PM Modi’s I-Day speech reiterates infeasible propositions
Narendra Modi has successfully converted his demagogic style, allied to his undeniable popularity ratings, into election dividends in Lok Sabha elections.
In his speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort on August 15, Prime Minister Narendra reiterated two contentious issues the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seems determined to push. One was the proposal to hold simultaneous elections throughout the country, including the centre and the states. The other was to impose an infeasible Uniform Civil Code (UCC) on the country. The second proposal, a fundamental tenet of the Hindu right, was delivered with a twist, but we’ll come to that later.
Let’s examine the idea of simultaneous elections first because it is problematical in a more straightforward way. The first thing to note is that regardless of plausibility, it goes fundamentally against the grain of the constitutional apparatus and the spirit of representative democracy.
Assume simultaneous elections are held when the next round of Lok Sabha elections is due. Since only Odisha votes simultaneously at present, the life of all other assemblies will have to be terminated before their terms are up to make possible the proposed simultaneous elections. We will get to the technical details in a bit, but first off that would be a fraud on the electorate that has sent representatives to the house with the expectation that it will last for five years.
Even more important, it will mean that the elected government, the executive arm, will have to be dissolved. Surely, the electors and citizens, in general, have the right to expect that their elected government goes the full distance.
That’s to begin with. Once simultaneous elections happen and governments are formed at the centre and in all the states, a mechanism will have to be devised to ensure that all governments throughout the country remain in a stable condition – i.e., maintain a majority in their respective houses. That cannot in any practical way be ensured, especially given that Modi’s party itself operates on the modus operandi of unseating governments run by opposition parties whenever and wherever possible.
Thus, to prevent what we call mid-term elections, there will have to be a legal and constitutional mechanism for fixed-term houses. Even if that were possible, in the first place, it would be deeply anti-democratic because it would open the door to minority governments, which, in the very nature of things, would not be responsible to a democratically elected house. Simultaneous elections would be, in summary, against the spirit of the Constitution and what is now called constitutional morality.
Of course, there is a good reason for the BJP’s over-eagerness to inaugurate a system of simultaneous elections. The party hopes that by so doing it can cash in on an electoral strategy centred on a charismatic leader. It wants the electoral logic of plebiscitary appeals issued by an authoritarian leader to dominate the entire electoral landscape.
As things stand, Modi, in the manner of Indira Gandhi, has been successful in converting his demagogic style, allied to his undeniable popularity ratings, into election dividends in Lok Sabha elections. He has been largely unsuccessful in converting state elections into a referendum on his leadership. Even in a number of states where the BJP is in power, it has won elections by virtue of the presence of strong local party organisations and leaders. Assam, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are obvious examples.
But, as I’ve indicated, establishing a ‘one-nation, one-election’ system is not constitutionally feasible, even though the 22nd Law Commission has submitted recommendations to the committee headed by Ram Nath Kovind, the former president of India, that is studying the issue.
As the 21st Law Commission headed by Justice BS Chauhan, made clear, establishing simultaneous elections will require changes to existing laws, most importantly the Representation of the People Act, and constitutional amendments. Most likely, these amendments – to allow for fixed-term houses, minority governments and the dissolution of assemblies before their terms are over, in the first place – will need to meet the more stringent terms of article 368 of the Constitution, which stipulates passage of amending legislation in both houses of parliament separately by majorities of two-thirds of members present and voting and half the total membership of the house, and ratification by at least half the states of the Union.
For the foreseeable future, it’s not terribly difficult to do the arithmetic. Simultaneous elections are neither desirable nor possible, whatever the conclusions the Kovind panel may arrive at.
And that brings us to the other contentious issue that is neither desirable nor, as practically admitted by the central government and the BJP, feasible. In his I-Day speech, Modi made a pitch for a ‘secular’ UCC. ‘Laws that divide our nation based on religion and foster discrimination have no place in modern society,’ he said. We shall treat that as rhetorical, given the BJP’s record of sectarianism and majoritarianism.
Let’s look at what the 21st Law Commission had to say on a prospective UCC in a 2018 paper. It concluded that a UCC was not merely unnecessary but destructive of the pluralistic fabric of our society. It said, cogently, that ‘a “united” nation need not have “uniformity”’, and it was necessary to make ‘diversity reconcile with certain universal and indisputable arguments on human rights’. This could not be done by imposing a UCC against the principles of secularism, pluralism and multiculturalism. Secularism can be invoked in a number of ways.
To be sure, in an ideal world, one set of personal laws for all citizens is a desirable goal if it is a pastiche of all existing codes. As we are aware, Article 44 of the Constitution enjoins the nation-state a UCC. One assumes that the invocation of a ‘secular’ UCC by Modi does not envision a historically or socially decontextualised set of laws that represent some form of ‘best practice’. Of course, there is the fear that Modi’s ‘secular’ actually means Hindu. And that is what the Law Commission paper warns against. A truly secular UCC would, for instance, dispense with the Hindu Undivided Family.
But the larger point is that personal codes are separate not just for Hindus, Muslims and Christians, there are innumerable personal codes among the many tribal communities in India. In April 2024, Union home minister Amit Shah conceded as much when he said a UCC would not affect tribal people. But how would that be a ‘secular’ and ‘uniform’ code?
Modi’s proposition was one rooted in the divisive ideology of the Sangh Parivar. Indian secularism has to remain rooted in the diverse world of India’s pluriversity, which makes spaces for multicultural practices. That does not mean justice cannot be delivered — especially with regard to gender inequities. Targeted legislation can achieve those ends.
Suhit K Sen is an author and political commentator based in Kolkata. The views expressed are personal
Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription
