On Sunday, Mallikarjun Kharge, the Congress party's chief, vehemently dismissed the central government's assertions regarding cost savings associated with the simultaneous conduct of elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. Through a communication posted on X (formerly known as Twitter), Kharge, who serves as the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, presented a compelling counterargument. He contended that the expenses incurred by the Election Commission during the period spanning from 2014 to 2019 amounted to approximately Rs 5,500 crore. In his assessment, this financial outlay represents merely a fraction of the central government's overall budgetary expenditure.
Kharge went on to castigate the proposal for synchronized elections, asserting that the ruling central government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, harbors intentions of gradually transforming democratic India into an authoritarian regime. According to Kharge, the implementation of the "One Nation, One Election" concept would constitute a grave threat to the foundations of Indian democracy, its cherished Constitution, and the established and time-tested electoral procedures.
Expressing skepticism about the composition and purpose of the central government's panel, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which was convened to assess the feasibility of adopting the 'One Nation, One Election' initiative, Kharge posed probing questions. He questioned whether this committee possessed the requisite expertise and suitability to deliberate upon what is arguably the most radical upheaval in the Indian electoral process.
Kharge characterizes the establishment of this committee by the central government as a mere gimmick, a subterfuge aimed at undermining the federal structure of India.
Moreover, the Congress chief raises the crucial issue of whether the decision concerning 'One Nation, One Election' should be made without consulting the national and state-level political parties. He queries whether such a monumental undertaking should proceed without the involvement of the states and their duly elected governments.
In addition to disputing the purported cost savings, Kharge addressed the arguments put forth by proponents of 'One Nation, One Election,' who claim that it would ensure policy and program continuity between the central and state governments. Kharge suggests that if the Model Code of Conduct poses an obstacle, it can be modified through measures like shortening the duration of the election moratorium or relaxing restrictions on developmental activities during the election season. He advocates for a broader consensus among political parties on this matter.
Kharge also accuses the BJP of displaying a pattern of toppling elected governments, thereby disregarding the people's mandate and leading to a proliferation of by-elections for parliamentary and assembly constituencies, numbering 436 since 2014. He contends that the BJP's unquenchable thirst for power has eroded the efficacy of the anti-defection law, rendering it toothless.
In response to historical precedents cited by proponents of 'One Nation, One Election,' Kharge highlights that in the past, India did not have as many states nor did it have a staggering 30.45 lakh elected representatives in its panchayats. He argues that the future of these myriad elected representatives cannot be decided in a single sweep.
Kharge concludes by cautioning against hasty and disruptive initiatives, emphasizing the importance of considering alternative electoral reforms to avoid potential disasters, likening such recklessness to other disruptive ideas put forward by Prime Minister Modi.
