NEW DELHI: Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has escalated her attack on the newly introduced One Nation, One Election bill, labeling it as "anti-constitutional" and claiming it undermines the federal structure of India. Her remarks came during heated debates following the introduction of two bills aimed at holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, known as the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
Presenting these bills was Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, who initiated the vote leading to their introduction with 269 members of the Lok Sabha supporting the legislation, compared to 198 who opposed it. This vote marked the first use of electronic voting technology within the new Parliament House.
Prianka Gandhi voiced strong concerns over the legislation's potential consequences. According to her, the proposed simultaneous elections represent not just procedural changes, but systemic threats to India's democratic federalism. "It is anti-constitutional; it’s against the federalism of our nation. We are opposing the bill," she stated emphatically after the lok sabha session.
Her comments echoed the sentiments of other opposition members, who converged around the idea of the bills being detrimental to the diverse political fabric of India. During the parliamentary discussions, opposition leaders accused the government of attempting to centralize power and diminish the autonomy of state governments. The criticism was broad, seeing multiple voices from various parties—including the Revolutionary Socialist Party—demanding the withdrawal or referral of the bill to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for more thorough scrutiny.
Priyanka Gandhi highlighted this demand, stating, "We are totally against the bill and our demand was to withdraw it. Now the bill is introduced, we will demand it be sent to the JPC." This demand was echoed by Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi as well as other dissenting voices within the opposition.
The government's defense of the bill centers around its proclaimed benefits, arguing it will streamline the electoral process and reduce election-related expenditures. Home Minister Amit Shah referenced these advantages earlier, asserting the necessity for synchronizing elections across various governmental levels to improve efficiency.
Yet, opposition leaders dismiss this narrative and argue there is no sound rationale behind the proposed changes, dubbing it as politically motivated maneuvering. Priyanka Chaturvedi from Shiv Sena (UBT) also criticized the government’s intentions labeling the implementation of these elections as non-committal and unrealistic due to the lack of the requisite two-thirds majority support within the Parliament.
Chaturvedi noted, "They had no other option than to refer the bills to the JPC. They also know they don't have two-thirds majority. There is no sense of commitment toward ‘One Nation, One Election.’" These remarks signify the widespread consensus among opposition ranks against the bill.
The electronic voting process showcased during this session exemplified additional layers of modernization introduced within procedural operations of the Parliament, yet also underscored the divergent paths taken by the government and the opposition. Various lawmakers voiced concerns not only about the electoral reforms proposed by the One Nation, One Election bill but also about the implementation of new voting methods, which were expected to eliminate confusion but were seen as another facet of the ruling party's strategies to consolidate power.
The backdrop of this contentious issue is not merely limited to parliamentary debate; it reflects broader societal apprehensions around the government handling of democratic practices and institutions. The introduction of simultaneous elections is characterized by many commentators as part of the ruling party's broader agenda to overhaul governance mechanisms without sufficient discourse or public buy-in.
The debates surrounding the bills are poised to continue as they head to the JPC, where detailed examinations and discussions will likely unearth varying philosophies on governing democratic representation, accountability, and the substantiality of federal principles. Meanwhile, as discussions evolve, parties like Congress and others articulated their commitment to safeguarding the foundational structures of India's democracy, insisting on rigorous evaluation before adoption of such sweeping legislative measures.
With the bills currently under committee review, the spotlight remains on the political dynamics shaping the future of governance and democratic practices within India. The opposition's vocal criticism and demands reflect not just party lines but broader public concerns about maintaining the country’s federal values amid impending electoral reforms, illuminating the balancing act between innovation and tradition within India's political architecture.
The coming weeks will be pivotal, as stakeholders across the political spectrum both internal and external will keep watch on how this significant legislative initiative will play out, defined by the dialogues among lawmakers and public sentiment.
