NEW DELHI: West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Thursday expressed her strong disagreement with the proposal of “one nation-one election” and questioned the concept of “one-nation” in the given context. Mamata alleged that the letter sent by the high-level committee, headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind, to the states conveyed some sort of a unilateral top-down ‘decision’ already taken by the Central Government to impose a structure that is certainly against the spirit of a truly democratic and federal one laid down by the esteemed Constitution of India.
In a strongly-worded letter, Mamata urged the panel not to go for selective cherry-picking of reports and reforms proposals and flaunt some convenient reports in the public domain to justify the proposal. “If some Commissions/Committees have supported simultaneous elections throughout the country, there have been some others which have felt that simultaneous elections cannot be held within the existing framework of the Constitution. We need to go into the basics of the rationale and should not rely on discriminatorily edited excerpts of reforms reports here and there in favour of a biased view,” the West Bengal chief minister wrote in her letter to the secretary of the panel.
Hours after sending letter to Dr Niten Chandra, secretary of a high-level committee that has called for suggestions for implementation of the idea, Banerjee requested the Election Commission of India (ECI) to look into the matter “very very rationally”.
Here are some of the points raised by the Trinamool chief in her letter:
How have you arrived at the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election’?
I do not understand the exact Constitutional and structural implication of the term “one nation” in the instant case. Does the Indian Constitution follow the concept of ‘One Nation, One Government? I am afraid, it does not. Our Constitution conceives of the Indian nation in a federal manner. Therefore, the Indian nation has been given a Union Government and several State Governments. If the framers of the Indian Constitution did not mention the concept of ‘One Nation, One Government, how have you arrived at the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election’? Unless this basic enigma is sorted, it is difficult to arrive at any firm view on the catchy phrase.
‘States should not be forced for premature elections’
States which are not expecting general Vidhan Sabha elections should not be forced to go for premature general elections for the sake of introduction of coevality only: that will be basic violation of the electoral trust of the people who have elected their Vidhan Sabha representatives for full five years. On the other hand, the longevity of a legislative assembly can not be extended either in the name of coevality, because people have elected their representatives only for five years, and not beyond. Imposing ad hoc administrative arrangements in different states for periods of interregnum in the name of introduction of coevality will also be undemocratic.
‘You view proposed amendments to Constitution as mere formality’
From the tenor of your letter, it appears that you view the proposed amendments to the Constitution as a mere formality that is to be got over with, along with other ‘minor’ matters like preparation of common electoral rolls. Instead of consulting state governments, that are, indeed, the very pillars of our federal Constitution, your letter brusquely informs us (as a political party) that the High-Level Committee is in agreement with the much-touted advantages of simultaneous all-India polls.
‘Why no chief ministers taken on board?’
We object to the most unrepresentative composition of this Committee and point out that no chief ministers are taken on board for fear of receiving practical objections. From the tenor of your correspondence and manner in which you accept half-baked assumptions as given facts, we doubt if the HLC is seriously interested in analysing the demerits of the case.
‘Lok Sabha elections and state elections are different in character’
Your approach fails to consider that Parliamentary elections and State Legislative elections are substantially different in character. The founders of our Constitution deliberately delineated certain subjects for State-level and local consideration and mandated that these would be dealt with by the constituent States. This essential requirement is smothered when they are distracted by issues that require consideration at the national level. Numerous State level issues and debates will just be superseded by the so-called ‘national election’.
‘Issue is about plurality, not imposing an unviable scheme from above’
The fundamental issue is not to discuss “the advantages of simultaneous elections to Parliament and the State legislatures”, as you have put it in your letter under reference. The issue is about why and how to arrange simultaneous elections to the Parliament and the State legislatures in the current circumstances and in the prism of the basic structure of our Constitution. The issue is not about “creating the ecosystem that would enable simultaneous elections”, as you have put it in your letter. The issue is that of evolving the philosophy and correct methodologies for addressing the questions above. The issue is not about imposing an unviable scheme from above. The issue is about plurality.
In a strongly-worded letter, Mamata urged the panel not to go for selective cherry-picking of reports and reforms proposals and flaunt some convenient reports in the public domain to justify the proposal. “If some Commissions/Committees have supported simultaneous elections throughout the country, there have been some others which have felt that simultaneous elections cannot be held within the existing framework of the Constitution. We need to go into the basics of the rationale and should not rely on discriminatorily edited excerpts of reforms reports here and there in favour of a biased view,” the West Bengal chief minister wrote in her letter to the secretary of the panel.
Hours after sending letter to Dr Niten Chandra, secretary of a high-level committee that has called for suggestions for implementation of the idea, Banerjee requested the Election Commission of India (ECI) to look into the matter “very very rationally”.
Here are some of the points raised by the Trinamool chief in her letter:
How have you arrived at the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election’?
I do not understand the exact Constitutional and structural implication of the term “one nation” in the instant case. Does the Indian Constitution follow the concept of ‘One Nation, One Government? I am afraid, it does not. Our Constitution conceives of the Indian nation in a federal manner. Therefore, the Indian nation has been given a Union Government and several State Governments. If the framers of the Indian Constitution did not mention the concept of ‘One Nation, One Government, how have you arrived at the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election’? Unless this basic enigma is sorted, it is difficult to arrive at any firm view on the catchy phrase.
‘States should not be forced for premature elections’
States which are not expecting general Vidhan Sabha elections should not be forced to go for premature general elections for the sake of introduction of coevality only: that will be basic violation of the electoral trust of the people who have elected their Vidhan Sabha representatives for full five years. On the other hand, the longevity of a legislative assembly can not be extended either in the name of coevality, because people have elected their representatives only for five years, and not beyond. Imposing ad hoc administrative arrangements in different states for periods of interregnum in the name of introduction of coevality will also be undemocratic.
‘You view proposed amendments to Constitution as mere formality’
From the tenor of your letter, it appears that you view the proposed amendments to the Constitution as a mere formality that is to be got over with, along with other ‘minor’ matters like preparation of common electoral rolls. Instead of consulting state governments, that are, indeed, the very pillars of our federal Constitution, your letter brusquely informs us (as a political party) that the High-Level Committee is in agreement with the much-touted advantages of simultaneous all-India polls.
‘Why no chief ministers taken on board?’
We object to the most unrepresentative composition of this Committee and point out that no chief ministers are taken on board for fear of receiving practical objections. From the tenor of your correspondence and manner in which you accept half-baked assumptions as given facts, we doubt if the HLC is seriously interested in analysing the demerits of the case.
‘Lok Sabha elections and state elections are different in character’
Your approach fails to consider that Parliamentary elections and State Legislative elections are substantially different in character. The founders of our Constitution deliberately delineated certain subjects for State-level and local consideration and mandated that these would be dealt with by the constituent States. This essential requirement is smothered when they are distracted by issues that require consideration at the national level. Numerous State level issues and debates will just be superseded by the so-called ‘national election’.
‘Issue is about plurality, not imposing an unviable scheme from above’
The fundamental issue is not to discuss “the advantages of simultaneous elections to Parliament and the State legislatures”, as you have put it in your letter under reference. The issue is about why and how to arrange simultaneous elections to the Parliament and the State legislatures in the current circumstances and in the prism of the basic structure of our Constitution. The issue is not about “creating the ecosystem that would enable simultaneous elections”, as you have put it in your letter. The issue is that of evolving the philosophy and correct methodologies for addressing the questions above. The issue is not about imposing an unviable scheme from above. The issue is about plurality.
