The RSS’s long-term, anti-constitutional agenda is “One Nation, One Party, One Religion, One Leader.” "One Nation, One Election" is just the first step toward achieving this goal.
Published Dec 20, 2024 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Dec 20, 2024 | 9:00 AM
Does democracy mean that the government acts according to the people's opinion? Or should it formalize the people's opinion and create a stable authoritarian government?
The Union government has decided to forward the One Nation, One Election Bill — officially, the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2024, to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for review.
Law Minister Arjun Meghwal introduced the Bills, envisaging synchronized Parliament and Assembly elections, on Tuesday, 17 December, amidst widespread opposition.
The introduction of the Bills could be seen as the Narendra Modi government further deteriorating the nation’s problems with its authoritarian, anti-democratic policies, pushing India towards becoming an authoritarian fascist state.
The Bills have sparked yet another needless and constitutionally dangerous debate aimed at dismantling the country’s federalism.
On 2 September 2023, the Modi government notified the formation of an eight-member committee, led by former President of India Ramnath Kovind and under the leadership of Home Minister Amit Shah, to study the possibility of conducting simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies across the country.
The Modi government hastily formed the committee without formal discussions with Opposition parties or state governments. Instead, it issued a gazette notification and a list of aspects to be reviewed.
A look at the notification reveals the underlying motives of the proposal. First, out of the eight proposed members of the committee, apart from Congress’s Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, the rest were all aligned with the BJP: former President Ramnath Kovind, Home Minister Amit Shah, Gulam Nabi Azad (who was a senior Congress leader but now often seen with the BJP in Kashmir), BJP-appointed lawyer Harish Salve, former Finance Commission chairman NK Singh, former CVC Sanjay Kothari, and former Lok Sabha General Secretary Subhash Kashyap.
Realising the ‘conspiracy’, Chowdhury refused to be part of the committee as it turned out to be a BJP-dominated panel.
The Modi government’s decision to appoint a former President as the head of a government committee without following democratic protocols further showed its disregard for democratic norms.
Moreover, considering the aspects that this committee was set to study, it appeared that the government had already decided to implement “One Nation, One Election” and appointed the committee to draft a report accordingly.
This was evident because, while justifying the need for this committee, the government had already declared its intent, stating, “In the national interest, it is desirable to have simultaneous elections in the country,” even before any discussion or examination.
Third, ringing in a radical change in India’s parliamentary system would require multiple constitutional amendments. These changes would affect the election timelines, the terms of state legislative Assemblies, and India’s federal structure.
Any such amendments would require approval not only from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha but also from a majority of state legislative Assemblies — a complex process that echoes the passage of the GST law.
However, the committee appointed to study simultaneous elections had been tasked with examining whether the approval of state legislative assemblies was necessary to implement such a constitutional amendment. It implied that the Modi government was seeking ways to shortcut the federal process for its proposed parliamentary innovation.
To explore avenues for such an unconstitutional act, it even appointed a former President as the chairperson of the committee. Thus, it became evident that conspiracies of the Modi government.
But, why did simultaneous elections in India stop after they were held once? What hazards might arise if they are forcibly imposed again, especially for the country’s parliamentary democratic system? Examining various past reports on the subject further clarifies the authoritarian motives behind Modi’s government.
The RSS’s long-term, anti-constitutional agenda is “One Nation, One Party, One Religion, One Leader.” “One Nation, One Election” is just the first step toward achieving this goal.
This is why Modi’s government has intensified its efforts since coming to power in 2014, using institutions like the Law Commission, the Election Commission, and NITI Aayog as part of its strategy.
Before understanding the essence of the arguments put forth by the Modi government regarding simultaneous elections, let us first consider why the situation of one nation, multiple elections came into existence.
Between 1952 and 1967, simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies were held regularly in India. The Congress was then in power both at the Centre and in most states.
In the 1957 elections, the Communists came to power in Kerala. However, with the special intervention of Indira Gandhi, the Nehru government dismissed the Communist government in Kerala in 1959 and conducted fresh elections in 1960. Thus, due to the authoritarian actions of the Center, the sequence of simultaneous elections to the state and the Center was disrupted as early as 1959.
However, as India’s democracy matured, the results of the 1967 elections delivered a significant shock to this trend. Although the Congress returned to power at the Center, its strength diminished. More notably, for the first time, non-Congress governments came to power in nine states, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Odisha, and others.
There were several reasons for this: 1) the crisis that arose within the Congress party after Nehru; 2) Despite ruling at the Center and in most states for 20 years, the Congress party failed to fulfill the people’s expectations effectively, allowing the old exploitative system to continue in a different form; and 3) the Congress government imposed centralised authoritarianism, ignoring India’s linguistic, cultural, and regional diversity.
As a result, the 1967 elections marked a shift toward a more decentralised, democratic India.
Related: Union Cabinet clears ‘One Nation One Election’ proposal
Unfortunately, the then Congress government at the Center, responded to this by misusing Article 356 (President’s Rule) to dismiss non-Congress governments in many states, and fresh elections had to be held in 1969.
Attacks on non-Congress governments continued into the 1980s. This approach led to the emergence of strong regional parties that somewhat democratized India’s electoral democracy from above.
After the death of Indira Gandhi in 1984, the dominant model of the Congress in Indian politics collapsed and during the transitional period of coalition governments, the party lost majority in seven Lok Sabha polls and had to face elections without completing their terms.
The rise of the BJP after 2014 has been accompanied by a more aggressive attempt to implement the same tactics used by Congress earlier, using corporate money and political manipulation. Through this, the BJP has turned the practice of Operation Kamal (Operation Lotus) and other such strategies into a direct challenge to India’s constitutional democracy.
To cut it short, all the reasons mentioned above led to the divergence in the schedules of Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly elections.
But how should this development be viewed? From the perspective of government stability, it is problematic.
However, does democracy mean that the government acts according to the people’s opinion? Or should it formalise the people’s opinion and create a stable authoritarian government?
The Modi government presents these authoritarian-technical arguments for simultaneous elections, without considering these fundamental questions about democracy:
1. If all elections are completed at once, governments can focus on administration without distractions, and the model code of conduct, which comes into effect every time elections are announced, can be avoided, preventing development work from coming to a halt for months.
Behind the government’s argument is the fascist mindset that sees elections, i.e., engaging with the people repeatedly, as an obstacle to governance. In reality, enlightened democracies conduct public opinion surveys not only during elections but also when implementing policies that affect people’s lives. However, the BJP-RSS-corporate alliance expects the people, once they vote in an election, to remain neutral spectators for the remaining five years.
Second, the argument that the administrative machinery becomes inactive for several months due to the Model Code of Conduct is something even young children can understand, as the ruling party is using its five years of inactivity as an excuse. If it is such an obstacle, all political parties could meet the Election Commission and resolve it; it’s a minor issue. Looking at it that way, even with the Model Code of Conduct in place, wasn’t the Balakot airstrike carried out? Didn’t Modi campaign and promote the military victory as his victory?
2) Costs will be reduced!
According to the Modi dispensation, the Indian government officially spent ₹3,870 crore to conduct the 2014 elections. Had elections been held simultaneously across all states, an additional ₹500 crore would have been spent. However, because elections are being held separately in each state, an additional ₹3,000 to ₹4,000 crore is being spent.
But this is a half-truth. According to another estimate by the Election Commission, if elections were held simultaneously, the 2019 estimate would require ₹10,000 crore for 20 lakh machines, including around 3-4 lakh VVPAT machines and two or three EVMs for each of the 10 lakh polling booths. These machines would need to be replaced every 15 years!
3) Controls black money circulation
The BJP’s argument on this point is highly ironic. Today, the BJP is far ahead of Congress in using massive amounts of black money during elections. Corporate powers, through electoral bonds, have made donations to political parties for policies that favour them, and the BJP has been the biggest beneficiary of this opaque system.
Even in the once-in-five-years village panchayat elections, the BJP has earned a reputation for the circulation of black money. As long as the electoral bonds system isn’t abolished, and the government doesn’t take on the expenses of political parties, eliminating black money from elections will remain impossible. This will be true whether elections are simultaneous or held separately.
Furthermore, according to an independent study, the BJP alone spent ₹27,000 crore in the 2019 elections. What else could that be if not black money?
The sources of the money being poured into the BJP’s “Operation Kamal” are corrupting the country’s democracy.
The Election Commission — with just half of the BJP’s election expenses — could hold elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies at different times. The Modi government is presenting simultaneous elections as a way to save money to cover these expenses.
Thus, all the arguments the government is presenting regarding simultaneous elections are irrelevant and illogical.
However, the dangers posed by simultaneous elections to constitutional democracy and India’s federal system are immense.
Even if simultaneous elections are held, if the elected party loses the confidence of the House, the simultaneous system will break down. To prevent this, the solutions proposed by the Election Commission, the NITI Aayog, and the BJP are far worse than the problem itself.
1) Confidence only if there’s no distrust?
Under the current democratic rules, if a government elected to govern for five years loses the confidence of the legislature, it must prove a majority or step down. A government with a majority led by another party should be formed. If this does not happen, the Governor/President’s rule will be imposed, and fresh elections will be held as soon as possible. Those who win the elections will then govern for the next five years.
However, to implement One Nation, One Election, the duration of legislative terms would need to be fixed according to election schedules, and not based on pre-determined terms. The 170th report of the Law Commission suggests that elections should be held according to a predetermined schedule.
The Election Commission and the Law Commission, in their 2018 report, suggested that if a motion of no confidence is to be moved in the House against the ruling government, it should mandatorily include whether there is confidence in the leadership of any other government.
The NITI Aayog has gone a step further and suggested that if the possibility of forming an alternative government within 14 days is not available, then no opportunity should be given for a motion of no confidence.
What should be done if it is not possible to form an alternative government? In such a case, if there is little time left for the term of the House to expire, the President/Governor’s rule should be imposed.
However, if the term of the Lok Sabha/Legislative Assembly still has more time left, new elections should be held. But in that case, the tenure of the newly elected government will not be five years. Instead, the tenure of the new government will be limited to the remaining term!
It means the BJP government, which is providing such dangerous technical solutions to facilitate simultaneous elections, is hiding how the constitutional rights of the people are being weakened.
Why is the BJP government so focused on the issue of One Nation, One Election?
The IDFC Institute has studied the voting patterns of states where Lok Sabha and state legislative Assembly elections were held simultaneously in the general elections of 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014.
According to its findings, when elections were held simultaneously, voters were 77% more likely to vote for a single party. In some states, this is as high as 85%! Even before 1967, elections were conducted in this manner.
According to another American research institute, if the state legislative Assembly elections had been held simultaneously with the 2014 general elections, the BJP would have won a massive majority in most states.
However, after elections were held a year later for the Delhi and Bihar legislative Assemblies, the BJP, which had secured a large majority in the Lok Sabha, received far fewer votes and seats in these states.
The main reason is that while emotional issues like nation, religion, and security dominate national elections, issues related to daily life usually take precedence in state legislative assembly elections.
Therefore, when elections are held simultaneously, emotional issues overshadow those related to daily life, and national parties receive greater recognition than regional ones.
This diminishes the role of the informed voter in democracy and paves the way for autocracy and aggressive nationalist politics.
The RSS-BJP and the Modi government wanted to implement this system in the 2019 elections, but for it to be enacted, constitutional amendments would be necessary. However, this would alter the federal structure, which is a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution.
The Indian Parliament does not have the authority to change the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, it was not possible in 2019.
Now, the RSS-BJP-corporate alliance has started efforts to implement the authoritarian system of One Nation, One Election, barely months after the Modi government came to power for a third time. Previously, the BJP had made an unsuccessful attempt to discuss this in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.
There is a significant difference between the Congress’s opportunistic politics and the BJP’s fascist politics.
In response to this fascist narrative, democratic counter-narratives must be formed, and the people must come together to prevent the implementation of constitutional authoritarianism.
(Shivasundar is an activist and a columnist based in Bengaluru. Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
