AMIDST the backdrop of the ruling dispensation's diminishing fortunes in recent and current electoral contexts, the shrill noise over one nation, one election (ONOE) in its first appearance gives the impression that it is an exercise in sloganeering, yet another ‘jumla’. This echoes similar slogans by the BJP-led dispensation, such as one nation, one tax, one nation, one national language, and so on. However, it would be wrong to dismiss this as a mere futile exercise in rhetoric; it is, in fact, a desperate attempt at diversion from the real issues of livelihood and survival currently plaguing the Indian people. It stems from a deeper animosity toward the democratic and secular republic that emerged in the aftermath of the anti-imperialist freedom struggle. It also reflects an antipathy towards the process of reorganising states on linguistic principles, following the State Reorganisation Act, which led to the formation of several such linguistic states in both the south and north. In sum, it is a subtle attempt to challenge the diversity of the Indian people and the imperative of devolution and decentralisation as an important element of governance.

The holding of free and fair elections to the parliament and state legislatures on a level playing field is the cornerstone of this democratic framework. The concept of one nation, one election undermines this process, as it disregards the devolution of powers to constitutionally established local bodies, both rural and urban. In one stroke, the idea of one nation, one election advocates extreme centralisation, which threatens federalism and the devolution of powers as enshrined in the constitution. A reading of the recommendations of the high-level committee on ONOE makes this apparent.

THE IMPORT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The approach of the high-level committee became evident from the first point in the terms of reference for its work: “Examine and make recommendations for holding simultaneous elections to the House of the People (Lok Sabha), State Legislative Assemblies, Municipalities, and Panchayats, keeping in view of the existing framework under the Constitution of India and other statutory provisions. For that purpose, examine and recommend specific amendments to the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the rules made thereunder, and any other law or rules that would require amendments for the purpose of holding simultaneous elections.”

It is thus abundantly clear that the high-level committee on ONOE was not tasked with debating whether simultaneous elections were necessary for the parliament, state legislatures, and local bodies. Rather, it was presented as a fait accompli, and the committee's role was to work out the details of how to implement this project. Given this mandate, the conclusions of the committee leave little room for surprise or speculation.

Even if there were any doubts, the very composition of the high-level committee (HLC) should have dispelled them. The appointment of a former president to head the committee went against the grain of the “constitutional morality” that Dr. Ambedkar so often spoke of. Additionally, the inclusion of two members of the cabinet and certain members of so-called “think tanks” raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

The report itself is voluminous, consisting of 19,000 pages. However, most of it is what one might call ‘sound and fury, signifying nothing,’ with the operational part being only about 200 pages long. The remaining content includes annexures, such as the 1932 Franchise Committee Report, various Law Commission reports, Parliamentary Standing Committee reports, and laws related to local bodies from all the states.

The basic futility of this protracted, taxpayer-funded exercise is evident from the fact that there is no reference to the lively and rigorous debates in the Constituent Assembly regarding the existing constitutional provisions for fixing the timing and procedures for holding elections to parliament and state legislatures. Nor is there any mention of the debates that took place in parliament leading to the passage of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, which established rural and urban local bodies.

The political intentions of the government and the BJP are clearly reflected in the content and final recommendations of the HLC.

IT IS NOT ‘JUMLA’

Even for a statement to be called a ‘jumla,’ it has to have a semblance of viability. But the ONOE (one nation, one election) phraseology lacks even that. This is becoming increasingly clear because the HLC (high-level committee) itself has explicitly stated that its recommendations would require at least fifteen amendments to the constitution, not to mention several other changes to existing laws.

The current composition of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha has created a situation where, even if the BJP gets its supporting parties on board, it cannot guarantee the passage of these amendments. Realising this, the BJP leadership is now claiming that this could be done if the opposition parties could be persuaded. However, the HLC's own records show that no major political party supports the concept or the proposals. In the original composition of the HLC, only one member represented the opposition – Adhir Choudhury, then leader of the Congress legislature party. However, seeing the predetermined manner in which the committee proceeded to pursue the political agenda of the RSS-BJP combine, he resigned from the committee, exposing the intent of the ONOE project.

The justification for the ONOE proposal, as claimed by the HLC, is that it will save Rs 5,000 crores by holding simultaneous elections. However, the committee has failed to conduct any real exercise to substantiate this claim. The very nature of our constitution is people-centric and inclusive. The HLC's proposal seeks to arbitrarily take away the voters' constitutional right to elect representatives at both the central and state levels. The HLC has not been able to explicitly acknowledge that the electoral process in the country began with simultaneous elections. Changes in the political situation and people's perceptions have led to governments at both the national and state levels failing to sustain majority support for their designated tenure. The fact remains that elections were meant to elect representatives for a fixed term of five years, but elections have had to be held as and when the ruling dispensations collapsed.

To ensure simultaneous elections, the HLC has recommended truncating the terms of state assemblies to synchronise with the tenure of the Lok Sabha. This contravenes the basic constitutional requirement of five-year representative elections. Furthermore, political parties that are constitutionally provided with a five-year term to implement their election manifestos will be clearly denied such a right.

The HLC's recommendation regarding the continuity of policies is another feature that flows from the neoliberal paradigm of prioritizing so-called experts and think tanks over elected representatives of the people. This would completely insulate the electoral process from the people's perceived needs and requirements and subject it to abstract propositions about economic policy. This is essentially anti-democratic and anti-people.

CONSTITUTION MAKING AND STATE REORGANISATION ACT

The BJP’s call for securing 370 seats in the Lok Sabha elections and 400 along with its allies was not arbitrary. Even Narendra Modi raised this slogan. However, some of his less sophisticated colleagues, like Arun Govil and Ananta Hegde, let the cat out of the bag by further elaborating that the reason for this was to carry out a comprehensive constitutional amendment. This slogan intensified fears among different sections of the electorate, particularly within SC communities, and resonated with the opposition’s call to "save the constitution and save India."

It became clear that this wasn’t mere rhetoric when Jagdeep Dhankhar ceaselessly contended that nothing in the constitution was sacrosanct and that parliament (the executive) had the power to amend any article and clause, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s assertion to the contrary – that the basic structure cannot be touched. This is despite the fact that Modi had dramatically eulogised the constitution as the nation’s ‘only holy book.’

The Modi government did, in fact, amend the Citizenship Act in 2019, altering the principle that common and equal citizenship is irrespective of caste, creed, or religion. However, the CAA made provisions for citizenship rights for migrants from neighbouring countries on the basis of religion.

This should not surprise anyone, as the RSS has long betrayed the democratic- secular Indian polity, as well as all the symbols that represent inclusive India. On the eve of independence, the RSS mouthpiece Organiser (in its issue dated August 14, 1947) stated, “The people who have come to power by the kick of fate may give in our hands the tricolor, but it will never be respected and owned by Hindus. The word ‘three’ is itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect.”

But after the adoption of the constitution, Organiser was more forthright. In its issue dated November 30 that year, it stated: “The worst thing about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it. The drafters of the Constitution have incorporated elements from the British, American, Canadian, Swiss, and sundry other constitutions. But there is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature, and phraseology in it... in our Constitution, there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day, these laws, as enunciated in the Manusmriti, excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pandits, that means nothing.”

Such fanciful imagination has nothing to do with reality or history. Yet, the RSS-BJP is master of doublespeak. After having been such harsh critics of the Indian Constitution, they now indulge in doublespeak. They understand that blatant opposition to the constitution is no longer possible. Therefore, their changed tactic is to sabotage the constitution from within.

RSS VIEWS AND THE ONOE SLOGAN

The RSS’s central idea of ‘one nation, one language, one leader’ focusing on extreme centralisation, naturally culminates in a push for a presidential form of government. It is clear from the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly that the idea of a presidential system was clearly rejected. The assembly opted instead for a cabinet system, where representatives are elected by the people.

The ONOE proposal sets out a course to actualise these basic traits in the RSS’s way of thinking. The tragedy is that, despite paying lip service to the constitution, the HLC cannot cogently argue against the necessity of a five-year fixed term for both the central and state legislatures. Thus, the arguments against the considerations that shaped the constitution are missing. The grounds of desirability are entirely subjective and cannot be supported by actual empirical studies or data.

Therefore, the ONOE project needs to be opposed, not only on constitutional grounds rooted in the legacy of the freedom struggle, but also because it represents a devious attempt to move towards a unitary, non-democratic, non-secular Hindutva rashtra.

What lies ahead is the challenge of safeguarding the Indian Constitution and ensuring an inclusive future. Rejecting this obnoxious ONOE project is the least we can do to guarantee this.