The Voice News: During the turbulent 1970s, India came close to reimagining itself—not as the world’s largest democracy, but as a centralized presidential system. This radical idea took shape during the Emergency imposed by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, a period marked by suspended civil liberties and jailed opposition leaders.
In his new book Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, historian Srinath Raghavan uncovers how Gandhi’s inner circle explored shifting India away from parliamentary democracy. Key advisors, inspired by Charles de Gaulle’s France, envisioned a powerful president freed from legislative dependence and capable of making unpopular decisions for national interest.
It all began in September 1975, when BK Nehru—Gandhi’s confidante and seasoned diplomat—urged her to seize the moment. In a letter, Nehru praised the Emergency as a courageous act and argued that parliamentary democracy was failing to meet India’s needs. He proposed a directly elected president with broad powers, a reined-in judiciary, and even the curtailment of fundamental rights like freedom of speech.
Though Gandhi gave Nehru the go-ahead to discuss the proposal with Congress leaders, she remained publicly non-committal. The idea quickly gained traction within the party. Some loyalists even called for her to become “President for life,” while senior leaders like Jagjivan Ram and Swaran Singh expressed strong support.
The culmination was a secret document titled A Fresh Look at Our Constitution, which proposed a presidency stronger than even its American counterpart. It envisioned a judiciary subservient to a “Superior Council,” chaired by the president, and minimized Parliament’s role to little more than symbolic approval.
Though the presidential model was never formally adopted, its influence shaped the infamous Forty-Second Amendment in 1976. This sweeping constitutional change expanded Parliament’s power, weakened judicial review, and gave the central government authority to impose President’s Rule in states for extended periods. Critics warned that it tilted the balance of power dangerously toward the executive.
Gandhi’s defeat in 1977 by the Janata Party temporarily reversed these authoritarian measures. The Forty-Third and Forty-Fourth Amendments restored democratic norms, curbing many of the excesses introduced during the Emergency.
Yet, the idea of a presidential system didn’t disappear. In 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy’s term ending, Gandhi seriously considered becoming president herself, tired of carrying the Congress party alone. Ultimately, she stepped back and appointed her loyal Home Minister, Zail Singh, instead.
Even in 1984, just months before her assassination, senior minister Vasant Sathe revived the debate, calling for a nationwide discussion on presidential rule.
Despite repeated flirtations, India never adopted a presidential system. As Professor Raghavan notes, the push for centralized power during the Emergency wasn’t rooted in a long-term vision—it was a tactical move to shield Indira Gandhi’s position. The Emergency and its amendments may have brought India close to presidential rule, but after Gandhi’s assassination, the conversation vanished—and India’s commitment to parliamentary democracy endured.