During these forty years, the experiment of Indian democracy has been extremely successful, perhaps, the most successful in any developing country. And I would like to thank and congratulate the people of India for the success of this experiment.
During these forty years, we have learnt a number of things and some weak areas in our system have become noticeable, and it is necessary to correct these areas. This [Representation of the People (Amendment)] Bill, for the first time in forty years, addresses itself to major issues relating to electoral reforms.
This government started the process of bringing about electoral reforms, by first bringing the Anti-Defection Bill.
We followed that by regulating donations from companies, by altering the Companies Act. We followed that by bringing in a Bill to prevent the misuse of religious institutions. This is the fourth step that we are taking during this Parliament.
This Bill addresses a number of areas. I won’t go into all the details. The law minister and other members have covered those details. But these are some areas that I would like to touch.
One of the most significant areas that this Bill goes into is to preserve secularism in our country. It is important to spend a minute on why secularism is important. It is important for us to understand what we mean by secularism, because there are some amongst us who, under the label of secularism, want to destroy religion.
Our secularism is not anti-religion, nor is it for destroying religion. We must be very clear about that. I would like to say categorically that anybody who thinks that secularism means the destruction of religion or an anti-religion act, is doing a disfavour to the word secularism, is doing a disfavour to our nation; and some who believe in that, should revise their thinking, because it is dangerous for our country.
Secularism is essential because, in a pluralistic society such as ours, it is essential to separate politics and government from religion. If we do not do so, we run the gravest risk of disintegrating the country and destroying our nation. Perhaps the effect will be much beyond just the effect that it will have on the nation. We will lose the nation; but the world will lose an experiment in building one humanity. So, the repercussions are much greater than even those affecting our nation.
The path that Gandhiji [MK Gandhi] and Panditji [Jawaharlal Nehru] have put us on to, and Indiraji [Indira Gandhi] took us on, has much greater goals than just those limited by our boundaries; and we must not limit our vision by our boundaries. Our vision must go beyond. So, secularism is one key word, and it is essential that secularism is brought in every area of our activities. Elections and the electoral process is one such very important area.
We took the first step when we brought the Bill for preventing the misuse of religious institutions. In this Bill, by requiring the political parties to submit themselves to the Constitution of India, we are pushing them further towards the secular goal. I feel here it is important for me to say that when we push people towards secularism—and I am saying push people, and not force people, because when we start forcing, then things snap; people take hard decisions. We must coax them and bring them into the mainstream, and that is what we are trying to do. We could have taken a very hard stand. I have gone through the proceedings of the House. Some members feel that much stronger action have been brought in. This was considered by the cabinet.
We went into it in depth and, in balance, we felt that it was better to tread softly along this path, because if we try to force, we may end up in a situation where we will isolate a large section of our population and deliberately cause fissiparous tendencies to develop. We have adopted the way of pulling the people into the mainstream and convincing them that this is the right way to go. We believe that by making political parties submit themselves to the Constitution of India, we are only strengthening our electoral process, our democracy and our nation. And any party that is not willing to submit itself to the Constitution of India does not deserve to be recognised as a political party…
An honourable member from the Opposition and an honourable member from our side have recommended an amendment to bring in the full provision of the Misuse of Religious Institutions Bill. We thought that it was already included, but, perhaps, it was a little soft; it was covered, but not completely. I have asked the law minister to bring in a government amendment because there are some technical problems in the wording of the two proposals. We will bring in a government amendment to cover this area and I would like to thank both the members…
Another very important aspect of the bill is the protection that we have sought for the weaker sections when they go to vote.
As I said, our electoral system, our democracy have functioned very well. But there are certain weak areas; and one of the weak areas is that the feudal elements prevent the weaker sections, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the minorities, the women, from going out to vote. Sometimes they are prevented from leaving their homes; sometimes they are prevented from actually getting to the booths by the feudal elements. This is, of course, one of the reasons. By making booth capturing a cognizable offence and by making both capturing a corrupt practice, we feel that the hands of the weaker sections will really be strengthened.
We have also listed a number of crimes which, if committed, will debar people from contesting an election. We have mentioned specifically those crimes which are antisocial and which are demeaning of the dignity of a particular section of the people. It is, again, the weaker sections against whom these crimes are committed and it is our earnest endeavour to protect the weaker sections by bringing in these provisions.
One major step that we are taking is reducing the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. We have full faith in the youth of India. The youth of India have demonstrated their wisdom, their maturity in panchayat elections, local body elections, and we feel that they are now ready to participate fully in the democratic process. This amendment will bring in almost fifty million people into the electoral system.
There has been another area where there have been some differences between what some parties have felt and what we have felt; what we have brought in and what has been the question of the multi-member election commission. We have full faith in the election commissioner and we feel that anybody who wants a multi-member election commission seems to have some doubts about the election commissioner. We have no doubts about the integrity and independence of the election commissioner and going to a multi-member election commission, we feel, would have meant that we doubted the integrity of the election commissioner in some way. We have no doubt about the integrity…
Having said that, let me also say that there have been a number of occasions when the decision of the election commissioner has been contentious. The Opposition has not agreed with many decisions and has made issues. We too have not liked many decisions and have made issues. But the fact is that it has been fairly universal and we have found that the election commissioner was tied down by the lack of powers he had. We could keep complaining. But because the system was as it was, he was not able to do even what he wanted to do. So, we have thought that instead of going for a multi-member commission, like has been suggested by certain parties, we would instead strengthen the hands of the election commissioner because we have full faith in him. This bill strengthens the hands of the election commissioner and for the first time perhaps the election commissioner will have the powers to deal with the task that has been given to him.
One more question had come up on identity cards. When we discussed this in the cabinet, we very clearly gave our affirmation. In fact, we have cleared identity cards. We will have multipurpose—whatever they are—identity cards. There are some problems on how it will be handled administratively; what it will cost; how we will bear it and how we will deal with these two areas. But we will start the process now. Because of the size of the country, the size of the electorate and the other complications, we cannot say that we will complete the whole process before the next elections or according to a time schedule, but I am very keen that the process is put into motion rapidly. In the initial stages we will have to learn in the process of putting this through, but we would like to see that it gets through quickly. We will overcome the difficulties and we will try and have identity cards as soon as possible.
Amongst the many points that have been raised during this debate I would like to refer to only two: the first is state funding. The problem is not whether there is state funding or not. The problem, as I understand it, is the question of the money power in elections, let me say very clearly from experience. I am very clear that our people are much too clever and much too wise to be misled by money power. Never has money power been the deciding factor in an election in this country. This is my feeling. If some people feel that our electorate can be misled by money power, I think they are totally wrong. It is only the politicians who sometimes feel that by spending more money they can do something. But our electorate is much too wise for that. State funding in no way changes the amount of money that is being used. In fact, it will only increase the amount of money that is out there for electoral use. It will not reduce the raising of money for elections in any way. So, I do not see state funding tackling the issue of the cost of elections in any way. If it did, we would have brought it here. But, I do see a need for trying to reduce the cost of elections. If the hon’ble members have a positive suggestion on that we will definitely consider it. But nothing concrete has come to us on that issue yet.
Let me once again say that I am very clear in my mind that we cannot buy the electorate of India. The electorate of India is much too independent and wise for that.
Sir, the second point that was raised—I think it does need addressing—is, some members have felt that this Bill has not addressed the core issues and has addressed only the peripheral issues. Well, I feel some of these members are suffering from what could best be called peripheral myopia.
Let me say very clearly that this Bill is a major Bill. It is a major electoral reform. I would go to the extent of calling it historical and revolutionary, and significantly, we have brought it in the centenary year of Panditji. It will strengthen the roots of our democracy and it re-establishes the faith of the Congress in the youth of India and in the wisdom of the people of India…
This is part of ThePrint’s Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.