Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Ghazala Wahab on the Glorious Days of the Hindi Heartland appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We are gathered on the first anniversary of Comrade Sitaram’s passing away. Knowing that he was General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and that Marxism is the basic ideology which the communist movement follows, I thought I should take the subject of the applicability and indeed the application of Marxist concepts and methods to India.

It is true that Indian criticism and opposition to British rule precedes the communist critique of British rule in India. Because already from the 1880s, Dadabhai Naoroji and his colleagues were sharply criticizing the way India was being exploited by British imperialism. And while today one is devoting oneself to the Marxist critique of British imperialism in India, it is also proper to pay respectful tributes to our own national figures, pre-eminently by Naoroji and R.C. Dutt, but particularly Dadabhai Naoroji, who described in detail how British colonialism was exploiting India. And while they used polite words, their critiques stand valid today as they were at that time.

So when we pay tributes to the earlier scholars, the earlier nationalists, and earlier scholars abroad like Karl Marx himself and Frederick Engels, we also pay tribute to Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C. Dutt in particular for bringing out how Britain was exploiting India.

I am today specially concerned with Karl Marx and the Marxist approach to colonialism in India and its consequences. Karl Marx’s criticism of colonialism was of course included in Capital, Volume One, and also in the subsequent two volumes, and also in his articles contributed to the newspapers in America, which have been published several times, both earlier from Moscow and now also from other places, with one addition coming from New York in 1991.

The communist approach to colonial India precedes the communist movement in India because this approach was first initiated by Karl Marx in his articles from the 1840s onwards, and also by Frederick Engels, in which they pointed out how British imperialism was exploiting India. But from the 1880s onwards, Indian economists, particularly Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C. Dutt, developed that critique, and although they often used courteous words, their content was singularly effective against British justifications of their rule in India. Therefore, as we celebrate what Karl Marx said against colonialism in India, we should also celebrate what Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C. Dutt in the late 19th century all said in criticism and denunciation of British rule and economic exploitation of India.

I have a feeling, I think, that the tribute owed to them is not effectively or adequately recognized in our universities and educational institutions. And I think therefore it is time that we should look at what they found to be wrong and evil in the British exploitation of India. Their publications, both by Dadabhai and Dutt, begin from the 1880s, and they pointed out how India was losing annually a large amount of its income and wealth to Britain—the so-called tribute, the drain of wealth from India. They were therefore the predecessors of communist critics, of Marxist critics, of British rule in India.

Our own communist movement began really in this century. And in the 1920s, various communist groups appeared, particularly influenced by the Soviet revolution of 1917, and created communist groups. Here it is not my intention, nor do I have the time, to go into the various stages in which the formation of the communist movement took place, particularly after 1917 and the Soviet revolution. But it is best to remember that by the 1930s, the Communist Party of India, a single communist party of India, had practically been formed. It had already resisted British repression, the so-called Meerut Conspiracy Case of the 1920s and others.

I’m sorry if I make a diversion because of a kind of piece of information which has not been seen in print, because it came from one of the judges. My father, Mohammad Habib, told me that in the 1930s he went to see one of the judges, Mr. Justice Sulaiman. Sulaiman complained that he was not able to sleep, and my father asked him why. He was Vice-Chancellor, or Chancellor (I forget which) of the Aligarh Muslim University and a judge of the High Court, later on promoted to what was then called the Federal Court at Delhi. He told him that it was because of “these blessed communists.” When the trial took place, he found that they were innocent and he told the British lawyer that what he was saying was absurd—that what he was claiming the communists did was not physically possible.

Justice Sulaiman said he was then called by the British Chief Justice, who said, “Do you know, Sulaiman, your name is being set for the Federal Court,” to which he was appointed later, “and if you mess up this communist case, you know what would happen.” And therefore, Sulaiman said that although he modified the punishments, he upheld the punishments where he intended to say that the law does not justify this kind of case. And therefore, he said, the communists went to prison for a few years more. This was what he told my father, and my father generally communicated this to me when he was reminiscing about previous cases. I found that this was indeed the case: that Justice Sulaiman had modified on appeal the punishments to the communists, but he did not dispense with the punishments; he only reduced them. And soon after, he was appointed a federal judge at Delhi and also won the vice-chancellorship of the Aligarh Muslim University.

So all these things that take place in life have to be considered, and justice certainly was in harm’s way when the cases of communists, particularly the so-called Meerut Conspiracy Case, came before judges. They might reduce the penalty, but they did not expose the fraud. And today, I think whenever we observe or think about the past of the communist movement, let us also think of our predecessors who suffered for us during the ’20s and ’30s and ’40s. That is why I am bringing your attention particularly to the so-called Meerut trials which took place in the 1920s of communist leaders.

As far as the communists were concerned, along with some leaders of the Congress like Jawaharlal Nehru and others, they were not tolerated by the Congress leadership. Again and again within the Congress, there were conflicts between socialists—among whom at that time communists were also counted (the differences with the so-called socialists came later). Sometimes it happened that whenever Jawaharlal Nehru and his supporters shifted, the left even obtained a majority among the Congress delegates, to the consternation of Mahatma Gandhi himself. Well, these are things which relate to some other aspect of history into which I am not going.

But we should remember that by the 1930s, the communists were a fairly important component of the Indian National Congress and often in alliance with the socialists. After the 1930s, however, there was a singular problem posed by the communal division. I think the time has come when even that particular period, roughly from the 1930s to 1947-48, should be freely discussed within the communist movement.

Our difficulty, of course, was that the Congress and Muslim League were pulling in different directions: the Congress for immediate freedom (which communists shared naturally) and the Muslim League for communal division, which fitted ill with communist ideology. How can communists be divided according to whether they were Hindus and Muslims? But there our leaders took a decision which had consequences, and frankly, I think that we are now at a reasonable distance from the 1930s and ’40s. It is time to take a position on that particular problem.

Those of you, and I think there would be many, who have read R. Palme Dutt’s India Today—there’s a whole chapter on India in India Today because this was written in 1945 or so—in which R. Palme Dutt, the major communist spokesman of the time both in England and India, laid out why India should not be divided on communal lines. It’s one of the most effective chapters of his book on India. Either our readers did not read R. Palme Dutt carefully enough, or there were other reasons why the Communist Party at that time decided to treat the Congress and the Muslim League in the same way.

Of course, with the Congress we had difficulties and differences on the question of the war, where after the German invasion of Russia, our position was that the war effort should be supported, whereas the Congress had still a large amount of hesitation on that point. This is not the place to go into a discussion of that. But it is important to realize that after 1941-42, our position with regard to the war was very different from that of the Indian National Congress, and that was one reason for the division.

The decisions that we took under that division, in which we equated the Congress with the Muslim League, is, I think, one which all fair historians should now freely discuss. They were not the same. The Muslim League was a communal organization; the Congress was not. The Muslim League cooperated with the British; the Congress opposed the British. On what ground could we then say that they were the same? That Muslim communists should go into the Muslim League and the others to the Congress? It is time now, I think, to look into our own shortcomings of the ’40s. I believe that this was a wrong decision, that this indeed divided the communist movement on communal grounds.

I’m afraid my memory is very bad; I forget names. But in the 1960s, a very important politician of Pakistan came to our house. He had been my father’s student, and my father had been a supporter of the Congress and the Communist Party—a peculiar position which he held with aplomb because both the Congress and communists were at some time in the ’40s, in particular, at each other’s throats, but by making donations to them both, he kept them satisfied.

Anyway, this chap came in about, I think, the 1960s (I forget his name). He was secretary of the Muslim League, and he began to blame the Communist Party for his discomfort. He said, “I was all right. I was like any communist leader you have here. I did not go to mosques for prayers and all that, and yet the Communist Party sent me to the Muslim League. And because as a communist I had learned to administer and work well, they elected me secretary of the Muslim League in UP. And when the partition came, I didn’t want to go to Pakistan, but the party said that you must organize the party in Pakistan. So I went there, and there’s no party in the name of West Pakistan,” he was talking of, “and I’m totally lost.” And for some reason, he blamed the present communists, including me (and my father was not a communist but a donor to the Communist Party). And he said that “because you did not fight against the Muslim League properly, I have been lost to the communist movement, and I have been lost actually to any serious cause because in Pakistan I have no interest left.”

In any case, the communal problem was a particularly difficult one for the Communist Party. But its decision that Muslim communists should go to the Muslim League and Hindu communists to the Congress, I think, was a very bad decision, and I think we should freely discuss these matters of the past because they have always shadowed the present. We should recognize that to put Congress and Muslim League at one level was not only a mistake but a grievous one. There was a communal party and a national party. The Congress at least had a socialist program at that time; they called it socialist. We might not call it socialist, but it was for public welfare. The Muslim League had no such program. How could you then ask Muslim communists to go to the Muslim League?

And therefore, as I was saying, a student of my father’s, whose name I’ve unfortunately forgotten because now I’ve become very old, came to our house in the 1960s complaining that the Communist Party was responsible for his discomfort. He said, “I did not want to go to the Muslim League, but P.C. Joshi called me and said, ‘Since you are a Muslim and we have very few Muslims, and we want to have a voice in the Muslim League, you should go there.’ And because the Communist Party had trained me well, I soon became secretary of the UP Muslim League, and then [went to] Pakistan and became a High Court, a Supreme Court judge in Pakistan.” And he blamed all this for his departure from Marxism. He blamed all this on Comrade P.C. Joshi and his policy of appeasement of the Muslim League.

I think it is time, of course, when we are discussing the history of the Communist Party, to freely consider whether this decision of the ’30s and ’40s of equating Congress with the Muslim League, and in effect treating Congress as a Hindu organization—because once you say that Muslim communists go to the Muslim League, then you are treating Congress as a Hindu organization—this was an enormous error. I think there should be free consideration of how these things occurred in the history of our party.

I think, however, that there are also difficulties for the communist movement which we should recognize, particularly because when Germany attacked Russia, what should have been our attitude? The only socialist country in the world attacked by the leading fascist party of the world, the leading power of the world. Should we then continue to say that the war is an imperialist war, or should we say that the character of the war has changed from a war between two imperialist powers, Germany and England? It has become a war between the fascist powers—Germany and Japan—and the leading workers’ republic, the Soviet Union, and our neighbor, people’s China.

There may be many who might think that the decision our party took was a mistake. But we decided that the war had changed from an inter-imperialist war; it had become a people’s war once Russia was attacked and Japan intensified its invasion of China. There are many who think that this was a wrong decision, that it therefore put us outside the Indian national movement because, remember, this was the time of the Quit India resolution of 1942—a resolution which even today looks very awkward when you think that Japan was on the Indian frontier. Was it right at that time to say that the British should quit India? That there should be immediate movement and agitation for it?

If you look at Jawaharlal Nehru’s own papers, far from trying to oppose the British government at that time, he was thinking of how the Japanese invasion would be tackled by Indians, how they would fight Japanese soldiers. Japan was the enemy in his mind. But for some reason, when the actual Congress passed the resolution, Nehru also concurred. And I think it is proper for our part today to question the wisdom of the “Quit India” resolution of the Congress of 1942, which actually initiated the so-called Quit India movement at a time when the Japanese were on our borders.

And you know what was the Indian people’s response? The police terror was there. There were demonstrations, but nothing like the demonstrations when earlier Congress movements had taken place—nothing like those. So although the socialists, in particular, then began to use bombs and so on—even in the Aligarh railway station, two people were killed by a socialist bomb, night policemen, nothing but ordinary people on the platform—and these things occurred because of the Quit India resolution.

I think it is right to say that the Quit India resolution was mistimed, that it should not have been raised at that time, that the enemy—Japanese and German fascism—should have been identified as the main enemy, with the British to be tackled later. I think this is what we should say today. And this is what the Communist Party then said, and I think we should stand by what the Communist Party’s position remained: that the initial task, once Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union, was to defeat the fascist powers, and then later on to tackle British imperialism. I think one further matter which needs our attention is that the Indian freedom movement should not be regarded as purely Indian; that we had friends in Britain. The British Labor Party had said even during the war that if it came to power after the war, it would free India. There had been, as you know, British communists who went to prison in India in the 1920s and early 1930s.

My wife and I were present at the funeral of one such British MP whose daughter, to our surprise, didn’t know that her father had been in an Indian jail for supporting the Congress movement. When we told her this, she was greatly surprised because, you know, it is one of the customs of the British that they don’t boast. So the father had never boasted about his imprisonment in India to his own daughter. When we told her about it, she was very gratified, but by that time, her father had been buried. Unfortunately, I’ve forgotten the name of the Labour MP. We still remember there was such a time. At his funeral—because he had gone to prison in the Meerut Conspiracy Case—the British High Commission, because of Mrs. Pandit, I think, sent a very large wreath to his funeral, and the wreath said, “Gratitude of India.”

Now clearly, the Indian national movement had its friends abroad, and today also we should honour them. As I’ve said, three British MPs went to prison in India for their support of the Indian National Movement. Today we are observing the memory of our past, deceased communist comrade. I think that while it is of course proper that all of us have assembled to celebrate and observe his memory, it is also important that we should also further support the cause for which he had stood: the cause of socialism and people’s democracy in India.

Before closing, I would say that both socialism and democracy are priceless values. One can’t be of value without the other. To think that socialism can be imposed by a dictatorship is, I think, a fallacy. And therefore, in India today, we should not only propagate socialism, but we should also propagate full democracy—that India should have a socialism which its people want, for which we have convinced its people. And today, as we observe the demise of a very precious comrade of ours, a major leader of our party, let us also consider within ourselves (I would not say take a pledge) but consider within ourselves how we can promote the further improvement of the cause of reason and socialism in this country, and how we can bring about a socialism which is, as far as possible, accepted by the vast majority of our fellow citizens.

Well, I think I have said what I wish to lay before you. Nothing is novel there; nothing innovative. But I think a reminder of these particular points should also have a place here. And therefore, while ending, I request you to consider, if you have not already considered, the points that I have raised.

Thank you.

Read the Malayalam translation of the speech here

Video link of the speech:

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Protection of Democracy and Socialism Is The Way to Remember Yechury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

He is joined by his daughter Ananya Kasaravalli and moderator Anand Haridas. This conversation is published by The AIDEM in two parts.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Girish The Master Filmaker and His Art | KaIFF | The AIDEM | Part 01 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One commonly heard statement is that – ‘when the Constitution was first formulated, when Indian democracy started, for the first 10-15 years there was one nation, there was one election’. However, the events of 1956 paint a different picture. Nehru’s dismissal of the Kerala government led to a by-election, marking a significant shift in the political landscape. While history shows that simultaneous elections were once the norm, the dissolution of governments in Kerala sparked midterm elections. In 1971, Indira Gandhi further separated Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections, setting a precedent for separate elections to be held since then. This historical context sheds light on the evolution of India’s electoral process over the years.

Now, when they say work comes to a standstill, as I said, model code doesn’t stop any work except new policy, new schemes. As elections are taking place in Delhi, tell me is your life here in Thrissur getting affected? Do you even know that an election is taking place? You would not know, even if the election was to take place in your neighboring constituency. It may be said, ‘look, elections are happening all the time’. It may be happening all the time, somewhere or the other, because India is a big country, but it is important to recognize that firstly, the impact of elections is localized to specific constituencies for a limited period of time and secondly, we have been doing multiphase elections (seven phases).

Previously, I defended the multiphase election system, but now I say that it is high time we revert to single phase elections for these reasons. The rationale behind conducting multiphase elections may not be widely understood, as Kerala has consistently held single-phase elections. However, Maharashtra, which previously conducted elections in a single phase, recently divided it into four phases, with only one phase held last month. This raises questions of consistency and integrity in the electoral process. Is this approach not contradictory and lacking in transparency?

If you wanted a simultaneous election, but where it used to be simultaneous you staggered them into four because it suited you. So, this proposal lacks sincerity. Now the only reason why we do multiphase elections is because we do an analysis of the booths (we have 1 million booths). There are some normal booths, some sensitive booths, some hyper sensitive booths. Hyper sensitive booths require more advanced security, sensitive ones require normal security, and normal booths can manage with policemen.

Now, paramilitary forces were introduced by Mr. T.N Seshan in the ’90s. Their availability used to be limited, we used to see whether the available forces could take care of all the sensitive booths, they could not. So, we had to recycle them. We used to circulate them from one booth to the second, to the third, to the fourth, with the same force so that it was used up to 5-7 times. Now, the experience has changed. These forces take four to five days to pack up and move and reach the new place and deploy, but the ‘gundas’ who used to capture booths travel in their swanky SUVs in 4 hours.

So, having multiple phases is proving to be counterproductive and more so specifically, in the age of social media, where in 3 minutes the country can be set on fire on the basis of a rumor and with the rise of artificial intelligence they can even create fake videos, fake rumors. Therefore, it is in our interest as well as in the interest of good elections, to compress the election and come out very quickly instead of prolonging it indefinitely, almost two and a half months, three months. We can do it in 32 days. I’ve mentioned in several articles, we can do it. Law requires 26 days, we can give 3-4 days extra for political parties to decide the candidates. But they don’t talk about it, they don’t even look at these proposals because it does not serve to fulfill their vested interests.

Now what is the Election Commission’s stand? For the Election Commission it is a brilliant idea. Why? Because the voter is the same wherever you go, whether it is Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha or Panchayat, voters are the same. Where you go to vote, the booths are the same, the people who set up those booths, the District Administration, are the same. Security operators, they are the same. Therefore, conveniently, we create a safe booth for you and instead of pressing one machine, you press three machines. So, we conduct elections once in 5 years and play golf for 5 years, but our convenience and our comfort cannot be the concern. Our job is to conduct elections wherever it is happening; if it is happening all the time, somewhere or the other, that’s our job. So, whose time are you trying to save we don’t understand.

When the proposal was referred to the Parliamentary committee they also could not come to a conclusion, it went to Niti Ayog,who also suggested a two-phase election spanning two and a half years. Now, what is the big deal if you are not able to achieve one election in five years and you wanted two and a half years? What is the benefit? What is all this fuss about? Now, one thing which they have been saying is that in simultaneous elections, an argument is given, that the causes, the issues get mixed up. When you are voting for your Lok Sabha MP, you have some other issues in mind, like the Ukraine policy and what should be our policy in Gaza, and what should be our policy towards the Middle East and America. But when you’re voting for your Sarpanch, what is the issue before you? The drain in front of your house which is stinking and so when you are voting for your Sarpanch, would you be looking at Ukraine policy? You would only consider local issues, but, if you merge the elections, the local issues will get subsumed by the national issues, which is wrong. Because the issues cannot be allowed to be subsumed but they say– ‘…no no people are very intelligent, voters are very intelligent, look at Odisha, in the same election for Lok Sabha they voted one party and for Vidhan Sabha they voted another party’. Although, it was not the case this time as they voted for the same party. This is what they have argued.

There is a study which is stunning, done by an organization called IDFC Institute and they analyzed voting behavior over 16 years on 2,600 assembly constituencies over 16 elections and what did they find? That if there is a simultaneous election, the voters have a 77% chance of voting for the same party. But when it is staggered it comes down to 61% and additionally, if it is staggered by longer duration it changes the result totally– an example of which is Delhi. The Aam Aadmi Party got 67 out of 70 seats in the Vidhan Sabha election, 6 months later, in Lok Sabha, all seven seats went to the BJP. This has happened twice.So, to say, staggered elections are better because the local issues and the national issues do not get mixed up and to say that the voter is intelligent, he or she votes consciously for different levels, is wrong and this study proves the point.

The final aspect to consider is the committee led by former President Kovind. When the government faced challenges in reaching a consensus, they established a high-level committee with former President Kovind at the helm. It is important to note that involving a former President in political activities is ethically questionable. The President serves as the head of the country and should remain apolitical. By appointing him to lead a government committee, we risk compromising the integrity of the office.

It is naive to assume that simply because a former President is heading a committee, the public will unquestioningly support their recommendations. On the contrary, it is likely that there will be criticism.

What this committee did well and very quickly was talk to all political parties, they invited suggestions from the people, and they received 21,000 representations. This committee said that 80% of people supported simultaneous elections but the critics point out that this result is skewed because the proforma which was sent to the people was only in Hindi and English. If sent in Malayalam, the result would have been different. If sent in Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada, the result would have been different. Seeing it was sent only in English, the responses came only from the Hindi speaking people. Therefore, this is also not a great figure to talk about. Then, of the 47 political parties who responded, 32 supported simultaneous elections but were all from NDA. They supported it and all 15 parties opposed it because they belonged to the opposition. Our sources indicate that while the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) may publicly support certain actions, privately they may view them as an attack on federalism. For example, if the Kerala government and Chief Minister were to consider dissolving the assembly, this decision would ultimately be subject to approval by the Lok Sabha. If the Lok Sabha were to be dissolved, all other state assemblies would follow suit.Why should this happen? Consider the scenario of holding simultaneous elections – many of you may recall the Vajpayee government falling in just 13 days. If it happened once, it could happen again. If the Lok Sabha were to dissolve, would we then be required to hold elections for all 28 states simultaneously? Why should the well-being of individuals across the country be impacted by political events in Delhi, caused by a party’s betrayal or any other unforeseen circumstances?

As the saying goes– ‘Don’t try to repair something which is not broken’. Similarly, the system is working and if you tinker with it, chances are that you’ll probably create problems. You’ll break the system.

The bill currently under consideration includes references to five Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, I will be discussing Article 182A, which is a key addition to the legislation. This article states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in articles 83 and 172.” Article 83 pertains to the duration of the Lok Sabha, while Article 172 addresses the duration of a legislative assembly, both of which specify a term of five years. However, Article 182A introduces a new provision that states when the Lok Sabha is dissolved, all members will also be dissolved. This raises questions about the necessity and implications of such a provision.

Furthermore, despite being a high-level committee, what was the stance taken by this committee? The committee stated that when referring to simultaneous elections, they are specifically addressing the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections, excluding Panchayats. This raises the question – what is the rationale behind this exclusion? If Panchayat elections are conducted separately, it no longer aligns with the concept of simultaneous elections. This deviation undermines the objective of streamlining the electoral process.

The second point raised is regarding the simultaneous holding of Parliament elections and Vidhan Sabha elections, while Panchayat elections are to be held separately after a period of 100 days. It is important to note that any election held after this 100-day period is considered a new and distinct election, necessitating a completely different set of arrangements.

Consider the sheer number of individuals involved in the electoral process – approximately 15 million government employees, school teachers, and junior staff members. Requiring them to participate in multiple elections within a short timeframe can lead to fatigue and inefficiency.

Have you ever served as a presiding officer or polling officer during an election? If so, would you be willing to undertake such duties again within a span of 300 days? The idea of simultaneous elections loses its appeal when elections are separated by such a significant time gap.

The committee tasked with examining this proposal was not given the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate its advantages and disadvantages. Instead, they were simply instructed to find a way to implement it. The recommended Constitutional Amendments and legal changes fail to address the concerns raised by critics, including the high costs and potential policy paralysis associated with the proposal.Numerous individuals, including writers, politicians, lawyers, and constitutional experts, have expressed reservations about the necessity of altering the current electoral system. The proposal, in its diluted form, lacks the moral authority needed to justify such sweeping changes.

But this kind of stubbornness is disturbing the Constitutional scheme of things, this is surely an attack on federalism of the country.The determination of your political future should be left in the hands of your state’s people, rather than being dictated by the central government. This principle forms the foundation of our democratic system. As this issue is brought before the Supreme Court, we remain hopeful that they will recognize any flaws in the proposed legislation. In 1973, the Supreme Court established the concept of the basic structure of the Constitution. This principle asserts that while the Constitution can be amended, certain fundamental elements cannot be altered. The basic structure is parliamentary system of election, not presidential election. The basic structure is federalism. The basic structure is secularism. These pillars of our democracy are essential and must be upheld, even in the face of parliamentary acts or constitutional amendments.

This article was first published on The AIDEM

The post The History and Politics of the “One Nation, One Election” Idea (Part 2) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The origins of the ‘One Nation, One Election’ had begun with discussions about simultaneous election. This had gone on fir many years and even before Mr. Modi became the Prime Minister. He talked about the idea of holding simultaneous elections in a 2013 (BJP) party meeting, while addressing party workers.

But he was not the first to talk about this idea; in 2010 Mr. L.K. Advani had written about it and even earlier, a Law Commission Report had talked about it. And long long back, Mr. Vasant Sathe of the Congress party had talked about it. So, Mr. Modi actually only flagged the issue and significantly, he asked for a national debate on the subject and for arriving at a consensus.

Debate happened for 10 years, but consensus did not happen. The logical conclusion should have been if there is no consensus you should drop the idea. Then the government decided that even if there is no consensus we are going to push it down the throat of the nation and they brought this bill. They introduced the bill in Parliament which is going to be discussed soon. Which is what makes the subject very topical, although discussion on it has been going on for 11 years.

Now, originally when the Prime Minister talked about it, what are the things he had said? He said the cost of elections is so high and we have repeated elections and it becomes a very costly thing. The cost referred to here means two things– cost to the Election Commission or the government for managing the election, which is just about Rs 4,500 crore. This is nothing for a democracy of our size. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. The other is the cost of politicians with their campaign; in fact that is where the problem lies. There is a law prescribing a ceiling on election expenditure. You can’t spend more than the ceiling, which is revised from time to time.

For Vidhan Sabha it must be about 40 lakhs, but we know for fact that people are spending crores on every election. Whether Panchayat elections or Vidhan Sabha or Lok Sabha, they are spending crores in violation of the law. It has become so that only the rich people can contest. Poor people cannot contest elections anymore now.

One anomaly here is that while the law prescribes a ceiling on individual expenditure, there is no ceiling on expenditure by the political party. If I am a candidate and as a candidate I can’t spend more than 40 lakhs but my party can spend 40 crores on me, so what is the purpose of the ceiling? It gets defeated. So, I have been suggesting that if you are so conscious of the cost why don’t you put a ceiling on political party expenditure? The cost will come down drastically and instead of this long route of ‘One Nation, One Election’, we’ll have an easy solution. But that is not their intention.

Now, as I said initially they used to talk of simultaneous elections but later on they introduced the word ‘Nation’– ‘One Nation’. The moment you talk of nation, our patriotism gets aroused. So, for that purpose One Nation One Election. Now, India is a unique nation. It’s the most diverse country in the world, it’s a mini Commonwealth with 22 official languages. Here (at Thrissur) I was hearing Malayalam, yesterday in Chennai I was hearing Tamil, that is not what we hear in Delhi, we hear Hindi.

So, India is a mosaic of cultures, a mosaic of languages of all varieties and that is the beauty of India. America is a big country also, although it is one fourth of India in size, but from East coast to West Coast, it has the same language. Russia is huge, has 11 time zones, but the same language throughout. But here we have 22 official languages and hundreds of other recognized languages. Every major religion of the world we have in India.

The plurality of India is our asset, it is our unique aspect which we should be proud of and not disturb. But the attempt being made now with One Nation One Election is to carry out this very disturbance.. In fact, in one of my articles, I said that the next slogan will be ‘One Nation, One Political Party’, ‘One Nation, One Leader’. And why have elections every five years? Appoint leader for life. What is this– in the name of One Nation? One nation and many people, one nation and many languages, one nation many cultures– that was our national slogan all through and that is being played around with now and that’s very wrong.

The second reason given for one nation one election or simultaneous election proposal was that it leads to work paralysis, as the work (of the nation) comes to a standstill because of the Model Code. That is a lie. I will request all of you and as many of you who can, please download the Model Code of Conduct. It is 10-12 pages of small reading when you look at the overall functioning of the Election Commission. It does not stop anything, except two things– you cannot announce a new policy and you cannot make transfers after elections have been announced.

Now, you are talking only about a new policy, why is it that they say– because of this Model Code we cannot do public good? We cannot announce policies? Who stopped you from announcing new policies for 4 years and 11 months? Why is it that all the bright ideas for new policies come to your mind 2 weeks before elections? It’s totally illogical. So, nothing really stops.

In fact, when I was in the election commission we have repeatedly called ministers, along with the Cabinet Secretary Mr. Chandrashekhar, who was originally from Kerala. He used to say to please tell the ministries not to stop anything, because the model code doesn’t expect to stop anything, other than new schemes and official transfers. If you have to transfer, you can do it before but not after the elections have been announced.

The other thing or argument is about the party workers’ time. What is party workers’ time for? For electioneering. So, because of the election their work stops. What stops? Maybe the hate speech, maybe the polarization, all the kind of activities which they were doing and are not able to do. But elections are a great opportunity for them to polarize the country, they’re doing it regularly. The important thing is, the Prime Minister mentioned very clearly that when we’re talking of simultaneous elections, we’re talking of all three levels– Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and the Panchayat. But you would notice if you have been reading the newspapers and watching the media, the debate forgot about Panchayat and they were only talking of Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha.

How can you ignore Panchayats? Lok Sabha has 543 MPs, Vidhan Sabha all together have 4,120 MLAs, but Panchayats have 30 lakh members of Panchayat. That is the major part of democracy, how can you brush it aside? Constitutionally they are as important as Lok Sabha elections, but from the debate it disappeared.

Now, after the suggestion was made, a parliamentary committee went into it and they also talked of massive expenditure on Election, and about stoppage of the delivery of essential services. But there are some political leaders here, who would agree that our experience is that during elections, services improve. When an election is being held in the constituency they will make sure you get electricity nonstop. They may cut electricity in the neighboring District and transfer it to you. Everything will improve and to say that because of the election the service delivery gets affected is wrong; it improves and because of so many announcements and the freebies that come along with.

But along with this we should also note that when elections are staggered, it leads to more corruption because money is used in the elections. Unaccounted money, black money, distribution of liquor, etc. Casteism is also promoted; 70 years ago we hardly knew about caste, many people did not even know their caste, and now because of the election they know their sub caste and sub caste within sub caste. Everything they know because that is how the vote banks are created.Communalism also increases; you would have noticed, that close to election communalism increases to polarise the community.

There is a book which I have written– ‘Population Myth’, ‘Islam, Family Planning, and Politics in India’, and here is a small observation which I had made– ‘Are Muslims overtaking the Hindus?’; that is the slogan they are mouthing constantly – ‘you know the Muslims are going to overtake 80% of the people’, the Hindus are being made scared of 14% people. This is unique in the country, 80% of people are scared of 14%, a small segment of people. Every day they say, ‘these guys, they will kill you’, and it is leading to polarisation. Polarisation has become a winning electoral strategy.

Now, the arguments against– I was attending one meeting where Biju Janata Dal MP, Mahtab, made a very interesting statement. Now he is in the BJP; he said– ‘…have we asked the people? What do people want?’. He said, people love frequent elections. Why? Because for most poor people, this is the only power they have. At least because of the election the leaders come with folded hands to their door, otherwise we have seen how many times the MLAs and MPs go missing for 5 years, they don’t come back. People have to put posters in the streets– “missing, finder will get 50,000 Rupees”, because they never come back. But, at least on account of frequent elections of all kinds, they come back to your door. Therefore, free staggered elections actually is not a bad idea.

Now, the estimate of the 2019 election by the Center for Media Studies was Rupees 60,000 crores were spent by the political parties. Personally, I feel that this expenditure is not a bad idea, this is recycling of the politician’s money which goes to the poor, to the labourers, to the auto drivers, to the people who make posters. At least the money is being circulated instead of lying in trunks and suitcases of the politicians. And what is 60,000 crores? No big deal. In any case, I’ve told you that if you really want to reduce spending, that is to device ways and means to cut political party expenditure.

End of part 01. Part 02 to be published on 4 February 2025 

Full Speech is available on The AIDEM YouTube Channel

The Article was first published on The AIDEM

The post The History and Politics of the “One Nation One Election” Idea (Part 01) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

He specifically points out that the country’s democratic and constitution values are facing a unique situation, where there are big challenges threatening sabotage on the one side and strong affirmation, on the other side, from sections of the population to protect these values. Hegde cites the 2024 Lok Sabha elections as a case in point. His talk was at the Chavara Cultural Centre, Kochi, Kerala.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post It is Time to Renew Our Constitutional Vows – Sanjay Hegde appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Olympic rings: as a small girl from a small village I did not know what was the Olympics or what these rings meant. As a small girl, I dream of things like long hair, flaunting a mobile phone in my hand and doing all these things that any young girl would normally dream of.

My father, an ordinary bus driver, would tell me that one day he would see his daughter fly high in a plane while he would drive on the road below, that only I would turn my father’s dreams into a reality. I don’t want to say it, but I think I was his favourite child because I was the youngest of the three. When he used to tell me about this I used to laugh at the absurd thought of it, it did not mean much to me. My mother, who could have a whole story written on the hardships of her life, only dreamt that all her children would one day will live a life better than she did. Being independent and her kids being up on their own feet was enough of a dream for her. Her wishes and dreams were much more simple than my father’s.

But the day my father left us, all I was left with were his thoughts and words about flying in that plane. I was confused about it’s meaning then but held that dream close to me anyway. My mother’s dream was now further away because a couple months after my father’s death she was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer. Here began the journey of three kids who would lose their childhood to support their single mother. Soon my dreams of long hair, a mobile phone faded as I faced the reality of life and got into the race of survival.

But survival taught me a lot. Seeing my mother’s hardships, never-give-up attitude and fighting spirit is what makes me the way I am. She taught me to fight for what is rightfully mine. When I think about courage I think about her and it is this courage that helps me fight every fight without thinking about the outcome.

Despite a difficult road ahead we as a family never lost our faith in god and always trusted that he had planned the right things for us. Mother always said God will never let bad things happen to good people. I believed this even more when I crossed paths with Somvir, my husband, soulmate, companion and best friend for life. Somvir has taken every place in my life with his companionship and supported me with each role he took. To any we were equal partners when we faced a challenge would be wrong, for he sacrificed at each step and took my hardships, shielding me always. He placed my journey above his and offered his companionship with utmost loyalty, dedication and honesty. If not for him, I cannot imagine being here, continuing my fight and taking each day head-on. This is only possible because I know he is standing with me, behind me and when needed in front of me, always protecting me.

My journey here has allowed me to meet so many people, most good and some bad. In the past 1.5-2 years, a lot has happened off and on the mat. My life took many turns, felt like life took a stop for good and there was no way out from the pit we were in. But the people around me had honesty in them, they had goodwill and massive support for me. These people and their faith in me was so strongly grounded, it is because of them that I could continue through the challenges and get through the past 2 years.

For my journey on the mat, my support team for the past two years has played a huge part.

Dr. Dinshaw Pardiwala. This is not a new name in Indian Sports. For me, and I think for many other Indian athletes, he is not just a doctor but an angel in disguise sent by god. When I had stopped believing in myself after facing injuries, it was his belief, work and faith in me that got me back on my feet again. He has operated on me not once but thrice (both knees and one elbow) and has shown me how resilient the human body can be. His dedication, kindness and honesty towards his work and towards Indian Sports is something no one will doubt including God. I’m forever grateful to him and his entire team for their work and dedication. As a part of the Indian contingent having him present at the Paris Olympics was a god’s gift for all fellow athletes.

Dr. Wayne Patrick Lombard. He has helped me through the most difficult journey that an athlete faces not once but twice. Science is one side, no doubt about his expertise, but his kind, patient and creative approach toward handling complicated injuries has gotten me so far. Both the times I was injured and operated it was his work and efforts that made me bounce back from the bottom. He taught me how to take one day at a time and every session with him has felt like a natural stressbuster. I see him as an elder brother, always checking on me even when we were not working together.

Woller Akos. Anything I write about him will always be less. In the world of Women’s Wrestling, I have found him to be the best coach, best guide and best human, able to handle any situation with his calmness, patience and confidence. He does not have the word impossible in his dictionary and he is always ready with a plan whenever we face a tough situation on or off the mat. There were times when I doubted myself, and was shitting away from my internal focus and he would know exactly what to say and how to bring me back on my path. He was more than a coach, my family in Wrestling. He was never hungry to take credit for my victory and success, always humble and taking a step back as soon as his work was done on the mat. But I want to give him the recognition he much deserves, whatever I do will never be enough to thank him for his sacrifices, for the time he spent away from his family. I can never repay him for the time lost with his two small boys. I wonder if they know what their father has done for me and if they understand how important his contributions have been. All I can do today is tell the world that if it hadn’t been for you I would not have done on the mat what I have done.

Ashwini Jeevan Patil. The first day we met in 2022, immediate security I felt by the way she took care of me that day, her confidence was enough to make me feel that she could take care of wrestlers and this difficult game. Through the past 2.5 years she went through this journey with me like it was her own, every competition, win and loss, every injury and rehab journey was hers as much as it was mine. This is the first time I met a physiotherapist who has shown this much dedication and reverence towards me and my journey. Only the both of us really know what we went through before every training, after every training session and in the moments in between.

Tajinder Kaur. The journey of my weight loss post-surgery for the past year was as challenging as rehabbing the injury. Cutting over 10kgs while taking care of an injury and preparing for the Olympics is no easy task. I remember when I first told you about playing in the 50kgs category and the way you reassured me that we would achieve this while taking care of the injury simultaneously. It was your persistent encouragement and your reminders about our goal, the Olympic gold, that helped me get through the weight cut.

Olympic Gold Quest (OGQ) and team. (Viren Rasquinha Sir, Yatin Bhatkar, Mugdha Barve – Psychologist, Mayank Singh Garia – SnC Coach, Arvind, Shubham, Paryas, Yugam – Sparring partners and many others working behind the curtain) I cannot imagine the upward journey Indian Sports has had without the contributions of OGQ. What this entire team has achieved in the past decades is all because of the people in this team and their honest passion towards sports. In two of the most difficult times in recent years, one – post-Tokyo Olympics in 2021, and two – post the Wrestler’s protest and ACL surgery in 2023, it was because of their backing and constant support that I could overcome. Not a day passed by without them checking in, making sure I was safe, progressing and on the right path. Me and my many fellow athletes in this generation are very very lucky to have OGQ, an organisation made up of and founded by some legendary athletes who take care of us.

CDM (Chef-de-Mission) Gagan Narang sir and the Olympic team support staff. I met Gagan sir in close acquaintance for the first time and his kindness and empathy towards an athlete was exactly what is needed in high-pressure situation like the games. I want to appreciate the genuine efforts of the entire team that worked day and night for the Indian contingent in the games Village. The recovery room team, masseuse was something I had never experienced in my entire career during the games.

During the wrestlers protest I was fighting hard to protect the sanctity of women in India, the sanctity and values of our Indian flag. But when I look at the pictures of me with the Indian flag from 28th May 2023, it haunts me. It was my wish to have the Indian flag fly high this Olympics, to have a picture of the Indian flag with me that truly represents it’s value and restores it’s sanctity. I felt that by doing this it will correctly reprimand what the flag went through and what wrestling went through. I really was hoping to show that to my fellow Indians.

There is so much more to say and so much more to tell but words will never be enough and maybe I will speak again when the time feels right. On the night of 6th August and the morning of 7th August, all I want to say is that we did not give up, our efforts did not stop, and we did not surrender but the clock stopped and the time was not fair. So was my fate. To my team, my fellow Indians and my family, it feels like the goal that we were working towards and what we had planned to achieve is unfmished, that something might always remain missing, and that things might never be the same again. Maybe under different circumstances, I could see myself playing till 2032, because the fight in me and wrestling in me will always be there. I can’t predict what the future holds for me, and what awaits me in this journey next, but I am sure that I will continue to fight always for what I believe in and for the right thing.

First Published on The Aidem.

The post Vinesh Arrives in India With A Resolve To Fight appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: The Aidem

The post Bangladesh Situation Tumultuous, But Does Not Signify Islamic Extremist Dominance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Elections And The Future Of The Gyanvapi Masjid appeared first on SabrangIndia.