Indira, and the ‘samvidhan change karo' moment
June 25 marks 50 years of the Emergency. In this excerpt from his new book '
and the Years That Transformed India', historian
Srinath Raghavan
writes about the PM who wanted to be president
Not content with excising rights guaranteed by the
Constitution
, the Emergency regime also contemplated far-reaching constitutional changes.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Dictatorships, it has been argued, can be 'commissarial' or 'sovereign'. A commissarial dictatorship seeks to defend the existing constitutional order by suspending normal laws. A sovereign dictatorship, by contrast, seeks — in the name of the people — to establish a new constitutional order. Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency claiming the former, but she gradually began moving towards the latter. The underlying impulse was to cement the dominance of the executive and to institutionalize her Caesarism.
The vehicle for both was the idea of a directly elected executive presidency. As it happened, she did not go all the way there; but she did succeed in molesting the Constitution.
Three distinct impulses prodded the prime minister to consider deeper changes to the Constitution. The first came from sycophantic partymen who believed, after the Allahabad high court judgment, that the judiciary must be cut to size. The second came from individuals in the govt and the party who had wanted all along to roll back judicial restraints on the Parliament's powers to amend the Constitution.
And the third came from bureaucratic advisors with considerable governmental experience. As early as mid-August 1975, there was vague talk of taking a second look at the constitution. Asked what changes she was contemplating, Indira Gandhi said, 'I am not thinking in terms of a Constituent Assembly or a new Constitution. A second look does not mean an alternative Constitution.' Yet she also felt that 'we can and should have a look at the provisions and procedures we have.'
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Proposals for more extensive and far-reaching changes came from B K Nehru...Nehru felt that democratic institutions on the British model had 'not been able to provide the answer to our needs.' …The model he had in mind was the French Fifth Republic. This had been the outcome of Charles de Gaulle's ascension to power — by coup d'état — in May 1958 against the backdrop of a crisis-ridden Fourth Republic and his decision to create a new constitutional order that was ratified by a referendum.
Drawing on the Gaullist model,
Nehru
suggested a directly elected president of the republic. However, unlike in France, the president should have only a single, seven-year term. Parliament should be elected on a system of proportional representation (not the English first-past the-post system) — as should state legislatures...As for the judiciary, he advocated 'American practice' — presumably appointing Supreme Court justices for life.
And yet he wanted to limit the scope of prerogative writs. He also asked the PM to examine the 'possibility of making fundamental rights non-justiciable.' To strengthen rule of law, he suggested increasing the number of lower courts and specialized tribunals. Turning to the press, he observed that there was 'no reason why, like many other countries, we should not have a Press Law to make the press responsible.' Further, he advised Indira Gandhi to 'strengthen greatly' the existing libel laws: 'define more closely what is meant by bringing Government into contempt and hatred, and make it an offence to publish unproved statements without taking sufficient steps to be satisfied about their truth.'
Nehru suggested appointing three commissions — on the Constitution, the judiciary, and the press — to report in four months. Parliament could discuss their recommendations in the summer. She could then dissolve Parliament and hold elections in the autumn of 1976. Nehru did not envisage a French-style referendum on the new constitution: after all, there had been none on the original Constitution of 1950.
So beholden was the party to the PM that when Nehru met senior Congressmen — Jagjivan Ram, Swaran Singh, and Y B Chavan — they readily agreed to support these changes if she wanted them…Nehru then met and sounded out the only two non-Congress chief ministers.
M Karunanidhi of
was unimpressed. It was evident to him that Indira Gandhi would be the first president. By contrast, Babubhai Patel of Gujarat bubbled with enthusiasm: 'there could be nothing more suited to Indian conditions' than such a constitution. The Congress CM of Punjab (later president),
Zail Singh
, said that whatever Indira Gandhi wanted was fine by him. The CM of Haryana, who was close to
Sanjay Gandhi
, was blunter still: 'Get rid of all this election nonsense.
If you ask me, just make our sister President for life and there's no need to do anything else.' When Nehru reported back to Indira Gandhi, she remained noncommittal.
In the event, the prime minister passed on Nehru's letter to the troika of advisors to whom she had turned in the past: party president D.K. Barooah, Bengal chief minister S.S. Ray, and party treasurer Rajni Patel. The last approached another Congressman from Bombay, AR Antulay…The outcome of their confabulations was a shoddy paper titled 'A Fresh Look at our Constitution: Some Suggestions'..
. Drawing on American, French, and other European practices, it proposed a presidential system.
The president would be the chief executive of the nation, directly elected for a six-year term. Unlike Nehru's proposal, it gave no specified limit on the number of terms in office. 'Since our President is thus elected by popular mandate,' the paper maintained, 'he should . . .enjoy more authority and powers than even USA President.'
This was precisely what the paper proceeded to suggest. Half of the council of ministers appointed by the president would be members of parliament, hence 'unlike the USA the legislature will not be too independent of the executive.' The president would exercise more sweeping powers over the judiciary. The president would appoint all judges in consultation with the council of ministers or the state governments. A 'Superior Council of Judiciary' would be chaired by the president with the chief justice of India and the law minister as vice chairpersons..
.Apart from deciding 'administrative matters pertaining to the judiciary,' this council would be 'the authority to interpret laws and the Constitution; as also to determine the validity of legislation.' In rendering the constitutional courts toothless, the document cited such shining examples of constitutional democracy as Greece and Guatemala.
The prime minister passed on a copy of this confidential document to Dhar, who recognized that it 'twisted the Constitution in an unambiguously authoritarian direction.'
Barooah overreached himself when, in a bid to test the waters, he leaked the document. The reaction was almost uniformly critical, leading Indira Gandhi to distance herself from its contents.
Edited excerpts courtesy of Penguin Random House India
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Bharat Mata portrait row triggers protests; CPM mouthpiece slams guv
Thiruvananthapuram/Kozhikode: The Bharat Mata portrait row involving governor Rajendra V Arlekar and the state govt intensified on Saturday, with protests erupting across various parts of the state and CPM's mouthpiece Deshabhimani publishing a hard-hitting editorial against Raj Bhavan. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now In a strongly worded editorial, Deshabhimani asserted that Raj Bhavan is not a "shakha" (unit) of RSS. It accused the governor of publicly challenging the Constitution by turning Raj Bhavan into a venue to display and propagate RSS ideology. How else could this act be described, if not as a blatant violation of constitutional norms, it asked. According to the latest photos released by Raj Bhavan, the governor paid floral tributes to the portrait during the Yoga Day celebrations held there on Saturday. Raj Bhavan also dismissed reports that its security would be handed over to the central forces due to threats from opposition youth organisations. "The governor has total faith in the commitment to duty and efficiency of Kerala police in the discharge of their responsibility. ...," a statement from Raj Bhavan said. CITU took out a protest march to Raj Bhavan, accusing the governor of attempting to turn it into a centre of RSS activity and violating the Constitution. SFI raised a banner in front of the Sanskrit College in Palayam, declaring that "Raj Bhavan is not RSS's ancestral property". In Kozhikode, a protest by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) against general education minister V Sivankutty, who had walked out of an event at Raj Bhavan over the portrait, ended in a clash with SFI workers. The BJYM workers staged the protest when the minister arrived at Jubilee Hall to attend an event organised in connection with the upcoming SFI national conference in the city. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now As the minister arrived, Yuva Morcha workers waved black flags. However, a group of SFI workers present at the venue tried to stop them, leading to the clash. Police intervened and took the protesters into custody. Sivankutty later alleged that the RSS faction controlling Raj Bhavan had orchestrated the demonstrations against him in Kozhikode. In protest against the police action, BJP workers staged a demonstration near the venue at Tali Temple. They burnt an effigy of Sivankutty and alleged that police personnel deployed in the area were aiding SFI workers in unleashing violence against BJYM activists. BJP district president Prakash Babu warned that the party would continue its protest if the police failed to take appropriate action against the SFI workers who, he claimed, attacked Yuva Morcha activists in custody. Meanwhile, BJP workers paid floral tributes to portraits of Bharat Mata, similar to the one placed in Raj Bhavan, at various district centres as a mark of protest against the LDF govt's stand on the issue. (With agency inputs)
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
A dire Strait
A crucial choke point for the world's oil supply may become another casualty of the Iran-Israel war. The Strait of Hormuz, a channel less than 100 km in width, separates Iran from the Arabian Peninsula, connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. It, however, occupies an outsize importance on the global stage, serving as a key passage for oil and natural gas from the littoral nations of the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and Iran to the rest of the world. Around a quarter of the world's total oil supply passes through this channel, which is 55km to 95km in width. On average, the Strait witnessed an oil flow of 20 million barrels per day in 2024. The Strait lies next to Iran, which is presently engaged in an escalating conflict with Israel after the latter bombed key nuclear and military sites on June 13, 2025. Iran retaliated with missile strikes. In the past, Iran has threatened to shut down the Strait in times of conflict, and ships have been targeted through the jamming of signals and other retaliatory measures. In the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988, tankers and cargo ships in the Gulf region were attacked by both countries, leading to U.S. intervention and the escort of Kuwaiti tankers by their warships. Concerns have arisen that Iran may follow the playbook of this war, dubbed the Tanker War. Similar threats Iran had issued similar threats to shut down the canal in 2011-12 following Western oil and banking sanctions. However, the situation de-escalated before any such attempt. The spectre of Strait shutdown resurfaced in 2019, after the U.S withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and issued heavy sanctions on Iran, leading to a period of tense relations between the two countries. On July 19, 2019, Iran captured Stena Impero, an oil tanker sailing under the British flag, as it passed through the region, to retaliate for the British capture of its vessel. Further, it shot down a U.S surveillance drone, claiming that it had crossed over into its territorial waters. Thus, while a complete shutdown has no historical precedent, disruptions in the global oil trade is expected as the Israel-Iran war continues. Shipping companies such as Nippon Yusen KK have instructed vessels to exercise caution while passing near the Iranian coast. Delays and increased costs of shipping may also drive up oil prices. The price of Brent crude — a global benchmark — saw a brief spike, although it has now stabilised, dipping 2.33%, to settle at $77.01 a barrel. Oil prices had risen by around 3% after Israeli strikes on Iran. While alternate sea routes are not convenient, land-based pipelines may help tide over some challenges. These include pipelines operated by Saudi Arabia's national establishment, ARAMCO, and the UAE. Iran, too, operates the Goreh-Jask pipeline and the Jask export terminal in the Gulf of Oman. There has been a slight decline in the volume of oil shipped through the Strait of Hormuz since 2022, in part owing to a policy adopted by OPEC+ countries to cut down on the production of crude oil. The Strait, however, still remains a central figure. According to a brief by the U.S Energy Information Administration, Saudi Arabia moves the largest volume of crude oil and allied products through the Strait of Hormuz. More than 80% of the oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz is destined for Asian ports. India's oil supply is heavily reliant on the region, with around 40% of its crude oil imports and 54% of its liquefied natural gas imports travelling through the Strait of Hormuz. Indian oil exports may also be disrupted by the regional strife, with domestic demand taking precedence in the event of a shortfall. Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas, Hardeep Singh Puri, noted that of the 5.5 million barrels of oil consumed daily in India, 1.5 million pass through the Strait. Mr. Puri has indicated that India will consider other options, including imports from West Africa, if the Strait is blocked. As trouble brews in West Asia, all eyes are on the Strait of Hormuz.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
'Third world war': MAGA star Steve Bannon says it's a big weekend for Israel-Iran unfolding
Steve Bannon called this a big weekend in the unfolding aspect of a 'third world war'. Donald Trump 's former aide and MAGA star Steve Bannon Saturday said 'the party is on' and it's another weekend in this unfolding aspect of the third world war. "I'm just reporting what I'm hearing from pretty good sources," Bannon said while several B-1 bombers moved to Guam. It was not known whether the bomber deployment was connected to Middle East tensions. The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground. One official said no forward orders had been given yet to move the bombers beyond Guam. They did not say how many B-2 bombers are being moved. Experts are now closely watching whether the B-2 bombers will move forward to a US-British military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, which is an ideal position to operate in the Middle East. 'Steve Bannon playing outsized role in Trump's Iran decision' According to an ABC News report, Steve Bannon sat down for lunch with Donald Trump Thursday as Bannon has been playing an outsized role in Trump's Iran decisions. Before Thursday, Trump reportedly approved a plan on how the US might attack an Iranian nuclear facility. The USS Nimitz – an aircraft carrier that can carry some 60 fighter jets – was set to arrive in the Middle East by the weekend with several smaller ships by its side. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Officials said the extraordinary show of force would be needed if Trump pulled the trigger on the military option, both to strike Iran's nuclear facility and to protect the some 40,000 US troops. Bannon was the chief strategist to Trump during his first administration and now on the Israel-Iran issue, Bannon sides against authorizing military action against Iran. Bannon believes that Israelis have to finish what they started. 'We can't do this again. We'll tear the country apart. We can't have another Iraq.' Bannon, however, said he is aligned with the White House on the issue.
