Editor,
A few days ago, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee sent her reply to a high-level committee, formed by the Centre and headed by former president Ram Nath Kovind, on the Centre’s ‘one nation, one election’ proposal. After that, she asked in a news conference, “If, at the Centre, nobody gets a clear majority for stability, what happens then? If the Centre collapses, will all the state governments fall, as well?”
Her apprehension is absolutely correct. No one can guarantee in a parliamentary democracy that all elected Houses, be it some of the state Assemblies or the Lok Sabha, will not go to the polls before completing five years of their full term. As a matter of fact, no elected House in a parliamentary democracy can have a fixed expiry date. So, there is hardly any possibility that five years after ‘one nation, one election’, the Lok Sabha and all state assembly elections will again automatically come into a synchronised joint event. Moreover, it would cause premature deaths of some elected state Assemblies in order to club them under the umbrella of one election. Interestingly, the only argument in favour of the idea behind ‘one nation, one election’ is that it would be cost-effective. However, it would actually become more costly as it would require cutting short the lifespan of some of the state legislative Assemblies and/or the Parliament.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge in his reply to the committee said, “Such forms of simultaneous elections that are being floated by the government go against the guarantees of federalism contained in the Constitution.” Indeed this unilateral top-down proposal totally disregards the federal and basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Such a one-size-fits-all approach is incompatible with the principles of our diverse, federal, parliamentary democracy.
Some other one-one formula, be it opposition-free, ‘one, nation, one party’ or ‘one nation, one leader’, is a trademark of a totalitarian regime with the odour of majoritarianism. Opposition parties are banned in a dictatorship. If any effort is made to the contrary, it is suppressed with force and the persons concerned are penalised.
India’s three language policy and recognition of 22 languages as official languages discarded the divisive idea of one nation, one language. This helped India to solidify her unity. Whereas Pakistan had broken down into two countries as it was trying to tread the path of one nation, one language.
India also adopted secularism, cancelling the regressive ‘one nation, one religion’ majoritarianism. We need to banish such one-one formula to safeguard our unity in diversity, and to protect our parliamentary democracy, secularism and federalism as enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Sometimes a tree is pruned in a bad way, turning it into a sorry state of one tree, one branch. Such a tree loses its balance and, more often than not, falls flat, causing grave accidents in the process. A democratic country is like a tree. The tree would give us fruits of fundamental rights and welfare if it gets water in the form of debate and dialogue. Moreover, it produces fruits only when all its major branches – legislature, executive, and judiciary – besides finance, banking, investigative, and educational institutions get the air of transparency and unhindered sunlight of freedom. Democracy cannot survive if its institutions are undermined.
But the most essential of all is the constitution soil. If some toxic elements get mixed with the soil, the democracy-tree will die a slow death. One day, all of its leaves will become dry; then only the skeleton of the tree will remain. Soon the tree will turn into a dry naked question mark in front of our moist eyes.
As citizens and custodians of this great democracy, we must remain vigilant and protect the delicate balance that sustains our democratic canopy.
Sujit De,
5/11 Government Housing Estate,
Sodepur, Kolkata