With the Union cabinet approving the push for ‘one nation, one election’, there is a political war of words and many questions loom over the way ahead.
The BJP will need two-thirds of parliament on its side to realise Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pet project as it needs several amendments to the Constitution. Opposition parties have flagged these changes as well as other practical challenges.
The development made the biggest news for most English dailies, with some taking a critical view.
In an editorial headlined “one nation, many notions”, the Times of India said that simultaneous polls are a good idea but implementation will be tricky and impossible without the opposition agreeing.
“Five constitutional amendments don’t need states ratification – Articles 83 and 85 on duration and dissolution of Parliament, Articles 172 and 174 on duration and dissolution of state legislatures, and Article 356 on imposition of central rule in states. But an amendment needs two-thirds of Parliament to ratify – no easy task given LS’s 234-strong opposition will have its say. Further, altering duration of local bodies needs states’ ratification. Even state election commissions may baulk at making ECI the final arbiter of electoral rolls – a centralised all-India electoral roll is seen as diluting India’s federal structure; that it goes against the idea of a ‘Union’ of states. GOI must know a list of positives alone isn’t enough to make simultaneous elections a reality. It needs all political parties on board,” it stated.
The front page lead headline asked if the government could get the plan through.
Meanwhile, The Telegraph, in an editorial headlined “knotty unity”, said, “The principal worry concerns the eclipse of regional and local issues — the ones that usually decide the outcome of state polls — by national ones that would put the bigger parties at an advantage. This would not augur well for the future of Indian federalism with state governments playing second fiddle to a muscular Centre. And what about the fate of curtailed state assemblies? Can such an abridgement honour the people’s mandate fully? Moreover, there is fundamental confusion regarding another critical issue: that of constitutional amendments requiring two-thirds majority in Parliament in order to implement ‘one nation, one election’. Another important query raised by the prospect of simultaneous elections should not go unaddressed: should the preservation of India’s federal and democratic ethos not be accorded a greater priority than the reaping of monetary and logistical benefits promised by this intervention?
Its front page lead headline pointed out there was “no timeline” to the plan.
The front page report on Indian Express said that the government had moved a “step closer towards holding all elections simultaneously – in keeping with the BJP’s longstanding demand”.
The Hindustan Times’ front page lead noted that such a move “requires constitutional amendment”. It described the cabinet nod as “laying the ground for the far-reaching but controversial reform that can reshape the world’s largest democracy”.
The New Indian Express noted that as many as “18 amendments to the constitution and other statues” would be required to hold elections simultaneously. It said a bill is likely to be introduced in the winter session of the parliament, and the NDA will need the support of 362 MPs to pass it.
Mint page one lead said the simultaneous polls took “a step closer to reality”.
A Business Standard report on the front page noted that the cabinet nod for the “much awaited” One Nation and One Election policy came after the completion of 100 days of the NDA government in office.
The lead report in The Hindu included the opposition’s criticism of the policy, saying it would “destroy federalism” and was “impractical”.
Here’s what panellists earlier told us about one nation, one election on NL Hafta.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
