Does One Nation One Election Change our Politics? | Dr Jayaprakash Narayan on Simultaneous Elections

Summary

In this discussion on FDR India, Dr. J. Prash Naran addresses the concept of 'One Nation, One Election,' suggesting it's not a well-thought-out move. He argues that simultaneous elections require a constitutional amendment and consensus, which are currently unattainable. Dr. Naran points out that such a system could undermine democracy by confusing voter intentions and potentially strengthening regional parties. He emphasizes the need for clear accountability in government tiers and advocates for electoral reforms to enhance democracy rather than simplifying the electoral process.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The proposal for 'One Nation, One Election' in India faces significant constitutional hurdles, requiring a 2/3 majority in both houses of Parliament and potentially the consent of most states.
• 🤔 The idea of simultaneous elections is not a new one, but its implementation could undermine the Westminster model of governance, which allows for the dissolution of the house to overcome political impasses.
• 🗳️ The current electoral system in India often leads to confusion among voters about the roles and responsibilities of different tiers of government, which could be exacerbated by simultaneous elections.
• 📉 The speaker argues that simultaneous elections could potentially set back democracy by encouraging voters to cast ballots based on sentiment rather than informed decisions about government performance.
• 🔄 The historical context of India's independence and the initial phases of nation-building allowed for simultaneous elections due to a unified national mood and trust in leadership, which is not present today.
• 💡 To improve democracy, the focus should be on clarifying the roles of different government tiers, ensuring local accountability, and educating voters on the impact of their votes.
• 🌐 The speaker suggests that regional parties might actually be strengthened under a simultaneous election system because voters' dissatisfaction with state governments would not be diluted by national sentiment.
• 💰 While simultaneous elections might save on the cost of conducting polls, the potential loss to democratic processes and accountability could be much greater.
• 🚫 The current political climate and lack of consensus among parties make the proposal for simultaneous elections unlikely to succeed in the near term.
• 🏢 Centralization of power and the disconnect between voters and the delivery of services are key issues that need to be addressed to strengthen democracy, rather than focusing on the timing of elections.

Q & A

What is the main topic of discussion in the FDR India interview with Dr. J. Prash Naran?

The main topic of discussion is the proposal of 'One Nation, One Election' and its implications for Indian democracy.

What is Dr. J. Prash Naran's stance on the idea of simultaneous elections in India?

Dr. J. Prash Naran is against the idea of simultaneous elections, citing that it is not well thought out, requires a constitutional amendment, and could potentially set back democracy.

Why does Dr. J. Prash Naran believe that simultaneous elections are not feasible in the current political climate?

He believes it's not feasible because it requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Parliament, which is not currently available, and also because it's a contentious issue that the opposition has vowed to oppose.

What are the three serious problems Dr. J. Prash Naran identifies with the concept of simultaneous elections?

The three problems are: 1) It requires a constitutional amendment with 2/3 majority in both houses of Parliament, which is unlikely. 2) It's not sustainable due to the Westminster model of government where the head of government can dissolve the house. 3) It could set back democracy by making voters more confused about whom they are voting for and what tier of government they are voting for.

How does Dr. J. Prash Naran suggest improving the content of democracy in India?

He suggests improving democracy by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of different tiers of government, decentralizing power, and making local power more accountable to the people.

What historical context does Dr. J. Prash Naran provide regarding simultaneous elections in India?

He mentions that in the early post-Independence era, India had simultaneous elections for the union and states for a few general elections, but this was during a national building phase with a different political and social context.

How does Dr. J. Prash Naran view the impact of simultaneous elections on regional parties?

He believes that simultaneous elections could actually strengthen regional parties, as voters might not differentiate between state and national performances when voting in a single election.

What is Dr. J. Prash Naran's opinion on the role of the Supreme Court in governance?

He expresses concern about the Supreme Court's involvement in governance, citing an example where the court was to approve demolitions, and argues that courts should not govern but rather focus on their judicial duties.

What alternative does Dr. J. Prash Naran propose to address the issue of governance and democracy in India?

He proposes decentralizing power, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and making local governments more accountable, rather than combining elections, which he sees as confusing and potentially harmful to democracy.

How does Dr. J. Prash Naran evaluate the current national leadership's approach to balancing short-term welfare and long-term economic growth?

He views the current national leadership's efforts to maintain fiscal discipline and focus on long-term growth while satisfying short-term aspirations as a heroic task, but he is concerned that simultaneous elections could undermine this balance.

Outlines

00:00

🗳️ One Nation One Election Debate

The discussion begins with the proposal for 'One Nation One Election' in India, which aims to conduct simultaneous elections for the central, state, and local governments. Dr. J. Prash Naran argues against the idea, stating that it is not well-thought-out and would require a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 majority in both houses of Parliament. He highlights that the real issue is not the frequency of elections but the overcentralization of power, which has weakened the third tier of government. Dr. Naran also points out that simultaneous elections could potentially undermine democracy by confusing voters about the roles of different government tiers and could lead to a lack of accountability.

05:01

🏛️ Challenges of Constitutional Amendment

Dr. Naran elaborates on the challenges of implementing simultaneous elections, emphasizing that it would necessitate a constitutional amendment. He doubts the feasibility of achieving the required 2/3 majority in Parliament, given the current political climate and opposition's stance against the proposal. He also discusses the Westminster model, which India's political system is based on, and how it allows for the dissolution of the house to overcome political impasses, a flexibility that simultaneous elections would compromise. Furthermore, he argues that simultaneous elections could exacerbate democratic issues by encouraging blind voting and not allowing for a clear expression of the public's will regarding different tiers of government.

10:03

🌐 Impact on Democracy and Regional Parties

The conversation shifts to the potential impact of simultaneous elections on democracy and regional parties. Dr. Naran suggests that such a system could actually strengthen regional parties, as voters might not penalize them at the national level for poor state-level performance due to the confusion caused by simultaneous elections. He also discusses the historical context of India's elections post-Independence, where simultaneous elections were held due to a unified national mood and the trust in the government's integrity. However, he asserts that the current political and social dynamics in India are vastly different, making the idea of simultaneous elections inappropriate.

15:03

💼 The Role of State Government in People's Lives

Dr. Naran emphasizes the critical role of state governments in the daily lives of Indian citizens, as they are responsible for most of the services that affect people directly, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. He argues that the popularity of state governments significantly influences voting behavior, and simultaneous elections could lead to an unfair reflection of the public's sentiment towards state governments at the national level. The discussion also touches on the importance of electoral reforms and the need for a clear understanding among voters about the functions of different government tiers to strengthen democracy.

20:04

💵 Fiscal Management and the Influence of Freebies

The discussion concludes with the potential impact of simultaneous elections on fiscal management and the role of 'freebies' or short-term welfare measures in elections. Dr. Naran expresses concern that simultaneous elections could lead to an overemphasis on short-term individual welfare at the expense of long-term economic growth. He advocates for strong fiscal rules and independent mechanisms to ensure responsible financial management, rather than relying on political decisions that could be influenced by the desire to win elections. The conversation highlights the need for a balance between addressing immediate public needs and maintaining long-term economic stability.

Keywords

💡One Nation One Election

The concept of 'One Nation One Election' refers to the proposal to conduct all elections in India, including national, state, and local government elections, simultaneously. This is intended to reduce the frequency of elections and the associated costs and is a central theme of the video. The speaker, Dr. J. P. Naran, argues against this idea, stating that it's not well thought out and could potentially undermine the democratic process by not allowing for the expression of distinct voter sentiments at different government levels.

💡Constitutional Amendment

A 'Constitutional Amendment' in the context of the video refers to the changes required to the Indian Constitution to implement 'One Nation One Election.' The speaker mentions that such an amendment would need a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament, which is currently not feasible due to lack of consensus among political parties. This highlights the complexity and the high bar set for constitutional changes in a democratic setup.

💡Westminister Model

The 'Westminister Model' is a democratic system of government that India follows, which is similar to that of the United Kingdom. It is characterized by a responsible government where the executive is accountable to the legislature. In the video, Dr. Naran points out that this model allows for the dissolution of the legislative body by the executive, which would be incompatible with the idea of simultaneous elections, as it could lead to truncated terms and undermine the stability of the government.

💡Democracy

Democracy is a system of government where power is vested in the people, who exercise it directly or through elected representatives. The video discusses the challenges of maintaining a healthy democracy in the face of frequent elections and the potential impact of 'One Nation One Election' on democratic processes. The speaker emphasizes the importance of an informed electorate and the need for clarity in the roles and responsibilities of different tiers of government.

💡Centralization of Power

Centralization of power refers to the concentration of authority and decision-making in a single entity or level of government. In the video, Dr. Naran criticizes the centralization of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers, which, according to him, has led to the weakening of local governments and contributed to the perception that governance is neglected in favor of continuous election campaigns.

💡Decentralization

Decentralization is the process of distributing or dispersing functions, powers, and responsibilities from a central authority to regional and local authorities. The speaker suggests that decentralization could be a solution to improve governance and make democracy more effective by bringing decision-making closer to the people and making local governments more accountable.

💡Electoral Reform

Electoral reform refers to changes in the electoral system aimed at improving its fairness, effectiveness, and transparency. In the video, Dr. Naran discusses the need for electoral reform in India, such as reconsidering the 'first-past-the-post' system, to ensure that elections are more reflective of the voters' will and to discourage the use of illegitimate money in politics.

💡Fiscal Discipline

Fiscal discipline refers to the responsible management of a government's budget, ensuring that expenditures do not exceed revenues and that debt is managed prudently. The speaker argues that simultaneous elections might be seen as a way to save costs, but this would be a minor gain compared to the potential losses in terms of democratic accountability and the proper functioning of government.

💡Illegitimate Money in Politics

Illegitimate money in politics refers to the use of unaccounted or corrupt funds to influence election outcomes. The video script mentions the high costs of elections and the potential for illegitimate money to play a significant role, which could be exacerbated by simultaneous elections if they lead to an increase in the overall expenditure on elections.

💡Accountability

Accountability in the context of the video refers to the responsibility of government officials to report on their actions to the public and accept consequences for their decisions. Dr. Naran stresses the importance of creating a system where there is a clear link between the vote cast by the people and the services received, which would enhance accountability and the effectiveness of democracy.

Highlights

The union cabinet has approved a bill for One Nation One Election.

Dr. J. P. Naran argues that simultaneous elections are not well thought out.

The proposal requires a constitutional amendment with 2/3 majority in Parliament, which is unlikely.

Simultaneous elections could undermine the Westminster model of governance.

Most voters in India are not aware of the functions of different tiers of government.

Simultaneous elections might reduce the maturity of democracy by encouraging blind voting.

The proposal might not serve the political purpose of helping the federal government.

If a state requires a midterm poll, the house would only serve the remainder of the term, which is a bad idea for democracy.

Democracy functions well with a balance between long-term interests and short-term political compulsions.

The interview discusses the need for clarity in the roles of different government tiers.

Initial post-Independence India had simultaneous elections due to national mood and trust in governance.

Regional parties might be strengthened by simultaneous elections.

The interviewee suggests that electoral reforms are needed for a more refined democratic process.

The proposal might not reduce the importance of illegitimate money in politics.

The interview concludes that simultaneous elections are not the solution to India's democratic challenges.

Transcripts

Hello friends welcome to FDR India let's

talk about one nation one election with

Dr J prash Naran today hello sir hello

anit sir the union cabinet as we speak

has given approval for introduction of a

bill uh approving One Nation one

election simultaneous elections uh that

that is that is said to be introduced in

the upcoming parliamentary session so

has the time come for simous elections

now not at all I think it's not a very

well thought out move well meaning more

because there are many people in the

country in the political Spectrum in

society in media who genuinely vexed

with too many elections there is a

feeling that we are running from

campaign to campaign on a continuing

basis forgetting governance and

administration and they're not entirely

wrong part of the reason is not

elections part of the reason is

we have over centralized powers in the

hands of the chief ministers in States

and the prime minister in the union and

we have completely inated the third tier

of government so instead of addressing

the real challenges to somehow think

that if only you can have elections

together for all these tear of

government everything will be okay is

not a very good idea but very tempting

idea because many many middle classes in

India are very tired of democratic

campaigns and elections all the time but

it has three serious problems problem

one it will not happen because this

requires a constitutional amendment with

2/3 majority in both houses of

Parliament and in my judgment it also

requires the consent of the majority of

the

states that may not be a big issue

consent to the majority of States but

2/3 majority in both house of parliament

a special majority is simply not on the

courts even for a very genuinely worthy

project which is necessary for the

country immediately right now the

conditions are not very conducive to

build everybody a consensus bringing

everybody together and a contensous

issue like this questionable issue like

this it is impossible to bring all

parties together already the opposition

very vly said they will not support it

they will oppose it so a it will not

happen because it's a constitution

amendment that is

required B if it happens it's not

sustainable

because our model is patterned of the

British model Westminister model right

in Westminister model the head of the

government at any point of time can go

to The Sovereign in our case the

president or the governor in their case

the Monarch asking for dissolution of

the house several times to overcome a

political impass they had to go for

repeated dissolutions between 1909 and

1911 three times the parliament was

dissolved because the people's budget

was rejected Ed by the upper house at

the time the the House of Lords that led

to far reaching parliamentary reform so

it's a very nature of things in a

Westminister model and so is the case

with India whether National level or

state level the elected head of the

government commanding majority in the

house has the right to go to the the

head of the government Constitution head

of state and ask for dation therefore

whatever you do will be

undone three

it actually is going to set back our

democracy in my view in a very peculiar

way even now most people don't know what

they're voting for they know they voting

for somebody or the

other they have no clue which tier they

voting for they have no clue what the

federal government does what the state

government does what the local

government does most of the vote in

India about 85% of the vote is based on

what the people want at the state level

I see the government in the state I like

the government I vote for that

government or that party across the

board for the parliament for the State

Assembly for the municipalities for the

pchat ETC I don't like the government in

the state I oppose that party at every

level now that is actually not very

conducive to healthy democracy a

democracy works when people know exactly

what they're voting for they understand

which tier performs what functions if

they don't understand that if you vote

in a very blind way either out of Rage

or out of some kind of affection for a

party or an individual the democracy is

not

maturing this kind of a simultaneous

election of making it more mature if

anything makes it even less mature so

it's not going to serve the purpose of

improving the content of a democracy and

finally it may not even help a federal

government or a party in federal

government the in federal government

because when the people's response in

the election is further against the

government in the

state what happens now is take Karnataka

when Karnataka BJP government was

unpopular people voted them out Congress

came to power in

Karnataka within one year when the

national election is held the same

people of kartica voted for the national

government so that means your

disappointment anger against the state

will not reflect on the Parliamentary

word you're making a judgment

differently and your anger is now

dissipated because you already exercised

your judgment and you throw throw out

the party in power therefore national

election the same party stands a chance

depending on the performance at the

national level whereas if you combine

the election your anger against the

government in the state will also

reflect on that party at the national

level so it doesn't even serve the

political purpose

finally I understand that

president Ken's proposal or the

committee's proposal

is once such a constitution Amendment

actually comes in place and you have

submit inous election if let us say in a

state a a midterm poll is necessitated

because you have to go back to the

Constitutional head of state and ask for

dissolution then that house will have

the tenure only for the remainder of the

ter it's a very bad idea in a

democracy you cannot have been insured

at the term we have a similar practice

in the pches and municipalities under

the 73rd 74th amendments even that was

not politically very sound but there was

some sound reasoning behind it the

reasoning being whenever a party comes

to power at the state level if they have

local governments mostly held by another

party in power then the temptation of

the new ruling party in the states is to

dissolve all the local governments and

mass it is to remove that incentive they

tried to bring in that provision so in

order to

to minimize the incentive for that kind

of a precipitous exercise of power

dissolving all the local government

simultaneously they said even if you do

dissolve the next election verdict will

apply only if the remainder of the term

so the incentive for you is not there

because if you already finished 2 2 and

A2 years there's only another 2 2 and A2

years left what's the point of

dissolving elect them for 2 2 and a half

years incentive is not there so at least

there is that reasoning now for the

assembly to invoke the same principle is

a very bad idea because a democracy

functions well only when there is a some

kind of a balance between the long-term

interest of the community the society

and the short-term political

compulsions if you're forcing state to

go to polls again and again and again if

you truncate the term then there is no

long-term left already the Central

challenge of India is how do you

reconcile the long-term interest of the

country with the short-term political

needs if you now institutionalize it in

our democracy in terms of electoral

practice of truncating the term of the

assembly that will be deel for democracy

in the sense that the parties already

are looking for short-term freebies to

somehow get the voters favor at the cost

of the long-term economic growth now

tomorrow you're institutionalizing it

because the term itself is going to be

truncated there's no longterm left at

all it's a very bad idea so on all

counts I don't think it's very well

thought out in any case right now I

don't see a parliamentary majority

special majority that is required for a

constitutional amendment so it will be

nonstarter so like you also mentioned in

your opening opening comments that uh

there is a feeling that governance takes

the backseat when there are continuous

elections so if that is a real challenge

lack of governance what is the solution

if not one nation one election see once

you Embrace democracy getting vexed with

elections is not a very smart

idea democracy imposes a certain cost it

imposes a certain burden nobody is

saying democracy is efficient if you

want efficient government probably the

best one is what Plato argued for if a

philosopher is a king if a king is a

philosopher then give him all the powers

because he trust the philosopher he has

no personal acts to grind and make him a

dictator you are safe why did Plato

change his tune he later came with

another book much more important though

much less talked about called the laws

why because he realized that the

philosopher is unlikely to be a king in

a

democracy and even if a

philosopher by accident becomes a king

it's unlikely that he'll remain a

philosopher while in power because power

has a way

of completely eroding the personality

eroding the soul abuse becomes endemic

in power

therefore it's very difficult for a

person to remain philosophical and

detached once you actually taste power

and even if that person really is TR

about the frey and tries to be

philosophical ultimately governance is

about people

following about your word counting mely

because somebody is there in position

but he not respected or his orders are

not obeyed it doesn't really matter you

cannot go so democracy inherently has

some amount of inefficiency built into

that we must design mechanisms to

minimize that inefficiency rather than

to overcome democracy or Beed with

democracy or be angry with democracy and

electoral process because remember

elections are a way of educating

ourselves having a massive public debate

on Grand issues and persuading us over

time from experience from evidence and

from logic persuading us as to what is

the best cuse for for us and for our

children now the way to do it is as as

far as possible separate these three TI

of government let there be greater

Clarity in the minds of the people as to

what the union does what the state does

what the local government does in India

there's too much confusion about what

the local government does what union

does what state

does and if you separate them

clearly and you make power as local as

possible and if you make that local

power as accountable as possible then

this inway of democracy too many

elections will give way to the real

blood and butter needs of the

people take a country like

China unquestionably it's an a self AED

authoritarian dictatorship right it's a

single party government there's no

secrecy in that that is constitutionally

mandated in that country despite that

local governments in China are far more

powerful and far more effective than

they

are in India you cannot even dream of

that when our team does a study as to

how much money is spent at what level

only about 15 to 17% of the total

government expenditure is at the federal

level they don't call it Federal they

call it Central in Beijing at that level

only about 16th of expenditures at the

national

level maybe another 15% or so 15 18% is

at the state level or provincial level

as they call it the rest of 65% plus

almost 65 to 70% is spent in the local

TI it is a prefecture it is the county

it is what by whatever name you call it

there are various names like our

district our town our municipality

Municipal Corporation or our mandal or

block or whatever all these put together

they constitute about 65 to 68% of the

expenditure and they built instruments

of accountability locally so people

understand what is happening with their

money they can assert you can hold the

system to account we actually get

delivery of services so how do you

design a system where people understand

clearly the link between the vot that I

cast and the consequences that follow

the taxes that I pay and the services

that IED that is the way to rescue

democracy from this disappointment and

anyway not somehow bunching everything

confusing further some V comes and God

knows what happens subsequently already

there's far too much confusion for a

local issue like you know Street

lighting often times people call an MP

for water supply in your household they

call up the M MLA these are local

government functions so it's a way you

design it to make sure that in the

people's minds the accountability is

very clear people know exactly who does

what so in other words to make our

democracy work better we must go exactly

in the opposite

direction because we have no clue in

this country in most cases 85% of the

voters have no clue what does an MLA do

what does an MP do what does the local

government do they confuse everything so

but immediately after Independence we

had a couple of U simultanous elections

to the union and the states for multiple

I think for three four general elections

we had that how did that work and how

how did that change see I'm not saying s

elections are fundamentally bad and

saying forcing them is fundamentally bad

mhm it only shows for inance

in that election because there was a

national mood early post Independence

era the values of Freedom struggle men

and women who participated in Freedom

struggle who sacrificed a great deal

whose Integrity is beyond doubt and the

broad National trajectory is well

settled and there's no doubt about it

things worked because we were also in

the National Building phase we did not

even build local governments remember

only 1958 in Rajasthan local governments

came 15 and Andra Pradesh followed suit

we did not give that experiment adequate

time only in some states to continue

Most states didn't even bother so it's a

national building stage at the stage it

did not matter much because of the trust

and the faith in which the governments

are held but now increasingly there is

no reason to trust the person just

because they happen to be in politics

right if anything there's enormous

mistrust enormous money in politics

illegitimate money unaccountability and

fail delivery now in the face of this

our single-minded Obsession should be

how do you make the government

deliver and deliver in a manner that

people can

appreciate and if they don't deliver

that also people understand and

therefore they use the vote as a very

refined instrument to improve things

that's what democracy and vote are about

if instead it's only it's all about

somehow getting the Mandate and being

there not using it as a refined

instrument to measure the performance

and give you a verdict on that then

democ

fails it becomes The Preserve of those

power Brokers who want to be in power at

any cost that's already happening in the

country 30 cres 40 cres being spent by

an assembly candidate in many Southern

States accepting Clara what does it show

many other states following suit

enormous expenditure incurred what do it

show it's nothing to do with the people

it's all about who is in power and for

that they're willing to do anything

whatever it takes astronomical SS are

being spent so if anything or trajectory

should be the opposite

direction forther decentralized power

clarify in the people's minds use v as a

very refined instrument to improve the

content of democracy bring about genuine

electoral reform like you know do we

require to change electoral system

change so that the first P the post

system impulses one more vote I win and

therefore I put in cres and cres of

Rupees to buy the vote that will give

way to more refined mechanism so there's

a lot of Need For Change status is not

an option but this is the wrong kind of

change so does it have any effect on

Regional parties if if there is indeed

simultaneous

elections what will happen is it'll

actually strengthen the regional parties

mhm as I explained to you for instance

take in a state like Telangana now

Karnataka or some other state even if a

party other than the national party in

power at the national

level other than that party if another

regional party is in power let's say in

a

state if the elections are separated

assembly and lo SAA what is happening is

while 80 85% people vote according to

their judgment of the government in the

state there are 152% people who in a

separate election are able to see the

difference between these

two leaderships M they may not always

understand the difference in the

functional level what the union

government does under schedule 7th

schedule

what the state government does in the

seven schedule list two they may not

understand but they understand enough to

know in their own mind whether this

government is performing well or not at

the state level separately at the

national level so at least 10 15% voters

are willing to accept their judgment on

the basis of the Union's performance in

L

election and the state's performance in

the Assembly Election because they are

separate if they combined the chances of

that further diminish only 4 5% the more

discerned people will vote you take

United States all elections are

simultaneous there's no problem there

why because people are ATT tuned to it

they fully understand what is the local

government function what is a state

function what is a federal function so

in the same election however polarizing

the election is like you know Donald

Trump always makes elections very

polarizing they may vote for against

Donald Trump in the top of the

ticket but if you go to other positions

state level positions are Senators at

the union level Federal level or the

members of the House of Representatives

the congressman at the federal level or

the state senators or the local

government Mayors or others you'll see

complete difference I may vote for

Donald Trump there but iot for another

party here another party here another

party here depending on the there are 20

30 people elected on the same day in the

same ballot and the Voting is never

blind voting is never blind whereas in

India sitting here I can tell you

categorically

85% people vote the same way for the Lo

SAA and the State Assembly so in that

case sir will it not benefit the current

ruling party at the national level no

because the election result is largely a

reflection of the assessment of the

voters and the state government's

performance because for the people of

India the real government that's

affecting their lives is the state

government remember most of the

functions are in the State numbers may

appear to be in Delhi but everything

that affects your life your education

your health care your water supply your

silage your storm water drainage your

roads your traffic management your

courts your police your

Parks anything everything that matters

is at the state level so intuitively

people understand that that's why the

State Assembly constituency is now the

theater of politics not the

Parliamentary con

ask any season parliamentarian they know

the real politics is in

assembly Parliament is

derivative so given that it is a state

that dominates thinking so if your party

let us say Narendra modi's party in the

state is unpopular that unpopularity

will spread to the National vote also

not the other way around not the other

way around not the other way around

whereas if you

desegregate uh sorry if you if you

segregate if you separate these two then

they focus on this here and some

significant number though not all people

they will think differently about the

national election so does it also have a

bearing on the cost of expenditure like

illegitimate money certainly elections

do cost money therefore if you hold

simultaneously you'll save some money

there's no doubt but there's a very

small gain compared to the many losses

in a democracy you can't say I want

democracy and then I want efficiency and

then I want economy and because of

economy even if know people don't

understand what is happening doesn't

matter we'll somehow some kind of a vote

and we'll go through the motions it's

not a smart logic okay so then you you

in the starting in in the opening

comments you also mentioned that it is

not feasible practically you said that

they don't have the Constitutional they

don't have the it requires clearly

Constitutional Amendment because the

Constitution and we says these three are

separate these two to start with and

later local government separate years

they did not make one election

contingent upon another election now you

are basically making them contingent

upon another election it's a major

Constitutional Amendment where are the

numbers now so if they don't have the

numbers then why this now it's a good

question you should ask of the people in

government I really don't understand I

don't know the logic I don't even see

any political benefit by raising this

issue right right so like you said sir

on the one hand we all like our

democracy and you know we want democracy

we don't we don't want elections so

where is this you know dealing coming

where is this Strang is coming from

there's a good reason for that the vote

is now dealing from the public good I'm

making this this point with enormous

pain while our democracy is robust and

real increasingly it is

losing uh what should I say public

attention because the vote is not not in

the people's mind making a significant

difference to their

lives because of centralization of power

our taxes are dealing from our services

no matter who I vote for nothing seems

to change adequately so people are vexed

that's why on the one hand we celebrate

democracy with Great Gusto and a festive

atmosphere no other country celebrates

it a festival like we do on the other

hand the day after the election where

dissatisfied angry we don't want to

politicians to excise power we want

courts to excise power we want somebody

else to be in power anybody but elected

politicians this is largely because of

the deink in between the vot and the

consequences in the people's mind

between the taxes and services and

Authority is completely dealing from

accountability we all feel that

something is going wrong in almost every

sector but we don't know who is guilty

so we perpetually angry and we want a

high court or Supreme Court to settle

the issue that's absur way of running a

country the court has its job cut out

let them do their job well the courts

are not here to govern the country to

allocate the resources to or to execute

the

projects yesterday I saw in newspapers I

don't know how accurate it is the

Supreme Court has given a direction that

all demolitions and forth shall be

stopped they will not do any demolition

without the Supreme Court's prer

approval if it is true what an absurd

order in a country of 1.4 billion people

a country in which there are hundreds of

thousands of constituent local

government

units there are millions of

functionaries who have to discharge

their functions under the law of the

land sometimes you know to remove an

encroachment of a road or let's say

water stream obstruction to water stream

you have to act immediately if the

Supreme Court of India gives a blanket

decision don't do anything without our

consent what an absurd thing only in

India can this happen we have a

dysfunctional system in the extreme

we have to see our best to make it more

functional harmonious effective

Democratic accountable transparent not

confuse everything by clubbing

everything so will freebies reduce their

their importance in the one nation one

election will freebi

sedu I don't know I'm not

sure I don't know

because you have seen the national

election right the kind of short-term

welfare

fism for the individual gain that

offered was phenomenal M you see every

state election is phenomenal again if at

least these elections are broadly

separate and people pursue them to be

somewhat

different a wise and enlightened

leadership at the national level with a

long-term perspective can to at least

some

extent bring a better balance between

short-term individual welfare and

long-term Collective good

and in a way I actually believe that the

current national leadership is

attempting that at the national level

it's a herculian task to try and do what

they're doing to maintain fiscal

discipline to focus on the long-term

growth through

infrastructure and rational economic

policies to pursue growth and investment

and job

creation even as you satisfy the

short-term aspirations of the people

with individual welfare because that is

required in a poor country so very in my

judgment very heroic effort is being

made but if you combine

everything in the onslaught of

tremendous Temptations offered by a

variety of political

parties focusing entirely on the

short-term individual welfare measures

at the cost of the long-term public

goodth and economic growth impulse the

danger also could be that the

National Financial Management fiscal

management also will completely go down

under so I'm not sure the simultaneous

section is the best way to bring in

fiscal discipline for that separately we

have to have strong fiscal rules around

which there's a consensus but

independently operated so that it's not

politicized we have an independent

mechanism by which the rules are

properly implemented rather than a

political branch of the government

deciding then you know even if they do

the right thing you say because you

don't like the party in a particular

State you're going against them you see

here you hear all that all the time this

country so that requires a different

approach I don't think there is a

solution through this kind of a

simultaneous election for the fiscal

management of India the problems of

fiscal management of India right thank

you sir for sharing your perspective

thank you thank you