The Narendra Modi government’s dramatic moves to convene an out of turn parliament session later this month and set up a panel headed by former President Ramnath Kovind to study the possibility of introducing one nation policy may be part of a ‘shock and awe’ policy rather than any real intent to go ahead with the controversial proposal.
The twin decisions are widely been seen as a precursor to advancing the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, although serious questions arise over the practicality of such drastic moves. It is obvious that the timing of the drama, coinciding with the Mumbai session of the INDIA bloc of opposition parties, is meant to overwhelm the opposition unity efforts, which are progressing at a speed that is most uncomfortable for Prime Minister Modi and his ruling party.
‘Shock and awe’ was a military expression, made popular by former US defence secretary Ronald Rumsfeld, who used it profusely in and out of context in the wake of the American attack on Afghanistan, which unleashed a series of developments that changed the course of contemporary history of the world, making it a much more dangerous place, destroying nations and creating conditions for terrorism to flourish in different parts of the globe. The US and the world at large had to pay dearly for the misstep.
It is anybody’s guess if the Modi government’s awe and shock policy will have similar consequences. But the intent is clear – create confusion and chaos and disrupt the process of opposition unity. In fact, the Mumbai session has had to recast the proceedings so as to address the emerging scenario. It has escalated the finalisation of seat-sharing ahead of other less important issues, such as the selection of a national convenor for the front as also the need to approach the elections with a common PM face. So far so good, as far as the shock and awe goes.
All odds are against an early adoption of one-nation, one-election policy. The limited time frame available as well as the extent of deliberations and legislative processes that are required to put in place such a drastic change virtually make it impossible to achieve any significant progress in the special session, except that some noises can be made.
Of course, the ruling party can decide not to wait until the end of tenure of the current Lok Sabha, but simultaneous elections even in a reasonable number of states would mean that tenures of some of the state assemblies have to be extended or cut short, both of which require constitutional amendments ratified by 50 percent of the total number of states. This does not appear to be practical, but there is a distinct possibility of elections being moderated in a group of states so as to coincide with the parliamentary elections. But that is a long way off simultaneous elections throughout the country.
Elections are due for five state assemblies this year, while seven state assemblies will see their tenures expire next year, along with the Lok Sabha. The states going to polls next year include Maharashtra, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Jharkhand, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. In Maharashtra, Haryana and Arunachal, BJP is in power, while Odisha and Andhra are ruled by parties that are approachable by BJP and may agree to the suggestion of early termination of tenure. In fact, the Law Commission had suggested clubbing together of all states going to poll in the same year.
While it is true that simultaneous elections used to take place in the country until 1967, the political ecosystem obtaining in the country at the moment does not lend itself to any such possibility. During the period of simultaneous elections until 1967, the Congress party was mostly in power and enjoyed stability that ensues from a single party being in power in both the Centre and states.
A drastic change in the situation is contributed by the fact that powerful regional parties have emerged in different parts of the country, which often do not see eye to eye with the ruling party at the Centre, making it difficult have concurrently running tenures. The Centre-states conflict often leads to undesired instabilities, making it difficult to achieve any consensus on such issues. Also, the nature of politics in the country has changed from centric to more regional, in the process ruling any uniformity in the tenures of state assemblies.
Perhaps a good thing about the new suggestions is that the concept of traditional no-confidence motion be coupled with another resolution that expresses confidence in a new government so that the possibility of premature dissolution of the house is avoided. While legislators as a rule do not favour abridgment of tenures, as that will affect their future financial entitlements, the possibility of a new government assuming office on the incumbent one demitting office will promote more stability, particularly in the states. (IPA Service)
By K Raveendran
