Outlook Bibliofile: Ex-Election Commissioner SY Quraishi In An Interview With Outlook
Former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi was not amused at Prime Minister Narendra Modi flaunting India's might in space, hinting it gave the government an unfair edge with the 2019 Lok Sabha polls round the corner
#ElectionsOutlook #LokSabhaElections2019 #OutlookBibliofile #OutlookMagazine #OutlookGroup
Follow this story and more: https://www.outlookindia.com/
#ElectionsOutlook #LokSabhaElections2019 #OutlookBibliofile #OutlookMagazine #OutlookGroup
Follow this story and more: https://www.outlookindia.com/
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 Behind the technicality of the model code, perhaps no violation has taken place.
00:06 But ethically and in spirit, perhaps this was avoidable.
00:13 Hello and welcome to Outlook Bibliophile, a series on books, authors and everything related to publishing.
00:26 Today we have with us a very distinguished guest, Dr. S.Y. Qureshi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India,
00:32 a scholar and an authority on anything that goes on in the elections.
00:37 We'll be in conversation with Dr. Qureshi, obviously about the elections and we'll also talk about his books,
00:44 which I think are essential reading for anybody who wants to understand Indian elections.
00:50 The latest is The Great March of Democracy. It's a series of essays which Dr. Qureshi has edited.
00:56 And one of his previous books, An Undocumented Wonder, The Making of the Great Indian Election.
01:03 We'll start with a very peculiar issue that's related to funding and political parties.
01:10 It's specifically about electoral bonds.
01:13 The EC has voiced its opposition at the Supreme Court over the issue, says that the bonds are not, they're opaque and not very suitable.
01:24 What's your take on this?
01:26 I think electoral bond is a very, very retrograde step and totally inconsistent with what was promised.
01:36 I remember hearing this budget speech of the finance minister, which started very well.
01:42 He said that without transparency of political funding, free and fair elections are not possible.
01:48 And that for the last 70 years, all efforts to improve transparency have failed.
01:54 And therefore, one thought that they are going to introduce transparency.
01:59 And what got introduced was electoral bonds, which has taken away voter transparency existed.
02:05 Before the electoral bond, the situation was that any donation of over 20,000 was reported to the Election Commission.
02:14 We knew who had given how much money to whom.
02:17 And we could see what is the quid pro quo, because are they getting something back from the government in terms of contract,
02:24 in terms of bank loans, in terms of licenses and all that. All that has gone.
02:29 Now, the government said that people, the donors want secrecy.
02:36 They don't want public to know who they have donated to. That is just not acceptable.
02:41 Now, people want transparency and they want to know because the corporate world is funding the elections for some return and for some favors.
02:55 So that is the main issue. And I'm glad that Election Commission protested immediately.
03:03 And they have taken this stand in the Supreme Court. And I feel that the Supreme Court will order a corrective action.
03:11 A second dimension of the same issue is that earlier, no company could donate more than 7.5% of their last three years profit.
03:21 Obviously, there is a good logic to this limit so that companies by donating big monies to the political parties do not start interfering with the governance of the country.
03:33 That was the logic. That limit has been taken away altogether, which means a company could donate 100% of its profits to the political parties.
03:44 And obviously, there is no free lunch. If they give money, they want something back and they will be running the country.
03:51 Already, there used to be a talk of crony capitalism. Now, through this electoral bond scheme, crony capitalism is now legitimized and legalized.
04:05 So, it's a very serious matter.
04:07 What do you think are the challenges for the Election Commission at present? How do you think that the institution can best protect its autonomy?
04:14 At the moment, the anomaly is that the most powerful Election Commission of the world, which India's Election Commission is, has the most defective system of appointment.
04:25 This must be the only Election Commission in the world where the government of the day makes an announcement, makes the appointment,
04:32 without reference to any other party, the public opinion or leader of opposition.
04:40 In most countries, the appointment is with the wider public consultation, leader of opposition, there is a collegium,
04:50 and finally, a scrutiny by the parliamentary committee or entire parliament.
04:56 And in some cases, even there is a live telecast of the interview of the candidates.
05:03 In such a situation, the people who are finally appointed leave no scope for any suspicion or doubt about their neutrality.
05:11 Now, in India's case, the government of the day appoints anybody, although they have all been very neutral, very fair, no doubt.
05:20 But it does put a pressure on the incumbent also. If opposition parties and the public start raising fingers about the decisions taken by some of the commissioners,
05:31 it does put an undue pressure on the minds of the incumbent. That is not fair.
05:40 Secondly, the protection given to the Chief Election Commissioner that once appointed, he cannot be removed,
05:47 except through a process of impeachment in parliament, that should extend to the other two commissioners also.
05:53 Because at the time when the Constitution provided this protection, there was only a one-man commission.
06:00 And now that we have a three-member commission, logically, the protection has to extend to all three.
06:07 Because the protection was not meant for an individual, but for the institution. So all three should be protected.
06:13 Otherwise, what happens is that these two commissioners, who have an equal vote,
06:18 these two commissioners can overrule the CEC every day, ten times a day, and have their way without being really accountable and responsible.
06:28 Now, and why they would do it? Because sometimes they feel they are on probation.
06:32 If they do not please the government, the government may not elevate them. Now, this is not a good feeling to have at all.
06:39 So all three should have equal protection. The appointment should be through collegium.
06:44 And elevation to CEC should be by seniority, automatically, and not on the discretion of the government.
06:51 Let us now talk about a different matter with regard to EVMs and VVPATs.
06:59 There is a petition in the Supreme Court by almost 19 opposition parties,
07:04 who are petitioning that there be at least 50% verification of VVPATs.
07:11 And this EC has opposed it, saying that it will increase the time to declare election results by at least six days.
07:20 What is your take on that, VVPATs in general?
07:23 At the moment, the provision is that only one machine per assembly constituency will be counted,
07:30 which means one out of 200 to 300 ballot boxes or machines, they will be counted, the slips will be counted.
07:37 Political parties have demanded 30%, some have demanded even 50%, which is the matter before the Supreme Court.
07:46 Now, just one per 300 or 50% out of 300, there is a huge gap.
07:53 Well, the Election Commission had referred the matter to a professional body,
07:59 Indian Statistical Institute in Calcutta, and apparently they have given some recommendation,
08:05 endorsing the current practice of the Election Commission.
08:09 I think, although they have been talking of ISI Calcutta for six months,
08:14 I think this delay by the Election Commission in getting the recommendation of ISI has not been very productive.
08:24 This was an answer which should have come within a couple of days or within a week,
08:29 and that should have been made public.
08:31 I have suggested taking a knowledge of cricket, where both the teams are allowed two appeals for decision review system.
08:41 You remember in cricket, there used to be violent incidents after the decisions of the umpires,
08:46 which were challenging, you know, like caught behind a catch, whether it was a catch or not,
08:50 whether LBW was a genuine LBW or not.
08:53 So, the decision review system is referred to that on the basis of appeal, it is referred to the third umpire,
08:59 who looks at the videos in slow motion, 20 angle, 10 to 50 cameras and everything,
09:05 and then they come to a conclusion what would have been their correct decision.
09:09 Similarly, the top two runners-up, because they are the maximum stakeholder,
09:14 if there is some cheating, it is the person who is likely to win and who becomes the runner-up.
09:21 So, let the two runners-up choose any two machines they are most suspicious about, let them be counted.
09:28 So, that means only four machines per constituency, which is a very small number,
09:34 but the satisfaction rate will be very high, because they are the people who have the suspicion
09:40 and their suspicion has to be taken care of.
09:43 As you must be knowing that EC has decided not to hold assembly elections in J&K along with the Lok Sabha elections.
09:50 How do you see it? How do you see the logic that they will hold the Lok Sabha elections,
09:54 but not the assembly elections, and can't say about the people, but at least the parties there,
10:00 have voiced their strong opposition to this. How do you see it?
10:03 There has been a demand that all elections should be held simultaneously.
10:07 At least these were two elections which were held simultaneously in the past.
10:11 So, that was the expectation this time around also, because voter is the same,
10:16 polling station is the same, polling party, the staff is the same, the security arrangement is the same.
10:23 If you come, after all the bandobas arrangement, if you come to vote,
10:27 whether you are voting for one election or two elections or three, for voter it is convenient.
10:35 Now, the reason given by the Election Commission is that they did not have adequate security
10:41 to provide protection to the number of Pradhan Sabha candidates, whose number is very, very large,
10:47 much larger than the Lok Sabha elections.
10:50 That is a reason which can be, if we take a charitable view, perhaps they have a point.
10:58 Because at the moment, for only six constituencies, the average number of candidates is seven or eight.
11:08 But for every Vidhan Sabha constituency, the number of candidates is much larger.
11:13 And for, I think, 87 Vidhan Sabha constituencies, as against six Lok Sabha.
11:20 So, for the same region, ten times, fifteen times the number of candidates means fifteen times the security.
11:28 And that security may not be available.
11:30 After the general election, when the paramilitary force is available throughout the election,
11:36 throughout the country, all that becomes available.
11:39 Most of it, which can be deployed in J&K for Vidhan Sabha elections.
11:44 That must be the logic and if that is correct, I am okay with it.
11:49 Talk about one more thing that is, that constantly comes to fore during the elections,
11:53 which is the model code of conduct.
11:55 And recently there was a big debate about it, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave the ASAT speech
12:03 about the anti-satellite technology.
12:06 So, the EC obviously set up a committee to probe this and said that it did not violate the MCC,
12:13 because no assets of the state broadcast and all were used.
12:17 What's your take on this? How do you view this controversy?
12:20 Well, the fact that the committee had all the facts and they examined and the election commission has already taken a view,
12:26 I suppose that must be a correct decision.
12:29 Although one thought that the issue was not entirely whether public broadcaster was used.
12:37 The issue was that an announcement was made, an announcement which will benefit the person who is making the announcement or his party.
12:45 Suddenly it becomes popular, oh he has done a great thing, so 10 votes shift because of that.
12:52 So, that is the clause.
12:55 Now, it did not amount to making a financial announcement, which is what is forbidden in the model code.
13:03 So, behind the technicality of the model code, perhaps no violation has taken place.
13:09 But ethically and in spirit, perhaps this was avoidable,
13:17 because you know what the principle that we have followed in the past, we were there.
13:23 It was two things. One, we always examine whether a decision which is being taken or an event can be postponed.
13:31 If it can be postponed till after the election, it must be postponed.
13:35 I suppose even this is something which was available to us for the last seven years.
13:41 If we did not do it in the last seven years, we could have waited for another seven weeks.
13:45 So, what was the hurry? That's a question we always ask.
13:49 And therefore, well, in spirit, perhaps it was not a desirable thing.
13:59 I would like to give an analogy.
14:01 You know, Mr. Manohar Parekhkar, when he was the Chief Minister of Goa,
14:05 and there was a by-election going on, in the middle of the by-election,
14:10 we heard that the candidate is being made a minister.
14:13 So, that candidate would have got an advantage and was against the spirit of the model goal.
14:20 I brought it to the notice of Mr. Parekhkar. Initially, he protested.
14:24 He said, "Making a minister anytime is his constitutional right. How can we stop?"
14:31 I said, "I'm not challenging your constitutional right.
14:34 100% it is your constitutional right.
14:37 But it is just a suggestion that maybe it will be in spirit in violation of the code."
14:43 I'm so happy to inform you that Mr. Parekhkar came out with a very statesman-like statement.
14:51 And he said, "I sacrifice my constitutional right to the moral authority of the model goal,
14:58 and I'm postponing, I'm not using my constitutional right."
15:02 I think that was the right spirit. I wish that spirit was followed in this case as well.
15:07 Moving on, let's talk a bit about the book.
15:11 In this latest book, you have argued that prisoners should be allowed to vote.
15:16 You have passionately argued it. You have given statistics.
15:19 Could you tell us a bit about it? Why do you feel so?
15:22 You know, the voting right is equal to all citizens.
15:28 All citizens should have equal rights.
15:32 And citizens who are in jail also are Indian citizens.
15:36 They can contest election, but they're not allowed to vote. I think that's a grave anomaly.
15:41 And in any case, out of about 4 lakh prisoners in India, two-thirds are under trial,
15:47 which means not yet convicted, which means they're still innocent, considered innocent.
15:52 Now, how can we take away their voting rights?
15:56 I personally feel that that voting right should be given.
16:01 There is a question of logistics, because in one jail, there will be people from different parts of the country.
16:07 Therefore, there will be different constituencies involved.
16:10 Maybe we can start a ballot system for them.
16:13 Logistically, it's not all that difficult.
16:16 A ballot system means postal ballot system.
16:20 Now, that can be introduced. I feel they should be given voting rights.
16:25 If they can contest, why can't they vote?
16:28 That's very interesting thing. So, moving on, I'd also like to hear your views on the first-past-the-post system,
16:35 the electoral system that we have in India. There have been many passionate arguments that perhaps there's a need to move on,
16:42 or somehow modify it in order to better suit the process in India, in the case that it's so gigantic.
16:51 How do you see this argument? Are you in favour or against? What's your position?
16:56 You know, the book in your hand, An Undocumented Wonder, in that, when I wrote the book in 2000,
17:03 An Undocumented Wonder, the making of the great Indian election.
17:09 When I first wrote it in 2014, I argued in favour of first-past-the-post, because it has been there for 70 years.
17:18 Everybody understands it. It is basically very simple and all that.
17:23 But after the 2014 elections, I had to change my opinion. Why?
17:28 Because what happened was that in the general election, in UP for instance,
17:35 a party which got the third largest vote share, 20% BSP, ended up with zero seats.
17:42 Now, 20% vote share and zero seats surely puts a question mark on representative democracy.
17:50 So, that is when I started examining, although in my initial edition also,
17:55 I'd looked at the proportional representation system, what are the different models,
17:59 what are the difficulties and pitfalls. But then I realised that the time has come for us to study the whole situation
18:06 and perhaps go to a proportional representation system. I have recommended a mixed model.
18:12 Half of it can be first-past-the-post, the other half can be proportional representation system,
18:17 like the German model. And, you know, we keep quoting Germany for their Vivipad judgment.
18:23 So, why don't we have a look at Vivipad, the German model for the electoral system? So, that is what I suggest.
18:30 Could you talk a bit more about the mixed system that you are suggesting, how it would work and all?
18:37 You know, the idea is that half the constituencies can have, half the election can be through first-past-the-post system,
18:45 which means, like we have, there is a constituency, there are, shall we say, there are 10 candidates,
18:52 people come and vote, and whosoever gets the maximum number of votes gets the entire thing.
18:59 You may win by just one vote, but all the power then comes to you.
19:04 But then the situation is that the runner-up who has just one less becomes zero.
19:13 Now, in proportional system, at least in proportion to the number of votes which that party has got,
19:22 you will get the number of seats. So, at least some seats will be available to you in the parliament or Vidhan Sabha.
19:28 Based on the number of votes that you got. So, it will, the competition will become a little less aggressive.
19:36 Because right now it is no holds barred because it is, either you win or you are finished. So, that will go.
19:47 One more thing that I found very interesting in this book was that it talked about micro-targeting of voters.
19:55 In the sense that whenever a voter or whenever a small area, they vote according to their wishes,
20:05 they can be backlash from a political group based on the pattern they voted.
20:11 It is all identified by the data, poll vote data.
20:15 And several authors, scholars have raised concerns over it that perhaps the ECI should mix the data so as
20:22 to make it impossible or difficult to micro-target voters and because there may be instances of,
20:29 even if somebody wins, a government is formed, they may discriminate with this set of voters because they did not vote for them.
20:37 There might be even attacks, any nefarious designs. What's your take on that?
20:41 You know, there is a secrecy of voters individually and secrecy of voters collectively.
20:48 Now, if one polling booth area, let us take a village. One village has one polling booth and that booth has voted for party X.
20:58 Party X does not come to power, party Y comes to power. Now, that party is going to punish the village,
21:05 "Look, you guys did not vote for me. Out of a thousand votes, only 900 went to the opposition.
21:12 So why should we do anything for you?" So to that extent, a collective secrecy of that area is violated.
21:19 And to take care of it, in the ballot paper days, there was a system.
21:25 You know, we used to draw 10 ballot boxes randomly. We'll put the ballot papers into a drum and roll it and mix it.
21:33 And then make bundles of 50 each and then count so that nobody would know which village voted for which party.
21:41 So the voting pattern of a village was not known. So to guard the secrecy of the village collective.
21:52 After the introduction of voting machines, EVM, that practice of mixing disappeared.
21:58 And we started realizing the problem. That's why we asked our two companies who manufacture EVM
22:05 to develop what we call a totalizer, where 14 machines were connected to one machine.
22:12 The data will get jumbled and then we will do the counting.
22:16 We called a meeting of all political parties, gave them a demonstration for a good five, six hours.
22:23 And they understood and that day they supported us.
22:27 Then we wrote to the government to allow us to start using a totalizer.
22:32 So when was this? This was about 2008 and 2009.
22:36 And since then the matter has been pending with the government.
22:40 Finally they set up a parliamentary committee and the parliamentary committee said that it will not be in public interest.
22:46 I mean, I find it totally illogical. Why will it not be in public interest?
22:51 Here there are ministers on record. We saw them on TV somewhere in Maharashtra.
22:56 Look, you, this village, you did not vote for us. We will see how you will get water.
23:00 And to say that to guard that situation, they say that is more in public interest.
23:07 I don't know what is the logic. I think we made a mistake.
23:10 We should not have referred it to the government at all.
23:13 We should have just introduced it. After all, it is nothing but an electronic substitution of mixing, which was the practice anyway.
23:21 That was a mistake and it has happened. When we referred to the government, the government sits over it.
23:26 That's the record, which is why about 40-50 electoral reform proposals are pending with the government over a period of time.
23:33 They are very very slow to respond. They are extremely unresponsive.
23:37 You argued in your book passionately, in both the books, about the threats of criminalization of politics and the money, muscle power in politics.
23:46 We have been able to tackle these issues to an extent, but largely we have rather been, I'd say,
23:53 not as much successful as we would have wanted to be.
23:56 Yes, the two issues threatening the electoral process are, for number one, money power.
24:03 There is a very large and massive abuse of money.
24:11 In fact, in my earlier book, The Undocumented Wonder, I had listed 40 modus operandi of abuse of money power.
24:18 How they are using money, distributing cash, distributing liquor, goodies in kind, fake marriage parties, entertainment and all that.
24:32 So, that is one issue.
24:35 The second is criminalization of politics.
24:38 People with criminal cases pending against them are contesting and winning elections.
24:43 In Parliament today, we have 182 MPs against whom criminal cases are pending by their own admission, given through their affidavit.
24:55 Some of them are multiple cases and many of them are heinous offenses like rape, decoity, murder and kidnapping.
25:04 The Election Commission has been demanding that such people should be debarred from contesting elections.
25:11 It has even gone up to the Supreme Court.
25:13 The Supreme Court said that you cannot debar them because they have not yet been convicted.
25:17 They may prove to be innocent.
25:19 But in the process, while the case is pending, they are in power and in a position of influence,
25:27 which is not very safe from the point of view of people.
25:33 The Supreme Court has said that the party and the candidate has to announce publicly and prominently the criminal cases pending,
25:42 so that people make an informed choice.
25:45 Dr. Qureshi, it was a thorough learning experience and a pleasure talking to you.
25:49 Thank you very much.
25:50 Thank you very much.
25:51 And this is my latest book, which I would like to draw your attention to.
25:57 The Great March of Democracy.
25:59 The Great March of Democracy, Seven Decades of India's Elections.
26:02 [Music]