TWO BJP governments in Rajasthan and Haryana have amended their Panchayati Raj laws to expand the list of disqualifications with regard to who can stand for panchayat elections. These laws lay down the basic minimum educational criteria, two child norm and several other bizarre conditions for a candidate to be eligible for standing for elections. The changes within the Haryana law have been opposed by democratic women’s organisations and the AIDWA even challenged it in the Court. However the recent Supreme Court judgment has upheld the law, thereby fueling a national media debate on whether such norms should be applied at the level of parliamentary elections also. This debate however is ill conceived as it assumes that the parliamentarians do not work because they are ignorant, or because they do not have the economic status and wear with all to do selfless service. It ignores the impact of corporate capitalism on both the State and parliamentary system which is dominated by an increasingly globalised neo-liberal ruling class. Hence the argument for ‘minimum qualifications’ is part of a larger rightwing project to restrict the space and scope for democracy.

Why the ‘Minimum Qualifications’

Debate is Unconstitutional?

The Haryana and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Acts are a gross violation of the People’s Representation Act (1950) of the Indian Constitution. The Act clearly lays down that a person can only be disqualified from contesting elections if they are convicted under a criminal offence, charges for corruption or sedation. By the same measure any person is eligible to contest if they are citizens of the country and over 25 years of age. The person should be a registered voter of the country (for parliamentary elections) and a registered voter of the relativist state (for legislative assembly elections). These minimalistic qualifications and disqualifications are meant to ensure the widest possible representative democracy and the representation of all social groups and classes in the democratic institutions. Thus by expanding the list of qualifications and disqualifications, the Haryana and Rajasthan Acts violate this basic Act which lays down the framework of constitutional democracy.

Changes within the panchayat laws in Haryana and Rajasthan stipulate that candidates contesting for panchayat elections at all levels must have some basic minimum educational qualifications. These qualifications stipulated in the Act for different tiers of the panchayats are the following:

Apart from these educational qualifications it is also essential to have a functional toilet in the house in order to be eligible to be nominated as a candidate for panchayat elections. In addition to these, the Haryana law also stipulates that candidates should not have any outstanding debts and should have paid their electricity bills. These provisions show that these Acts are in clear violation of the Peoples Representation Act which stipulates only a broadest possible minimum criteria enabling the largest number of people to participate in the democratic process.

WHO GAINS,

WHO LOSES?

While the available data does not provide very precise figures on some of the conditions laid down by these laws, the analysis from the Census of India (2011) gives a fair idea of whose and how many people’s basic democratic rights will be impacted even if only the educational qualifications criteria is adopted. The analysis below shows this through a projection based on the level of education for men and women above the age of 25 years in Haryana and Rajasthan. A similar projection is also done at the all India level in order to show how restrictive the argument for ‘minimum qualifications’ can be if applied to the entire nation. In addition to this similar analysis is also done in the case of dalits and adivasis. The picture revealed at an aggregate level of all persons is the following for India and the two states:

Projection of Eligible Population for Panchayat and Municipal Elections (Percentage)

The table above shows that more than two thirds of the population will become ineligible to fight panchayat and municipal elections if a criteria of minimum educational qualifications is applied for filing nominations in rural and urban areas. It is also clear from the table above that about 47-50 percent of the men and 64-71 percent of the women will be ineligible for elections if the base of 2011 census is taken. Thus the first conclusion to be reached is that the electoral reforms being brought about are patriarchal in character and that they constrict women’s participation in the democratic process.

Within this general scenario of the closure of democratic space, the data also shows that the dalits and muslim minorities will be the worst impacted as far as these changes are concerned. In overall terms, 14.77 percent of the scheduled caste people in Haryana and 7.68 percent of the scheduled caste persons in Rajasthan will be eligible for the zila parishad and panchayat samiti elections in the rural areas. If the criteria is applied at the all India level then only 12.35 percent of the scheduled castes in the rural areas will be eligible to stand for panchayat elections. The scenario is even worse for rural scheduled caste women, about 3.5 percent of whom will be eligible for zila parishad elections at the all India level and 2.9 and 1.05 percent of whom will be eligible for such elections in Haryana and Rajasthan respectively. At the gram sabha level the situation is not much different, with 20 percent of the scheduled caste persons and 12.06 percent of the scheduled caste women being eligible at the national level in rural areas. In Haryana this percentage falls to 11.74 percent of scheduled caste women and in Rajasthan 3.94 in rural regions. In overall terms only 23.3 percent of the scheduled caste persons in rural Haryana and 15.2 percent in rural Rajasthan will be eligible for gram sabha elections. 

The implications of these changes for adivasis are only marginally better than that of the dalits. Even in the scheduled areas where special provisions are to exist (that is all candidates should have passed class V), only 26.43 percent at the all India level and 23.01 percent in rural Rajasthan will be eligible for gram sabha elections. For scheduled tribe women, this percentage will come down to 16.15 at the all India level and 7.26 percent in rural Rajasthan. It is obvious that there is a large gap between men and women as far as eligibility percentage is concerned in the case of both dalits and adivasis. Hence the second conclusion that we can reach through this data is that these amendments  are not only patriarchal but loaded in favour of upper caste men and will ensure that important sections of the population go unrepresented.

Lastly, these amendments are highly loaded against the Muslim minorities, whose education level is much worse than the Hindu majority as well as the Sikhs and Christians. The government data shows that not more than 20 percent of the Muslims will be eligible to stand as candidates for panchayat elections at the zila parishad and panchayat samiti level. Since no disaggregated data is available for the minorities, it is safe to assume that the estimate made here is very liberal since rural Muslim women would have far less access to formal education than the men. However, this factor clearly highlights that these amendments definitely have an anti-Muslim import.

The discussion above clearly reveals that argument for ‘minimum qualifications’ and meritocracy in constitutional bodies is a mirage to constrict the democratic space in India. It is largely made by a rightwing ruling class who cannot tolerate the resistance of women’s organisations and a majority of the oppressed people to neo-liberal Hindutva. Hence it is not surprising that the neo-liberal State is moving towards constricting the democratic space and building the foundations of the strengthening of autocratic control over society. Thus it is imperative to demystify the ‘minimum qualifications’ argument and expose the real intentions of an increasingly fascistic ruling class.