporting prof. Raghavan. She sent her closest assistant to investigate suggestions further.

What appeared is a document entitled “Fresh view of our Constitution: some proposals”, made in secrecy and circulates among reliable counselors. He proposed a president with the powers greater than even their American colleague, including control of court appointment and legislation. The new “superior council of the judiciary”, which chaired by the president, would interpret “laws and the Constitution” – effectively neutral to the Supreme Court.

Gandhi sent this document to Dhar, who recognized him “twisted the Constitution in an ambiguous authoritarian direction”. The President of the Congress of DK Baroah tested the water publicly referring to the “thorough re-examination” of the Constitution at the annual Session of the Party 1975.

The idea never completely crystallized into a formal proposal. But his hay immersed over Law on Amendment forty-OtherUploaded in 1976. year, which expanded parliament powers, limited judicial audit and further centralized executive power.

The amendment made it difficult for striking laws by demanding supermajitoci of five or seven judges, and the goal is to dilute the Constitution ‘Basic structure of doctrine’ It is the power of limited parliament.

It also served the Federal Government for the Delete Authorization for the Implementation of Armed Forces in States, declare emergencies specific to the region and expand the Rule of President – directly a federal rule – from six months for a year. He also delivered election disputes from the reach of the judiciary.

It has not yet been the presidential system, but he wore his genetic print – powerful executable, marginalized judiciary and weakened verification and balance sheets. The State certificate warned that “with one move, the amendment leans the constitutional balance in favor of parliament.”

Meanwhile, the Gandhi player went to. The Minister of Defense Bans Lal called for “Lifelong Power” for her as a prime minister, and members of the Congress in the northern countries of Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh in October 1976. years. Years.

“The Prime Minister was taken over. She decided to be found to be these moves and accelerated the passage from the Amendment Law in Parliament,” said Prof Raghavan.

By December 1976. years, the bills also brought the houses of parliament and ratified from 13 state legislators and enrolled in the Law by the President.

After Gandhi’s shock defeat 1977, a short-lived party party – Patchwork anti-Gandhihi forces – quickly moved to undo harm. Through Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, the key parts of forty seconds have flipped, authorsitarian provisions and renewing democratic verification and balance sheets.

Gandhi pulled into force in January 1980. year, after the government of the Jantata Party crashed over the internal divisions and the fight for leadership. Interestingly, two years later, prominent voices in the party failed again the idea of ​​the presidential system.

1982. year, with the end of the president of Sanjiva Reddy, Gandhi was seriously considered that the Prime Minister became President of India.

Her chief secretary later revealed that she was “very serious” about the move. She was tired of transporting the congress party on his back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver “shock treatment to his party, giving him a new incentive.”

Ultimately, she ran. Instead, Zail Singha, his loyal minister for home, to the presidency.

Despite serious flirts, India never made a leap in the presidential system. Is Gandhi, a deep tactical politician, stayed back? Or there was no national appetite for radical changes and the Indian parliamentary system showed sticky?

The hint of the Presidentials in the early 1970s followed, as in Indian parliamentary democracy – especially after 1967. – grew more competitive and more unstable, marked by brittle coalition, states prof Raghavan. Around this time, the votes began to suggest that the presidential system could better meet India. The emergency situation became the moment when these ideas were crystallized into serious political thinking.

“The goal was to reshape the system in the ways he immediately strengthened him. There was no great long-term design – most permanent consequences of her (Gandhi’s) rules are probably unintentional,” said prof. Prof Raghavan.

“During the emergency, its primary goal was short-term: for the protection of its office from any challenge. Forty other amendments were made to ensure that even the judiciary cannot stand on the road.”

Itching for the presidential system within the congress has never faded. Already at the end of April 1984. year, the Senior Minister Vasant Sourgle launched a debate on the country that advocates to the Presidential Administration – even while in power.

But six months later, Indira Gandhi agreed to her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and her, the conversation died abruptly. India remained parliamentary democracy.