Seven Decades of Independent India

by Vinod Rai

  Electoral Reforms through the Years

  The Election Commission’s journey has witnessed change in both the quality and the quantity of its operations. The management of elections in India has continually evolved and still does, matching the colossal proportions and ever-increasing complexity of task. In the first general elections held in India in 1952, there were separate ballot boxes used for candidates. In 1962, the marking system of voting was introduced. Multi-member constituencies have given way to single-member constituencies. Computerized photo-electoral rolls have now substituted printed electoral rolls. The Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC) is by now a cherished possession of all citizens. By 2014, the coverage of both had already reached over 99 per cent of the electors.

  In 1982, EVMs were used on an experimental basis. Since 1998, these have been used for all state elections and since 2004 in all general elections. During this period, EVMs have withstood judicial, administrative and technical scrutiny. Continuous improvements in EVMs have been taken up through an independent committee of technical experts and in consultation with political parties. Manufactured by the public sector in India, EVMs are simple, voter-friendly and cost-effective and give faster and error-free voting and quick counting. At every stage of handling of EVMs, candidates of all political parties are present. Use of the Braille strip on EVMs has made them popular with the visually challenged. EVMs are increasingly catching the attention of election management agencies across the world. In 2013, the EVMs incorporated a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) as an additional feature to enhance transparency and public confidence. The next general elections in 2019 will be held entirely with VVPAT.

  Year after year, through engagement of technology and a sense of innovation, and, more importantly, matching with the dynamics of the sociopolitical and economic processes of the Indian society, the art and craft of election management has been chiselled further. In the highly charged arena of competitive elections, where distrust is the best guarantor of fair-play, the Election Commission spares no effort in election tracking, preventing intimidation, ensuring security of voters and facilitating votes. The latest effort in this regard is to have webcasting from polling stations at the time of polling for public view of the proceedings.

  One major instrument that contributes to peaceful, free and fair elections in India is the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which the Indian political class, particularly candidates in elections, is in awe of. The MCC ensures a level playing field and is a unique instrument that has evolved with the consensus of political parties in India and is a singular significant contribution to the cause of democracy. With the seal of approval put by the Supreme Court on the MCC, the Election Commission enforces it from the day it announces any election schedule, whether for a general election or bye-election. Provisions of the MCC facilitate the Election Commission in preventing misuse of state resources. While the MCC has no statutory backing and many of its provisions are not legally enforceable, public opinion is the moral sanction for its enforcement and, hence, it has evolved into a ‘moral’ code of conduct. Neutrality is the soul of any election management body and the fierce neutrality of the Election Commission constitutes the core of its strength, compounded by the MCC.

  In its evolution, the ECI is presently at a new crossroads. While India’s election management apparatus has quite effectively neutralized the challenges of muscle power and incumbency power, the Commission is aware of the battles that remain to be won. Foremost among these is corruption that can and does pollute the electoral process. It is a striking coincidence that when an agitated debate on corruption was raging across India, the Commission stepped up its efforts with some determined measures to curb the use of black money during elections. This also covers the new menace of ‘paid news’—a corrupt nexus between political parties, candidates and media houses that seeks to hoodwink the expenditure rules and causes undue influence on electors. It warrants mentioning a few instruments for transparency in campaign finance, some of which already existed but required serious enforcement and some others that were introduced with the new resolve to fight money power. There is a prescribed ceiling on expenditure for the elections to the Parliament as well as the legislatures of the provinces/states. The candidates are required to maintain their day-to-day account of election expenses and lodge the same with the district election officer within thirty days of declaration of results. They are also required to file an affidavit declaring their assets and liabilities, along with affidavits about their educational and criminal antecedents at the time of filing their nomination. Such affidavits are displayed on the ECI’s website. Expenditure observers are appointed to keep a check on the expenditure incurred by the candidates and the political parties.

  For curbing corruption and use of black money in elections, the Commission has also issued directions that candidates must open a separate bank account for all their election expenses and should make payment for major expenses by cheques. It also directed its managers to maintain a ‘shadow observation register’ of election expenses for each candidate, which is compared with the candidate’s statement of election expenses and the statement of expenditure provided by the political parties, for checking unmentioned excesses, if any. This is in line with the ECI’s efforts to promote stringent auditing of the accounts of all political parties and publishing of their annual accounts. Starting from 2010, it set up district-level committees to operate 24/7 during the election period to account for the acts of paid news, while all the time walking on the razor’s edge of not encroaching on press freedom.

  Excessive money power has led to the clamour for state funding of elections, which is not desirable simply for the reason that it does not guarantee an end to the inflow of black money to the election arena. It might result in double jeopardy of both the honest taxpayer’s money and black money getting mixed up in financing electoral campaigns. However, since democracy cannot run without funds being spent on election campaigns, state funding of political parties (not elections) based on the votes obtained by them can be seriously considered. If all parties were to get Rs 100 for every vote obtained, based on the last election turnout of 55 crore votes, they would get Rs 5500 crores without resorting to private fund collection using force or foul means. Awareness campaign for ethical voting without falling for bribes and inducements is a new dimension of the Election Commission’s efforts, for which civil society has come forward with exemplary support.

  Another issue that has engaged the serious attention of the Commission starting from 2010 is voter participation in elections. Elections have to be not only free and fair, but also socially just and more participative. Otherwise there may remain a democracy deficit despite a correctly conducted election. From the first general election onwards, India’s voter participation, measured by the voter turnout has remained close to 55–60 per cent. While this might be a reasonably good figure compared to the declining voter interest in several other countries and societies, it is definitely far less than the country’s aspirations. The theme that the ECI adopted in celebration of its diamond jubilee in 2010 was ‘greater participation for a stronger democracy’. All elections ever since have registered record turnouts—states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have jumped from approximately 30 per cent to 55–60 per cent, whereas the northeastern states that were already high have crossed 80–90 per cent.3

  The Indian Constitution from its very inception provided every twenty-one-year-old the right to vote in direct recognition of the role of the youth in the democratic process. The voting age was further reduced to eighteen years in 1989 through a Constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, the potential of the wide-ranging revolutionary step is far from being realized. This is evident from the low registration and turnout of young voters. Apart from the problems of youth enrolment and participation there is also the issue of a visible apathy among the Indian urban middle class that prevents many young voters from casting votes. Moreover, women voters also lag behind their male
counterparts in certain parts of the country. Weaker sections, vulnerable groups, people in difficult situations of life, and voters from the defence forces are particularly in need of special facilitation.

  The ECI’s response to the above predicament, while a bit late, has been decisive enough. Replacing token gestures on voters’ education in the past, a Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP) wing was set up that rolls out comprehensive community outreach and multimedia campaigns for increasing electoral participation of all citizens. The attempt aimed at filling up all possible gaps in information, motivation and facilitation. In every election now, the ECI carries out a scientific survey of Knowledge, Attitude, Behaviour and Practices (KABP) of voters before launching targeted interventions in partnership with a host of governmental and civil society organizations. In a very short time, these efforts have become a central part of the election management operations. This initiative has returned impressive dividends in terms of higher registration and higher turnout in each of the recent state elections, including record turnouts in some states.

  In a historic measure, the Commission declared 25 January, its foundation day, as the National Voters Day (NVD) from 2011 with the avowed purpose to increase enrolment of voters, especially of the newly eligible ones. In five NVDs, nearly 120 million new voters have been added. Each year, around 800,000 functions were organized at the polling booth level to give new voters their voter cards. All the participants took a pledge to vote without fail and without any bribe or inducement. It is heartening to note that several countries of the world are adopting this model of National Voters Day.

  It does not require any explanation that aspiring democracies around the world look forward to sharing the knowledge, skills and expertise at the ECI’s disposal. Responding to increasing global demands, especially from Afro-Asian nations, the Commission launched the India International Institute of Democracy and Election Management (IIIDEM) in 2011. IIIDEM serves as a training and resource centre in the critical sector of elections and democratic processes for both national and international participants. In the first year itself, the institute hosted over forty courses and had enthusiastic funding and technical partners joining in. Within five years, nearly seventy-five countries sent their election officials to get training here. The institute receives calls from developing democracies in Asia and Africa and also from countries that have witnessed the Arab Spring for capacity development and sharing of knowledge and skills. Teams from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc., have received training and guidance from the ECI. The Commission is rising to this new role with conviction and humility.

  Electoral Reforms: Emerging Concerns

  With the type of constitutional mandate that the Commission has, it cannot afford to sit on its laurels. There are several long-pending reform proposals and some recent ones from the Commission that aim at cleaning up the electoral process, so that the foundation can be laid for good governance and a corruption-free polity. The ECI in association with the law ministry organized countrywide consultations on these reforms, paving the way for adoption of due legislation. Some of these proposals deal with criminalization of politics and regulation of campaign finance, publicity and opinion polls, etc. Groups from civil society have vociferously come out in support of early electoral reforms.

  The electoral reforms being demanded can be grouped into three categories:

  a) Ones that will reinforce the independence of the Election Commission.

  b) Those that will help cleanse politics.

  c) Those that will make the working of the political parties more transparent.

  a) Reinforcing independence of the ECI: The proposal is that the appointment of the commissioners should not be done unilaterally by the government of the day, but by a collegium just like all other Constitutional and statutory bodies. The elevation of the chief election commissioner of India should be automatic—by seniority. The two other election commissioners should be removable only by the process of impeachment like the chief election commissioner.

  b) Cleansing of politics: Though the law of the land provides for disqualification of convicted individuals from contesting, the ECI has been demanding that the persons against whom heinous criminal cases are pending should be debarred from contesting—provided the court has framed the charges.

  c) Enhancing transparency of political parties: The ECI must be given the power to deregister a political party for violation of the terms of registration and any gross indiscipline. Inner party democracy must be honestly followed. The funds of the political parties must be audited by an independent auditor and must be put on a website for the public to see. An act should be passed to ban hate speech that can arouse communal tensions, especially during elections. Funding of elections must be made transparent both in terms of fund collection and expenditure. Paid news must be made an electoral and a criminal offence. Government promotional advertisements must be banned six months before the elections. These are some of the suggestions that the Election Commission has been sending to the governments for over two decades. But the governments have been sitting over them.

  Several national-level committees have given a number of suggestions on electoral reforms during the past four decades. These should be examined without further delay and implemented if the declining faith of the people in democracy is to be restored.

  If the largest democracy on the planet wishes to become the greatest, the electoral reforms are the way to achieve it.

  IV

  India’s Media 1947 to 2017

  Robin Jeffrey

  India’s first general elections in 1951–52 enrolled 175 million eligible voters, lasted for six months, and led Jawaharlal Nehru across 40,000 kilometres of the country to speak to 35 million people. Election speeches on the radio were ruled out because Nehru reckoned there were too many parties to allow fair access, and, anyway, the country only had two radios for every 1000 people. Forty-six per cent of eligible citizens voted and Nehru’s Congress Party won three-quarters of the 479 seats.1

  In India’s eighteenth general elections in 2014, 547 million voters—66 per cent of the electorate—cast ballots on EVMs. It took only five hours to declare the results, though polling had happened over six weeks. There were 650 television sets and 800 mobile phones for every 1000 people.2 Narendra Modi, who became prime minister, covered 300,000 kilometres, addressed 400 rallies, and using two helicopters and a private jet, was back in his own bed in Ahmedabad nearly every night!3

  In seventy years of Independence, India’s people have experienced varying and uneven benefits, but what is unquestionable is that their media world—their ability to communicate—has been transformed. That continuing transformation results from unpredictable collisions between controls, technology and capitalism. These contests have worked themselves out in three identifiable phases. The first extends from 1947 to the end of Indira Gandhi’s ‘Emergency’. The second dates from her return to power in 1980. Her government continued loosening of regulations. Capitalists acquired greater room for manoeuvre; 1982 was declared ‘the year of productivity’, and new technologies drove expansion of print publications and eventually a semi-legal explosion of television. Visual and print media began to reach mass audiences. The third stage arrived at the beginning of the twenty-first century when the arrival of digital communication in mobile phones blew apart all the comfortable predictability that went with ‘old media’.

  Word-of-Mouth World, 1947–77

  India in 1947 inherited the apparatus of a colonial state that sought to control information. Print could be censored and printers and publishers imprisoned. Post, telegraph, telephones and radio were government monopolies. The Nehru vision of a planned economy propelled by the state added new layers of government direction. Thus, radio, television and telephones continued to be state-owned and intended for the didactic tasks of ‘development’ and ‘improvement’. Consumer goods were a low priority. Newspapers had to apply for funds to buy foreign-mad
e equipment and for permission to draw a quota of newsprint. The first amendment to the Constitution of 1950 prompted by the horrors of the Partition and the threat of communist insurrections made it easier to limit freedom of the press. A Central Board of Film Censors, set up in 1951, viewed all films before release and made the film industry ‘a medium of national culture, education and entertainment’.4

  The vaguely socialist Congress governments of the time regarded English language newspapers as a bastion of capitalism—the so-called ‘jute press’ (alluding to proprietors with investments in various industries) or the ‘jhooth press’ (the lying press). Governments tried encouraging smaller newspapers by requiring a publication to raise its selling price to reflect the number of pages in that specific issue. This was to prevent bigger newspapers with generous advertisements from selling below cost, increasing circulations and expanding advertising revenues at the expense of smaller newspapers. Indira Gandhi’s governments seemed to believe that many small newspapers would be less troublesome than a few big ones, a notion she later decided was wrong. The ‘price-page’ effort failed in the Supreme Court. Governments, however, still had devices such as newsprint quotas to use as levers against unsympathetic newspapers. And eventually the Emergency brought full-scale censorship.