Interview with M.S. Gill, Chief Election Commissioner.
Elections in India were hailed as the "Kumbh mela" of Indian democracy, by both Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Chief Election Commissioner Manohar Singh Gill at the recent golden jubilee celebrations of the Election Commission of India. T he tenure of Gill in the Election Commission - he joined it as an Election Commissioner on October 1, 1993 and became the CEC on December 12, 1996 - has been an eventful period in Indian democracy.
The period saw the maturing of the Election Commission from the controversial - and widely considered as even autocratic - institution it was under former CEC T.N. Seshan into a democratic, reasoned but assertive three-member team, whose many decisions h elped bring about a heightened awareness among the voters about their rights and privileges. Gill lays down office on June 14 this year, upon completing 65 years of age. In the closing months of his tenure, four States (Assam, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala) and one Union Territory (Pondicherry) will elect new governments. In an interview to V.Venkatesan, Gill discusses a range of issues connected with the conduct of elections in India and outlines an agenda of action for the future:
There has been widespread concern about the criminalisation of the electoral process in India. What is the E.C's contribution in checking the entry of persons with criminal backgrounds into electoral contests?
The worry of the Indian people and of the Commission is that people with very dubious backgrounds are tending to get into and sit in the highest forums of law-making and governance. And this naturally cuts at the root of our democracy.
Section 8A of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, has a set of offences in three clauses which lay down that if you are accused of any of these offences and if you are convicted up to a specified level in one of them, then you cannot be a c andidate. Before I took over as the CEC, the Commission somehow followed the view that even if you were convicted in one of the rare cases and if you had gone in appeal, then your candidature was allowed. After I took over, we studied it, and I said no. For this purpose of a limited prevention of a citizen from becoming a candidate for Parliament or Assembly elections, conviction is good enough for our purpose, and you will be blocked. It is another matter if a higher court gives a specific order even o n that conviction. Then, of course, we will listen to that, we must. And in order to make sure that we have effective information to implement Section 8A, we designed an affidavit (to be filed by every candidate along with his or her nomination) I am gla d to say that during the last four years or so almost (in all elections), even in the Rajya Sabha election, which is indirect, all candidates - those who have held the highest offices in India, or may be holding them today - they all filed those (affidav its). And it has had a salutary effect.
I think there have been a few cases in the past, where somebody did not give full information, we got it, his candidature was cancelled, and nobody has challenged the Commission so far. And our direction has stood the test for four years.
Secondly, we have at all-party meetings, and subsequently in letters to the Prime Minister and party presidents, suggested that the provisions of Section 8A need to be simplified and strengthened. If you look at it you will find there are serious offence s and not-so-serious offences - it is a hotchpotch.
Thirdly, a person is innocent, until finally proven guilty. Because ultimately the court can let you off honourably. Sometimes we do come across very dangerous people, who are visibly seen by the large mass of people as wrong people - they have no case a gainst them, or the case is not prosecuted, or evidence is not forthcoming, because people are frightened of even violence and so on. And therefore, when the public or the press or anyone says that we know that Mr.X is so and so, why is he allowed to sta nd? Therefore, with some hesitation, we have suggested to the government, Parliament or the parties to consider whether they should make a further amendment in the RPA that if anybody is accused of an offence, which on conviction could lead to five years ' jail or more and if a police case has been looked at by the Judge and he has come to a formal conclusion, that prima facie a serious case exists for a full trial and he has framed the charges and therefore a trial is going to take place, even this perhaps may be a reasonable enough ground to prevent somebody from being a candidate.
We had an all-party meeting also, where this was discussed, and all these worries were expressed. Some people thought, let us consider it. Others said, you might damage the rights of even good candidates and good political leaders because people will tar get them and put them in a long-drawn-out judicial process.
The real problem lies with the political parties. If they don't give the ticket to the wrong persons, the matter ends. That is why I am happy at one level with our proactive action on Section 8A from 1997 with that affidavit. This affidavit and my propag anda discouraged all national parties from taking the wrong people. After the 1998 Lok Sabha elections, we did some checking and we got the feeling that the number of (such) candidates have gone down drastically. The main Opposition party has even said t hat those who recommend candidates will be responsible (for choosing such candidates). All that had a dampening effect. I think we need to do a little more. If they simply pull away from this, and the Press also targets such people (wrong persons who see k the ticket), I think we can kill the disease, without making a law, which could be dangerous.
Your recent amendment of the Symbols Order, on the criteria to be adopted to confer the status of national or State party, is in line with the reality, and has been hailed widely. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), which is the third biggest gro up in Parliament, has regained its national party status, thanks to your amendment.
Although the 1968 Symbols Order has served its purpose, one could clearly see its limitations. With two amendments in 1997 and 1998, we made a number of corrections. Take the case of the BSP's Kanshi Ram vs the AGP and others, where under the old order, the BSP had achieved whatever level we had asked for in four States. Therefore they said the elephant was their exclusive symbol. On the other hand, I looked at the AGP (Asom Gana Parishad) in Assam. Here is a very sensitive and very important State. The AGP is a regional party whose interest is only in that State. So they would have got hurt. They would have lost their symbol (the elephant). And we had a hearing, because Kanshi Ram legally was able to come up and say, now give it (the elephant symbol) to me, take it away from them (AGP). There were two other minor parties, one in Sikkim and another in Tamil Nadu, which also had the same symbol. Then I had a series of talks with both the parties (AGP and BSP). I said this problem is arising out of a si tuation where Kanshi Ram is entitled to something, but it also does not serve India's democracy to hurt another major party of India for nothing. It is not a crime to be a State-level party. And then we gave a historic Solomon's judgment. It never had ha ppened in 50 years. Kanshi Ram - I complement him - agreed and the judgment said that while the BSP, now an all-India party, can get the elephant, in Assam the BSP will not get the elephant. That will remain with the AGP. And if ever the BSP wants to fig ht in Assam, it will take another symbol. And in Tamil Nadu and Sikkim, the minor parties were given some alternatives, and they were happy.
But I have been feeling since the 1997-98 order and this judgment that while we have made some deserving changes, much more needed to be done. And then we gave this order. We separated the recognition of State parties from that of the national parties. W e laid down certain basic principles. One, in a parliamentary democracy you must have a minimum presence on the floor of the House, State Assembly or Parliament. Because earlier it was possible, you could get 6 per cent of the vote, (first it used to be 4 per cent, I made it 6, that too was welcomed) - you could get 6 per cent in Pondicherry, Mizoram, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh... - and you become a national party, though you may not win even one Assembly seat even in those (States). Now we laid down that to be recognised as a national party, you should secure 6 per cent of the valid votes polled in any four States and win at least four seats in the Lok Sabha or win at least 11 Lok Sabha seats, from three States. Similarly, to be recognised as a Sta te party we laid down that a party should secure 6 per cent of the valid votes polled in the State in a general election and win at least two seats in the Assembly or win at least 3 per cent of the total number of seats in the State Assembly, whichever i s more. Because if you can't speak on the floor of the House, how is your party regional or national?
Then there was this aberration, which was clearly there, and which came before our hearings, where it was argued that here was a case where somebody could be a national party with not even one MLA in India. And somebody was arguing that they had got 35 M Ps, and it was the third biggest group (in Parliament), and asking what we were doing. We had no answer to that. What we have now done gives the country a very simple, effective and workable Symbols Order for the next 50 years. I also have a feeling that the Symbols Order had become or somehow it was, in a manner as if we are headmasters to punish political parties. You lost a decimal point, and we will bring you down. You gained a decimal point, we will bring you up. Political action does not work like that. Parties sometimes lose support.
Will the photo identity cards be mandatory for the Assembly elections to be held in the States of Assam, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala and the Union Territory of Pondicherry?
Today, looking six or seven years back, when it (the photo identity card) was given, I was not a part of the effectiveness of the Commission. Sadly, I repeat sadly, the government, at the historic Chief Ministers' conference and during national consulta tions, while we were the President's Commissioners, did not even invite G.V.G. Krishnamurthy and me to the discussions. We could have given a small thought for consideration. An order was given, Rs.1,000 crores was put in. The money started to be rapidly spent. And in the States everyone pushed in one's own direction, because there was no centralised planning of how it should be done.
By the time I took over, I said again and again that the nation had committed a thousand crores. Progress has been made. There are problems both in methodology and uniformity, as well as in other ways. But the Commission's duty is to go forward. And we m ust now complete it.
During the first two years of my tenure, we had numerous meetings of all my CEOs (Chief Electoral Officers) and of experts. We studied what could be the common system. It must have a unique identity number for each voter.
Today we have about 65 per cent correct cards given in the country as a whole. We have States such as Haryana where it has been done almost totally, we have States such as Bihar, where progress has been very slow. In Assam, where because of citizenship a nd other reasons very little has even been pushed forward. But the fact is, about 65 per cent correct cards, more than 400 million or 450 million, have been given. This is not a small achievement.
But then the question was: what was the use of the card, if it was not compulsory. There were even legal difficulties. Because your voting right is in the voters' list as per the RPA, 1950, not in the card. The card is actually an aid to prevent imperson ation.
Therefore, if I had been consulted that day, in 1993 or 1994, when it was being introduced, my suggestion would have been that since it prevents impersonation - it is a problem in urban areas, and not in villages, where people know one another - start wi th all big cities and then finally go to the villages, to make a national identity card, not for just voters but for citizens, as it is becoming now. But somehow it did not happen, now my duty is to carry it forward.
We had difficulties in the 1996 elections, with the slogan "no card, no vote". Because legally we were thwarted. I am glad that we solved it in Haryana. In Haryana we gave the first historic order that there will be new methods: electronic voting machine s and voter identity cards. In the Assembly elections in the State last year, we had compulsory identification of the voter for the first time.
But I was worried. We studied it, and said in case there is a problem on the card, they do not have it, or we have failed to give it, or any other reason, then we will have an alternative means of identification. We gave a list, all reasonable things: dr iving licence, electricity bills, ration cards with photographs, and so on. We said we would look at those, but we would insist on compulsory identification. Haryana got the cards early and almost everybody turned up with cards. The few who did not gave other things. A few tried to go to the courts. But the courts supported the Commission. Some States had challenged the cards before the court, and the matter was before the Supreme Court. I was delighted after the Haryana elections, and after what we fil ed before the Supreme Court, they have given the direction, and all those challenges have been dismissed. Today, compulsory identification has become the law of the land, and therefore, in the coming State elections, that is the direction we are going to go. Tamil Nadu is a bit slow. Let everybody run around and get their cards...
Along with that is the electronic voting machine. That too worked tremendously in Haryana. All parties welcomed it - winners and losers. The same thing happened in Goa. In 1999, six crore voters voted electronically in 46 Lok Sabha seats spread over 18 States. We have 1,50,000 electronic machines and we have ordered another 1,50,000 machines. In all these major States (where Assembly elections are to be held) there will be massive electronic voting.
While all parties had welcomed it, I hear people saying that with the card and the machine many of the abuses have now been squeezed. I have given directions to the Deputy Election Commissioners and the CEOs that in every district in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Pondicherry, West Bengal and Assam they must start showing the machine, in every SDM office, at every Collector's office, under a shamiana.
Parliament has fixed the number of Lok Sabha seats for the next 25 years. There is a view that freezing the number of seats is not the right way, and that it disturbs the democratic principle. What is your view?
After the 1971 Census, Tamil Nadu lost a Lok Sabha seat, and one of the States in the North gained it. Because the Constitution says that you should do delimitation after each Census, to do two things: One is to increase or decrease the State's quota. Th e second is then to balance the boundaries geographically and voter-wise. Parliament froze the number of seats for 30 years, until 2000. Now the issue came up again. How can you punish those who control population growth and reward those who add to it? A ll the parties have now agreed to do that. For the next 26 years, they would block it. We certainly support that. It does have an "illogic" what you are pointing to. But in developing democracies, you have to do unique things, which sometimes may look co ntradictory.
The second aspect is that you should at least correct the boundaries for voter numbers and the geographical sense. That was, I think, wrongly given up in 1976. I am happy that all parties have agreed with me and now delimitation work will be done, after the passage of the Constitution Amendment Bill to correct the boundaries on both counts. For example, Delhi may continue to have seven MPs, whatever the population, but you can't have less than four lakh voters in Chandni Chowk and 30 lakhs in Outer Delh i. That is destroying, reducing, diminishing, the value of the voter by one-seventh.
You had also offered a unique solution to the never-ending debate on the Women's Reservation Bill. But some parties have rejected your proposal.
One, I am strongly of the opinion that there must be greater representation of women for gender justice, for civilising parliamentary bodies, for a better building of programmes and ideas. First of all, is reservation the best method? I think it is a leg itimate question. Second, who thought of 33 per cent? If you want gender justice, why not 50 per cent? What is the logic? Why not 40? Why not 20 or 25? Nobody is answering that. Third, if you do not rotate reserved seats, you have a problem. If you start rotating seats, and if you reserve these many seats, then more than 350 seats will be in perpetual rotation. It will destroy the political careers of all castes and all genders. Fourth, gender justice is certainly my priority, but higher than that is my loyalty to the Constitution and the necessity to maintain a vibrant, fully effective Parliament and parliamentary representation. Therefore, at the last all-party meeting, we made it a Commission's proposal. The fault of political parties should not vis it on the Constitution. If today women are not given the ticket to an adequate extent, it is the fault of all political parties. The flaw is that women are not getting space in the political parties. Guaranteed space. Assured space.
My solution is simple. Instead of amending the Constitution every other day with all the negative points it involves, have a simple amendment in the RPA where all you would say is this: all parties that have their recognition and privileges of the Commis sion shall retain these only for so long, at every election they fight in every State they put up X percentage of women candidates. I am saying X should be decided by the parties. It can be 33, it can be 40, it can be 20 or 15. If you have a State electi on, then in that State you have to give that percentage of the ticket, and if you have a national election then you have to maintain that percentage in every State. Today, women are only 8 per cent in Parliament and the Assemblies, over the last 50 years . If you give 33 per cent of the ticket, or even a little less, or a little more, overnight the number of women in Parliament or Assemblies will jump from 8 to 15 or 20 per cent. We also found that women have had a higher winnability than men, over the l ast 50 years.
Thirdly, don't listen to the few women who are trying to say, give us reservation in this fashion, so that there are so few of us in politics, that we will be offered three or four seats each, sitting at home. Don't go with them and lose everything becau se the delay will go on forever. Once the BJP, the Congress(I), the CPI(M) know that they have to find so many women, they will go after all the bright women. Because there is a genuine problem. Finding such a large number of women overnight is impossibl e. At the all-party meeting, barring a major party and an odd one everybody agreed with me. And I say it to those people, the so-called activists, that my anxiety is if you agree, we could do it tomorrow. If all parties put up their hands before the pres s and say we agree, even then I can implement it in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Pondicherry, and Assam in the next two or three months, when 20 crore people will be voting.
And overnight if the ticket jumps, it will be a sea-change of progress for women in India. I am also confident it might ultimately happen. It is up to the government or up to the Opposition.
