Bombshell Boomerangs

Thousands of farmers, mostly from Punjab and Haryana, have been protesting in and around Delhi for more than a week. They are demanding the repeal of the three agriculture marketing laws passed by the parliament in September this year. Three rounds of talks between Central government and farmer unions have failed to break the ice. Farmers say that they will not go back until the laws are repealed. The government, however, is in no mood to do that. But why are farmers in Punjab and Haryana so angry with the three laws which bring about major reforms in agriculture marketing? Before answering that, let us very briefly understand what the laws propose.

The three laws, in a nutshell, give more choice to farmers to sell their produce and reduce government’s interference in agriculture. Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce [Protection and Facilitation] Act, 2020 allows farmers to sell their produce outside the government controlled Agriculture Produce Market Committee [APMC] markets.

The other law, Farmers [Empowerment and Protection] Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, allows contract farming. It means a farmer can enter into an agreement on price and quality with a buyer, mostly a private company, even before the produce is ready.

The third law is Essential Commodities [Amendment] Act, 2020. It removes government’s regulations on the storage of several food items such as pulses, onion by traders. Earlier, they could not stock these food items beyond government’s sanctioned limits, even in case of bumper production.

Why the protest?

Despite the protesters’ claims, the current protest against the new laws is not nation-wide. Farmers across India are not angry with these laws. The centre of the protest is Punjab and Haryana, and there is a reason for that.

The Central government buys certain agricultural produce, primarily wheat and rice, at Minimum Support Price [MSP] to sell it through Public Distribution System. MSP of any agricultural produce is 50% higher than total production cost. When the buyer and price are fixed, it gives farmers surety of income.

Farmers in Punjab and Haryana are the biggest beneficiaries of government’s procurement at MSP. The government agency, Food Corporation of India, buys most of the wheat and rice from Punjab and Haryana. According to Agriculture Ministry’s data, 68.2% of the rice bought by the government at MSP this year is from Punjab alone. In the 2018-19 season, the government bought 89% of the total rice grown in Punjab, and 85% of that in Haryana. This is way more than other rice producing states. In UP, for example, only 18% of the rice produced was bought by government at MSP.

Procurement of rice at MSP in major producing states 2018-19

State	Procurement of rice (Million tonnes)	Procurement as % of production
Punjab	11.4	89.0
Andhra Pradesh	4.2	50.7
Telangana	4.1	62.0
Haryana	3.8	85.0
Odisha	3.8	49.0
Chhattisgarh	3.7	57.4
Uttar Pradesh	2.8	18.1
West Bengal	1.9	11.4
Madhya Pradesh	1.3	28.2
Others	3.2	9.5

Source: vivekkaul.com (1 tonne= 1000 kg)

Same is the case with wheat. In 2017-18, government bought 71.2% of the wheat produced in Punjab and 64.4% in Haryana. The trend continued in the successive years. Less than 20% of wheat produced in Uttar Pradesh was bought by the government at MSP, despite it being the largest wheat producing state.

Statewise procurement of wheat at MSP (million tonnes)

State	procurement in 2017-18	Procurement as % of production	Procurement in 2018-19	Procurement as % of production	Procurement in 2019-20	Procurement as % of production
Punjab	117.1	71.2	126.9	71.2	129.1	72.6
Haryana	74.3	64.4	87.8	81.6	93.2	80.0
Madhya Pradesh	67.3	37.5	73.1	46.0	67.3	38.8
Uttar Pradesh	37.0	12.3	52.9	16.6	36.4	11.3
Rajasthan	12.5	13.9	15.3	16.4	14.0	14.6
Bihar	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.0
Others	0.7	0.7	1.6	7.0	0.6	0.9
All India	308.2	31.1	358.0	35.8	340.6	33.7

Source: vivekkaul.com

This explains why farmers in Punjab and Haryana are concerned about MSP. They fear that after allowing farmers to sell their produce outside APMC, the next step would be discontinuing procurement at MSP.

Besides that, the other fear of the farmers is that big corporates will take over contract farming.

When a deal between farmers and traders happens in APMC, a market fee is charged. That market fee is a source of revenue for state governments. If farmers sell outside APMC, state governments will lose that source. That explains why opposition parties are criticising the laws.

Reforms needed

MSP is the policy of the past. The government will have to reduce, if not completely stop, buying food grains at MSP. It is simply not the government’s job to buy agricultural produce.

As far as APMCs are concerned, parliamentary committee has pointed out irregularities in these markets. To give an example, traders are supposed to pay the market fees. But it is collected from farmers, says the committee’s report. Also, in some states market fee is charged just for landing the produce in APMC, even if the farmer doesn’t sell it.

Nobody would deny that reforms are needed.

However, the government’s style of introducing reforms is problematic. When the country was in the midst of the worst public health crisis, the government suddenly announced that it is going to introduce these laws. No consultations happened with farmers or state governments. While transforming any system, practicalities and people’s apprehensions need to be addressed. Nothing of that sort was done. This lack of dialogue resulted in mistrust between farmers and government.

Worst, after the government announced the plan to introduce these laws in May, farmers in Punjab and Haryana started protests. But the government did not take them seriously. It started talking to farmers sincerely only in the last week when they camped on the Delhi border.

Dropping bombshells on people by suddenly announcing major decisions is the style of the NDA government, be it demonetization, revocation of Article 370, imposition of nationwide lockdown to contain the spread of coronavirus, or these farm laws. This time the bombshell has boomeranged.

Chasing The Illusion

The world is in panic due to coronavirus pandemic. The virus and the measures taken to contain it are hitting us in many ways. Global supply chains are badly affected due to restrictions on movement. Caught off guard by the crisis, people want to take no chance and want to do everything they can to safeguard themselves from any such crisis in the future. But in this desperation and fear we must see to it that we are not playing into the hands of forces which are searching for opportunities in crisis to push forward their highly flawed ideas.

In one of his addresses to the nation Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a call for Atmanirbhar Bharat (self reliant India), which means that Indians should buy products made in India and use services of Indian companies. People should also be vocal about using local, he appealed. This way, Mr. Modi said, global brands will emerge from India.

The idea of using “swadeshi” is not new. It did not surface after the pandemic struck. It has been around since early 20th century. The insistence on using swadeshi and boycotting foreign goods was justified when we were under British rule. We were not free to choose with which country we want to trade. The trade was not necessarily for the benefits of Indian people. But when we became independent, we could choose our trading partners, and trade with them on equal terms. The idea of swadeshi became irrelevant especially after India adopted new economic policy of Liberalisation, Privatisation, Globalisation in 1991. However, some radical forces, who were, in the words of former U.S. President Bill Clinton, on the ‘wrong side of history’, kept hugging the idea of swadeshi. In recent years, these forces have come to power and have been imposing their outdated ideas on people through coercion. Coronavirus pandemic has given them the opportunity to exploit people’s fear and push for the highly flawed idea of “be Indian, buy Indian”.

Before coming to the flaws of the idea, let us consider the reasoning behind the self reliant India mission. Apart from reducing India’s dependence on other countries, it is claimed that the mission will provide opportunities for Indian businesses. However, is setting up a new business, putting ideas in practice easy in India? The answer is simply no. Besides the challenges businesses generally face, there are India specific challenges.

A lot has been said about hurdles posed by bureaucracy. I will just share two data points which appeared in Bangalore Mirror. According to an estimate of National Restaurants Association of India (NRAI), if you are in Bangalore and if you want to open a restaurant, you will require a total of 36 approvals. In Delhi the number of approvals is 26, and in Mumbai it is 22. Of late, people have been talking about making India a “manufacturing hub”. According to a figure quoted in the Economic Survey of India 2019-20, manufacturing units in India require complying with 6796 rules and regulations. However, this is the total number of rules and regulations and every rule does not apply to every unit. But look at the number of rules the sector has to comply with. What will happen to a small business which has a limited workforce? They cannot have a dedicated person or team to ensure that they are complying with all the rules.

Indian social environment is not very conducive for entrepreneurship. Society and families in general do not encourage risk- taking. There is no space to make mistakes. People feel pressure to take up a job and live a stable life. Also, despite Indians boasting about unity in diversity in the country, different groups are stereotyped. It poses an additional hurdle in the way of people from different backgrounds who may have brilliant business ideas.

India’s education system, like Indian society, does not encourage entrepreneurship. Let alone the lack of entrepreneurial skills in the curriculum, the culture in the schools gives excessive importance to discipline. There is no scope for children to think and to do something different. Not enough opportunities are given to children to explore themselves. School in India is not at all a better place for different children. It leaves no stone unturned to crush their confidence. As far as education in these schools is concerned, children are bombarded with facts rather than encouraged to put them in different perspectives. Not surprisingly, many people have no clue at all about what to do in life, let alone them thinking about business ideas.

Now let us come to the flaws of the idea of self reliant India. As per my understanding, it means import substitution. India would restrict imports and force people to buy from local companies. In other words, it will reduce people’s choices and competition for Indian companies. If a person gets a good quality imported product at Rs 20, and the same product made in India costs Rs 25, the former is giving more value for money. The person can use the remaining Rs 5 in some other economic activity. That avoids the flow of wealth from one section of the society to another directly, ensures that the wealth doesn’t get concentrated.

If we talk about the competition aspect, as we have seen that setting up a new business is not very easy in India, if we restrict imports, the established businesses will have nobody to compete with. Indians will strictly have to buy products from these companies no matter how the quality and what the price is.

As far as creating global brands in India is concerned, how will Indian companies be able to compete at the global level when they don’t face competition within the country?

The concept of Atmanirbharta or self reliance is an illusion. Nobody in this world is self reliant. We are dependent on one another. It will be disastrous for our economy and our people if we start chasing the illusion of self reliance. Instead, we must compete with the world by making changes in our policies, in our attitudes and, most importantly, by making drastic changes in our education system.

Featured

Responding To The Pandemic

Coronavirus pandemic, the worst crisis of our time, continues its grip on the world. The total number of confirmed cases across the world has crossed 4 million mark, with over 200 thousand of them succumbing to the infection. After China, Europe, and the U.S. we are seeing steady rise in the number of cases in emerging economies such as Brazil and Russia. However, the U.S. continues to be the global hotspot of the pandemic. India too has reported 67,152 cases as of May 11 evening. Of these, 2206 people have died, according to the central government data. It is worth mentioning here that when lockdown was announced in the country on March 24, the number of cases was 536. No doubt the lockdown has prevented exponential rise in infections, it has not arrested the rise in the number of cases. Asking 1.3 billion people to sit at home for a long time has its own consequences. The lockdown is taking a heavy toll on people’s livelihoods which in turn will badly affect India’s economy. Prolonged lockdown is also detrimental to the social stability. Central government will have to keep these things in mind while deciding future course of action after May 17 to contain coronavirus infection on the one hand, and to revive the economy on the other.

As far as containment of the virus is concerned, Director General of World Health Organisation and other health experts have emphasised on large-scale testing. Ideally, tests should have been done at the population level and all those tested positive should have been isolated from the rest of the population. That way we would have managed to cut the chain of transmission. But this is not possible since it will require a vast amount of resources which we don’t have. Lockdown is aimed at giving time to authorities to increase the pool of resources such as beds, ventilators, spaces to isolate positive and suspected cases, personal protective equipment for health care workers, and testing kits to test as much people as possible so that the system doesn’t collapse in case of a sharp rise in the number of infections.

It is not feasible to keep the entire country under lockdown for a long time. It will hit hardest to the economically weaker sections, as is evident in the horrific visuals and stories of migrant workers. One alternative could be allowing states to decide about the extension of lockdown after May 17, depending on the situation in their jurisdiction rather than central government deciding for the entire country. It will smoothen the resumption of small, localised activities in the least affected areas. Kerala has done a remarkable job in containing the infections. Initially, it was in the top three states in terms of number of infections. But as on May 11, it has 512 cases and 4 deaths. Maharashtra, another state which was in the top three states with Kerala, continues to report the highest number of cases in the country. Kerala can relax the lockdown measures to a great extent. Of course, people will have to follow social distancing norms and wear face covers. Kerala shut down schools and colleges, and banned all public gatherings on March 10, good two weeks before central government announced lockdown in the country. Delhi dictating the state about which activities it should allow and which it shouldn’t, makes little sense. The centre can play the role of a monitoring authority. Besides this, economists are suggesting that the central government should spend Rs 10 lakh crore to help the poor and businesses, especially the small ones. Number of countries including the U.S. have announced such big stimulus packages.

There is no question as to whether lives or livelihoods should be prioritised. Both need to be saved simultaneously. Decision makers indeed have a challenging task. What policy do they adopt after May 17 remains to be seen.

Over To Citizenship

If my last post was about ending of one chapter of communal politics in India, the present is probably about the beginning of a new one. Passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and talk of a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC) are proofs that the communal politics has gone to a different level. It speaks volumes about the failure of secular democratic forces in convincing common people that these principles are for their own well being. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend basic principles of the constitution. The project of dehumanizing a particular community has achieved a success.

On December 11, parliament passed Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB) which makes acquiring Indian citizenship easier for the non-Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. To be eligible for getting Indian citizenship, the migrants from these three countries will have to stay in India for five years. This period is called naturalization period. For others who want to become Indian citizens, the naturalization period is 11 years.

The government argues that the act is aimed at protecting human rights of the religious minorities of the above mentioned three neighbouring countries. These people face persecution there because of their religious beliefs. Government also says that the act will not affect current citizens of India. It reasons that Muslims are excluded from the act as they form a majority in the three countries.

This explanation, rather than answering, raises questions. If the government wants to protect human rights of the persecuted people, why only religious minorities of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are covered in this act? What about Tamils of Sri Lanka and Rohingya of Myanmar? In case of Rohingya, the Myanmar military is accused of committing genocide against the community in 2017. The case is on in the International Court of Justice. Further, religion is not the only ground of persecution. In our neighbouring countries, people face persecution on linguistic, ethnic and sectarian grounds. Shia and Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan face persecution. They are sectarian minorities. Why, then, the CAA picks and chooses countries and communities?

After the CAA comes in force, India will ask people their religion, and make some concessions for specific religions’ followers while granting citizenship. This goes against the secular character of the constitution. The naturalization period will be different for different people. This violates the principle of equality. The act does not talk about setting up of any mechanism to cross-check individual claims of religious persecution of its beneficiaries. It doesn’t stop here. Home minister Amit Shah has said in the Rajya Sabha that the government is planning to update National Register of Citizens (NRC) across the country to determine illegal immigrants. It all raises serious doubts over the intentions of the NDA government.

It is claimed that the combination of CAA and NRC is aimed at targeting Muslims of India. There is fear that the combination will rob many of them of their Citizenship. Indigenous people of northeast fear that the CAA will give Citizenship to Bangladeshi Hindus, who are as outsiders for them as Bangladeshi Muslims. They want all outsiders to go away from their land. Protests have erupted across the country against CAA and NRC from the second week of December. In many places the protests have turned violent, inviting crackdown from the state. 23 people have been killed so far in violence. The police is accused of targeting peaceful protests in the name of maintaining law and order. Over 50 Public Interest Litigations (PILs), challenging the constitutionality of CAA have been filed in the Supreme Court. They have demanded that the court should strike down the law. The top court has issued a formal notice to the central government, asking it to respond to the PILs. The next hearing is on January 22.

The government says that there is no reason for any community to fear. But actually, there is no solid reason for Indian muslims not to fear. The NDA government should step back and repeal the CAA. Nothing less than that will assure everybody. If not the government, the Supreme Court should strike it down. This law should not be allowed to continue. Apart from violating the basic structure of the constitution, it opens up new issue for divisive politics. The law aims at passing the baton of communal politics to citizenship from mandir-masjid. CAA-NRC combo will ensure that issues of employment, education, healthcare, environment, economy will remain in the backseat in the public debate. Violent protests are unjustified, so is the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

Rules vs Life

It was hoped that the publication of final list of National Register of Citizens (NRC) will be a step towards the solution of the issue of illegal immigrants in Assam. But at the end of the five-year long, Supreme Court monitored process, nobody is happy and the issue is nowhere close to solution. Disturbingly, it is taking communal colour.

National Register of Citizens (NRC) is the record of Indian citizens maintained by the government of India. It was first published in Assam in 1951 to determine Illegal immigrants from then East Pakistan. The updated list was published on August 31 this year in response to long-standing demand from the people of Assam. People were asked to apply for inclusion in the updated list with documents which prove that they were living in Assam as of March 24, 1971. In case a person is born after 1971, he/she has to prove that his/her ancestors were living in Assam as of March 24, 1971. For this, the person has to prove that his/her ancestors’ name had appeared in the 1951 NRC or electoral rolls of 1961 and 1971. On March 25, 1971 Bangladesh liberation war began. So anyone who came on or after that day without travel documents, and settled down in Assam will not be included in NRC and will be considered foreigner. Out of 3.29 crore people who applied for inclusion in the list, 19,06,657 could not make it to the updated list published on August 31 this year.

However, that does not mean that these over 19 lakh people are declared foreigners. They have legal options. They can approach foreigners tribunal, Gauhati High Court and Supreme Court to challenge their exclusion. The process of updating NRC was not as simple as it appears. Many of the excluded people are poor and illiterate. It was not easy for them to produce documents. In some cases, it so happened that some members of the family are included, and others from the same family are excluded. Plus, there are bureaucratic mistakes such as persons getting included or excluded due to spelling errors and other technical mistakes. Those who were demanding the updation are complaining that 19 lakh is too small a number. There are many more foreigners living in Assam. They allege flaws in the process.

The issue of “outsiders” settling down in Assam has remained burning one in the state. During colonial period British brought labours from adjoining areas of present day Bengal, Bihar and Odisha to work in tea plantations in Assam. Large number of people fled to the border state to escape violence from the then East Pakistan after partition. It is claimed that even after the creation of Bangladesh, people kept coming to Assam from there for better prospects and various other reasons. The ethnic Assamese felt threatened by the influx of outsiders. They feared complete change of culture and demography of the state if the immigration continues. They also feared that outsiders will exploit their resources. This fear led to six-year long violence against “foreigners” from 1979 to 1985. This violence led to the signing of Assam accord in 1985 between All Assam Students Union, Assam Gansangram Parishad, and government of India. Among others, the government had promised in the accord that it will update the NRC in Assam. However, subsequent governments from 1985 avoided the updation because they didn’t want to deal with the issue of illegal immigrants. Suppose a number of people are declared illegal immigrants. Now what to do with them?

The question still remains unanswered. For now, the government says that no action will be taken against anybody, and those not included in the list have legal options. What the government is not telling is that what it will do with those people who fail to make it to the register even after using all legal options. It is for sure that they will not be deported to Bangladesh as India’s external affairs minister S Jaishankar told his Bangladeshi counterpart that NRC is an internal matter of India. Will the government, then, put them in detention centres? If yes, then for how long? And what will be their status in India after they come out from there? NRC updation reeks of communal politics as the NDA government in the centre is planning to bring Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB). If passed by parliament, it will allow granting of citizenship to non-Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The condition is that they must be living in India for six years. In many quarters, updation of NRC and CAB are seen as a conspiracy to filter out Muslims and render them stateless. That is not the demand of people of Assam. They have problem with all outsiders irrespective of their religion. Detaining and deporting people immediately after they cross the border, and doing it after so many years are not the same things. Passports, visas, travel documents, legal provisions are introduced to make human lives easy. In the episode of NRC, we are using the same to make them vulnerable.

Image Credit: Google

BJP’s Trust Vote

It is surprising that the Congress-JD[S] coalition managed to run their government in Karnataka for almost two month after their massive defeat in the Lok Sabha election. I was hoping that the government will collapse in a week or two after the May 23 election result. For there was infighting within the coalition, and BJP was attempting to lure the coalition’s Members of Legislative Assembly[MLAs]. Finally, starting from July 6, 15 coalition MLAs resigned in phases, bringing down its strength in the Assembly. What followed was dragging and misuse of constitutional offices by all political players for their selfish motives.

The speaker is deliberately delaying decision on the resignations. He has not accepted the resignations yet. In such a scenario, those 15 MLAs will get disqualified if they don’t vote in favor of the coalition or remain absent during the trust vote. In that case, they won’t be able to become ministers in an alternative government. Secondly, the speaker is using his extraordinary powers to run the house in favor of the Congress-JD[S] coalition by allowing a three day long debate on the trust vote.

On the other hand, the 15 MLAs reached Supreme Court against the speaker’s inaction on their resignations. The Supreme Court, in its July 17 order, said that the MLAs need not be present in the assembly during the trust vote. Which means, they will not get disqualified even if they remain absent for the vote. The Congress-JD[S] combine hopes that the court will reverse this order, and that is why they are delaying the vote through speaker. They have approached the Supreme Court.

Karnataka Governor is echoing BJP’s stand of having the trust vote at the earliest. The BJP wants it early so that it can form the alternative government. The question is: how can the Governor direct the speaker about house proceedings? The house has taken up the trust vote and they are debating on it. The voting happens after the debate. It is the speaker’s right to decide the duration of a debate in the house.

There is clear disrespect of people’s mandate in all this.

This is an opportunity for the BJP to prove that it adheres to democracy. that it stands for a change, that it is different from the Congress, that it wants to start a new kind of politics in India, and that it respects people’s mandate. The Congress-JD[S] coalition government in all likelihood will collapse on Monday. Instead of immediately forming the alternative government, the BJP should wait. Let the by-elections on those 15 seats whose representatives have resigned, happen. Let the people in these constituencies decide which party members they want as their representatives. After the by-elections, if the numbers go in BJP’s favor then it should form the government. But if the numbers don’t go in its favor, it should play the role of a responsible opposition and wait for its turn. Isn’t that the change the people of India want?

Disciplining Democracy

The idea of one nation, one election is back in public debate. The Prime Minister has been talking about it for a while now, but that would not go beyond a mention. This week however, things moved surprisingly fast. He chaired an all party meting on Wednesday to deliberate upon the idea. At the end of the meeting, it was decided that a committee will be formed to further examine it. Next day, president Ram Nath Kovind also expressed his support to the plan, saying that it would facilitate accelerated development.

Every year, on an average four to five states in India go to polls as and when their state assembly’s tenure ends. For instance, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, etc went to polls for their Vidhan Sabhas in November-December last year. Then we had Lok Sabha elections in April-May this year. Elections for Vidhan Sabha in Maharashtra and Haryana will be held in October this year, that of Delhi in February next year, Bihar in October next year, and so on. Because of this, the country constantly remains in election mode. One nation, one election means having elections for Lok Sabha and all the state Vidhan Sabhas simultaneously, so that there would be no major election in India for the next five years.

The supporters of simultaneous elections argue that in the current system, elections put too much pressure on the economy. Simultaneous elections will save a lot of money. Further, elections have become very ugly these days. Corruption is rampant during the time. Deliberate attempts are made by political parties to create conflicts between communities. It disrupts harmony in the society. Also, Election Commission [EC] enforces Model Code of Conduct [MCC] before elections in the region where they are scheduled. In that period, the government cannot undertake any development work. Lastly, the current system of holding elections puts pressure on security forces and election machinery. Large number of security personnel are deployed in election bound region. The government officials, teachers are also put on election duty. Consequently, they are not able to focus on their respective work.

To address these issues, came the idea of simultaneous elections. But it raises another set of questions which are perhaps more serous. Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers are responsible to parliament. Parliament means we the people. Since all of us cannot go and work there, we elect our representatives who work on behalf of us. These are Members of Parliament [MPs]. Prime Minister and his Ministers can stay in office as long as majority of MPs have confidence in them. They have to resign if majority of MPs at any time during the five year term express lack of confidence in them, and we may go to mid-term elections. Similarly, Chief Minister is responsible to Vidhan Sabha at the state level. This ensures that no government works in authoritative manner. They know that five year term is not guaranteed, and certain actions can land them in trouble. The idea of simultaneous elections goes against this very principle of parliamentary democracy. If implemented, this will ensure guaranteed five year term to the government. They can do anything they want. Nobody can remove them before the completion of five years because we don’t want election. The problems don’t end there.

Suppose in 2024, we hold simultaneous elections. After one year, state government of Maharashtra collapses because of Vidhan Sabha’s expression of lack of confidence in it. Who will govern Maharashtra for the next four years? President’s rule? Under normal circumstances, administering a state through President’s rule and not through popularly elected government not only subverts democracy, but denies the right to the people of that state to decide for themselves. That is not all.

State elections are fought on state specific issues. For instance, the issue of farmer suicides in Maharashtra, water scarcity in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, sugarcane farmers not getting their dues in Uttar Pradesh, and so on. Northeastern states have their own issues. The respective state governments have to tell the people what they have done about these issues during elections. National issues will overshadow these issues and the state governments will go unquestioned if we synchronize elections.

Lastly, no doubt most of the regional political parties are family enterprises, but they have made Indian politics more inclusive. Synchronization of elections will further marginalize them, and national parties will dominate at national and state level.

The concerns raised by the supporters of simultaneous elections can be addressed in the current system. We often complain that we spend too much on defence. We could have spent some of it on education and healthcare. But we can’t help because of a hostile neighbour. Similarly, we are a democratic country. Election is an IMPORTANT aspect of democracy. Even if it is costly, we have to conduct it. There is no option. As far as corruption is concerned, election commission does seize lot of cash during elections, but is it seriously checking whether a candidate has spent more than the limit imposed by it? Why doesn’t it disqualify candidates who do not follow its expenditure limit? Why doesn’t EC make it mandatory for all political parties to disclose the amount of donations they got, and the names of donors? Why political parties are not under RTI? Why doesn’t EC punish the politicians found campaigning on communal lines? We can have a system where a candidate will be declared winner only if he/she gets 50% or more of the total votes cast in his/her constituency. In such a system, a candidate will not limit himself/herself to one or two communities and will approach all sections of the society. This way, we can get rid of communal tensions during elections.

The state leaders of national political parties will take care of election campaign of their state elections. National leaders can continue policy making and other development work. What is the need to get disproportionately involved in a state election which is fought on state specific issues? Scope of MCC can be discussed and changes can be made, if necessary, to ensure that it doesn’t obstruct development work. In case of a state election, MCC only comes in force where the election is scheduled, and not in the entire country. Can all this happen without changing current system of holding elections?

We can think of giving EC its own staff. Or EC can appoint common people as poling agents with little training. As far as security forces are concerned, they work to ensure internal and external security of the nation. Holding regular, free and fair elections is important for India’s internal security. Democracy is the common thread which has kept India together. Otherwise why would such a diverse population remain under one central rule for over 70 years?

All that said, things tend to be somewhat chaotic in democracy. We cannot try to fix them beyond a limit. Doing so amounts to disciplining democracy. The idea of simultaneous elections is aimed at that.