Rama Rao (Madras): Mr Chairman Sir, I must be permitted to criticise the whole structure of electoral representation embodied in the present bill. Are we attempting a progressive type of representative government in the country? I fear not. I know mine will be a lone voice, but even if there is not one more person speaking on this issue, on my lines, I would not be unhappy.
Sir, we have forgotten the lesson of the last elections and have not benefited by it while preparing this present Bill. I take my stand on the views expressed by Dr [Raghunath Purushottam] Paranjpye, which are to be found in the papers circulated to us. I shall read out what he says:
“As regards this Bill it is evidently necessary to readjust the territorial constituencies in the light of the latest census returns, and for that purpose a Delimitation Commission has to be appointed. I would like, however, to see included in the Bill a direction to the Commission to establish in select and compact areas, largely of an urban character, some multi-membered constituencies so far as the State Assemblies are concerned. The object is not only to carry out the constitutional safeguards for scheduled castes and tribes, but to give a chance of securing adequate representation to the larger political parties which are at present unable to secure reasonable representation under single-membered constituencies or double-membered constituencies with the distributive system of voting. To secure this object the Law of Elections has to be modified to allow of cumulative voting in constituencies returning more than one member, in default of the far fairer system of proportional representation with the single transferable vote, which, I admit, is for the present impracticable owing to the vast amount of illiteracy among the voters.”
Now, Sir Dr Paranjpye goes on to mention Bombay, Poona and Ahmedabad, where the system may be experimented as he suggests.
It has been suggested by men like Stuart Mill that in order to obtain truer representation of all interests and opinions, constituencies should be formed by free combination, independent of locality. This would help the complete realisation of the fundamental principle of representative government and provide security against the dangers of widely extended suffrage. Now, I find that the present Bill before us does nothing of this kind in spite of the lessons of the recent elections. What are those lessons? India is going to be a multiple-party State and this would in logic require that, as far as possible, single-member seats must go and multi-member seats must be adopted. Minorities have been clamouring that they have not got adequate representation. Votes have been wasted. Some governments have been formed by parties which have come in through split votes. Examples are PEPSU [Patiala and East Punjab States Union] and Hyderabad.
Sir, after all, what is the primary principle of our representative system? Adult franchise. It must be safeguarded and practiced. Delimitation can, therefore, be only a matter of convenience, that is to say, it is only secondary.
We should take a step forward and avoid the tyranny of the majority. We must see that our system improves, that no vote is wasted; that votes are not split; that the highest total of votes of the electorate is recorded; that the independent candidate has a chance against the party machine; that the intellectual and the independent has a chance against the party candidate that opinion prevails against interest and that the local candidate does not always defeat the national candidate.
The result of the changed system I have suggested would be the introduction of better quality into our governmental system. We shall be making better laws ; there will be better candidates and there will be a better government. You can do away also with the present reservation, which is a blot on our present style of representation. There will be this advantage, finally, that the first principle of representative government—of “one man, one vote” would then be effectively carried out—Introduce along with this multiple seat, proportional representation. Our country is ready for it. I am surprised that having come out with the change that the Congress has gained success, on a minority vote, Mr. [Puchalapalli] Sundarayya does not go a step further and say, that the single-member constituency should go if the minority is to be safe. And the Communist Party is bound to be a minority party for a very, very long time.
The further advantages of the changes I have suggested would be that minority governments would be impossible. There would be strong opposition parties and national coalition governments, as and when they become necessary, will be well founded. It is not necessary for India to follow the English system wholesale. It is not suited to this country—the system of single-member constituencies. What is happening in France and Italy today ? These countries, having adopted the single-member system, are finding that it is proving to be dangerous to conservative interests. The Communists are coming up and the non-Communist parties are trying to keep them out. For this purpose the constitution is being wangled and the constituencies are being gerrymandered.
Much has been made of the need of the candidate cultivating his constituency and therefore of the constituency being geographically of a limited character. But certain fundamental facts are being forgotten. It is not the individual candidate that counts today, but the party machine. If it works in one constituency of a district, it can work all over the district as well.
What does the candidate stand for ‘these days? He stands for an idea, for a party, for a policy, for a programme, not for himself. And then, they talk of contacts. What about the radio, what about the press ? What about the platform? And all the various forms of carrying on propaganda? Finally, we have safeguards in the Constitution—freedom of speech, adult franchise, etc. Let me repeat: It is not the individual that counts; it is the party machine.
It must not also be forgotten that our national deliberations are on certain levels—local, provincial and national. We should conduct our plans, and introduce our schemes, of representations, in a way to prevent all kinds of ungratified members coming in. There is need for greater and greater quality as we go higher and higher. The fact is before us that we have not been able to return men of quality. I, therefore, strongly plead that we should see to it that there is larger and larger multiple-seat representation, so that intellectual interests and political opinions of a progressive character, have a greater chance of being represented.
I am of the opinion that unless that is done, we shall not be able to bring out independents to be Charles Bradlaugh and other great men of that strain who spelt progress. The party machine is the enemy of democracy. It is necessary to ensure that the individual democracy is able to stand up against the big interests. For this purpose, the machinery has to be so geared that, if not now, at least ten years hence, there is a change, a change for the better, and we get men who contribute to the progress of mankind, in thought and action.
This is part of ThePrint’s Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.