‘I’m not happy using massive Central forces during polls. The greatest democracy, run with gun-toting personnel!’

• And you walk your talk. First Bihar, the Uttar Pradesh elections now, on to Goa . . .

Well, it’s been an exciting period, the last two-and-a-half months. What does the UP election tell us? Are we satisfied? We are satisfied. Happy? Yes happy, but also sad. I must say that it is with a mixed feeling that we have seen the election go through. What is the reason? The very use of a massive amount of Central paramilitary force is a thing that I am not very happy with.

• Yes, how many companies would that be?

An average of 680 companies for the seven phases. That means almost 5 lakh service personnel. That’s not a very happy situation.

• These are all from Central paramilitary forces and other states.

Mostly the Central paramilitary forces, but supplemented with state forces. The fact is that when we met them before the elections, every political party said it doesn’t have any faith in the state police force. Bring in the Central forces. That’s a sad thing. After all, the state force is the one that has to be in the state and do the work for the state. If you can’t trust them, I don’t know . . .

• It’s this idea of bringing in neutral forces within your own country.

That’s a sad thing. That’s one issue on which I certainly feel I’m not happy. I hope a day will come when we don’t need any forces.

• But this has now become a set practice.

Yes, it’s a demand made in every state, every Opposition party says this. I would say we need to, at least, the politicians need to, think why this is happening.

• And what do you feel happy about?

Well, generally the election was considered free and fair. Everybody appreciated the arrangements. That is something we feel happy about. In fact, at the beginning of the elections, in Lucknow, I was quizzed: ‘Are you quite sure you will, even in Uttar Pradesh, conduct a free and fair poll?’ I said, ‘Yes, we will.’ I think in one of the channels, one of the correspondents said that nobody believed, except the Election Commission, that there can be a free and fair poll in UP.

• What was the biggest challenge that came up? And don’t just talk of Uttar Pradesh. Talk of UP, Bihar, and Punjab in between. But I think this is one area where Punjab is still less wild than the rest.

The problem, both in Bihar and UP, which is to a considerably extent lesser in Punjab and in other places, is the criminalisation. A large number of people with criminal antecedents fight elections. Then, the huge numbers involved in the polls — the numbers of voters, the number of polling stations. But alright, all that we can manage. But the criminalisation meant we had to be extra vigilant. We had to make special arrangements. I would say we covered to an extent, but not necessarily all.

• Is there a reason for us to worry when the Chief Election Commissioner says he is worried about criminalisation, but he is not able to anything about it.

Yes, I think so. And the time has come to give very serious thought to it. We made our recommendations three-four years ago that people with serious criminal allegations against them should be kept out of the poll fray. In fact, we didn’t do it in a light way. We said anybody accused of an offence in which the sentence could be five years or more, keep them out if there is a chargesheet issued. Not merely on the basis of an FIR.

• Is that what you’re recommending now — that that’s one way of weeding out such elements?

And we said, ‘In case there is an apprehension that cases may be filed at the last minute, just before the elections, you keep a six-month moratorium period.’ So, if some chargesheet is filed less than six months before the start of the election, ignore it. You only take into account charges made before that. To avoid the apprehension that there may be cases brought just to keep an opponent out.

• But today, you know, people with very serious criminal charges can contest elections from jails. As if they were freedom fighters.

Yes. In fact, 15 per cent of the contestants in Uttar Pradesh had criminal charges. And I don’t feel very hopeful that the figure will be less than 15 per cent when the final results come. It can be much more.

• You mean, among those who win?

Yes.

• And you feel helpless?

Absolutely.

• And you speak for your colleagues as well?

Absolutely. The entire commission recommended that people with criminal records must be kept out.

• And the entire political class ignored it?

Well, they have considered it. They have discussed it. I am told it didn’t find favour with the parliamentary forum in which it was discussed.

• But what does the political class tell you then? Because this is what is bothering Indian citizens, particularly young voters, because they see in the Hindi heartland those who are known as baahubalis. And the rest of India has seen baahubalis in popular culture — in films like Omkara. It’s all about running elections, capturing booths. This is leading to cynicism.

I was not in the meetings, so this is only hearsay, and from what I read in newspapers. What I heard was that politicians feel cases can be filed against them and magistrates can be made to issue chargesheets against them, under pressure. So this is not sufficient guarantee that politicians who are out to fight elections could not be victimised. I still feel that within the framework of what we suggested, a solution can be found.

• And there is room for negotiations?

This can be discussed, yes. And fine-tuned. The goal of keeping criminal elements out can still be achieved. And it should be done.

• But do you find sufficient interest, or sufficient traction, as they say, in the political class?

I am not too sure about that. But I am told that the parliamentary committee felt that all other issues we raised must be discussed at an early date.

• Such as what?

We have said negative voting, neutral voting must be provided for. We have suggested surrogate advertising must be controlled.

• Tell me something more about that. I had heard of surrogate advertising for liquor . . .

This time in Uttar Pradesh we had quite a few such advertisements, where there is a line: Issued by so and so. But most of these surrogate advertisements were against somebody.

• In fact, this was there in Punjab also.

Yes, Punjab also. And it becomes very difficult to trace the origin of these. You ask the newspapers, and they’ll give some address and we’ll then have to find out. But we don’t have the resources to do this kind of investigation.

• And if you did, you’d be accused of interfering with the media.

Possibly, possibly.

• So, does that find support in the political class?

I don’t think they have discussed all these issues. I think they will, because at some point of time, each one is at the receiving end.

• Issues like corruption, malpractice, booth-capturing, now, keeping criminals out — these have all been publicly debated. But what about an issue like how our leaders are now elected? People come to power with 20 per cent vote, 2 per cent vote, 24 per cent vote — are you also looking at some long-term reform in that?

Well, the commission has not considered it. But personally speaking, I would like to take it up in the commission. In Bihar, when we analysed the previous elections, we found that in many constituencies, persons with 40 per cent or less of the vote get elected. And the votes polled themselves are less than 50 per cent of the total number of voters. On that, a person gets 40 per cent or less, because there is a three-way split of the vote.

• Or in Uttar Pradesh there may be a four-way split.

So I think we need to consider this. There is so much of fragmentation in the polity and the winner does not get even 50 per cent of the votes polled, not to talk of 50 per cent of the electorate. So it’s time we think about this. I think the solution is difficult, but is worthwhile. The winner must have 50 per cent plus one vote. Not the first past the post principle. That should be brought in.

• So basically we get out of the first-past-the-post trap. It’s a serious suggestion.

Yes, people will immediately ask, ‘Doesn’t it mean you have to do it twice over?’

• Like the French have. You know, you have a run-off.

Yes, like the French. But in my view, it is worthwhile.

• Is that your personal view, or is it the view of your colleagues as well?

It’s my personal view. I must clarify this — we didn’t discuss it in the commission. But it is generally the view aired by even the previous election commissioners. That this is one matter we should give serious thought to. I have found in one study we did that more than 50 per cent of the persons elected to the Lok Sabha and elsewhere get less than 50 per cent of the voter strength. And some 20-30 per cent of persons elected get less than 50 per cent of the votes cast.

• And that, you think, is not fair?

I think it doesn’t reflect the majority opinion of the electorate. Today, when there are too many candidates in the fray, each person appeals to a certain section, a certain segment, a certain caste. If you insist that a candidate must get more than 50 per cent of the total votes polled, at least, he or she needs to appeal to a wider spectrum.

• So he will not be able to do the divide and poll. What the CEC is suggesting today is that instead of the situation today where you win the election by, as they say in the heartland, getting the samikaran or equation right, what you are trying is to get the samikaran out of the situation. So you can’t put one candidate of this caste, another of a second caste, and this one takes two per cent of the vote, and that one four per cent . . .

So you can’t look at the caste composition of a constituency and select a candidate.

• But this is a revolutionary reform if it happens, as the strengthened anti-defection law. You see this happening? This shifts the political paradigm entirely.

Yes, it’s not very easy to accept it. And the logistics involved will also be quite cumbersome. But I think it is worthwhile doing it. Because more and more you find that candidates are selected on the basis of the how much of the composition of a constituency he can appeal to and win. That, I think, is something we need to address.

• If in a constituency a candidate wins but has got less than 50 per cent of the votes cast, will you recommend a run-off?

Yes, a run-off.

• Between No 1 and No 2?

Yes, No 1 and No 2.

• That’s all?

That’s all.

• And how much gap will there be between the two rounds? Will there be fresh campaigning?

Yes, we can do it within a month-and-a-half. With electronic voting machines, things have become very easy.

• So seven-phase elections could become 17-phase elections?

The moment you go into this, there will possibly be a shift in the way candidates are selected or arrangements are made.

• Or maybe there will be fewer Independents, fewer spoilers?

No, Independents will be there, because there will always be hopefuls.

• No, but now people put up other people for, as they say in the Hindi heartland, vote kaatney key liye . . . to be spoilers for another candidate.

That can also be possibly prevented.

• But once again, does anybody want to do it?

I’m not sure. Because this may cutting right at the base of the way things are being done.

• Yes, the whole thing will become another game then.

Totally. In fact, the moment the process settles down, then the way candidates are selected will undergo a change. Obviously, selections will migrate towards those who appeal to a wider audience.

• Have you discussed this with anybody? Senior politicians, the President of India, the Prime Minister, your colleagues . . .

No.

• So you are articulating this for the first time.

For the first time.

• But you know, as Victor Hugo said, this might just be an idea whose time has come.

Possible, possible. I think we need to very seriously think about this. I personally feel that this is one way to prevent the fragmentation of the electorate.

• Is that worrying — fragmentation of the electorate? Why should it be?

Well, to see somebody win with 25-30 per cent of the votes cast . . . then whom does he represent. Already, the polling is 50 per cent of the total electorate. The person does not even get 50 per cent of the votes polled. Whom does he represent? Doe he represent the electorate effectively?

• What then happens is that when a person comes to power, effectively, a majority did not want him in power.

Not did not, I’d say may not have wanted him in power.

• And that contradiction will then keep on pulling at the government. And that might lead to partisan behaviour by the government. That this community voted for me, or this caste voted for me.

In fact, that leads to another question. Today, there is another issue we face, which we can solve ourselves. The thing is today, every candidate knows which polling station voted for him, which went against. Earlier, this situation was not there because you mixed up all the ballot papers and counted without ascribing to a particular polling station. Now, with the EVMs, votes are counted at every booth. If it is possible to connect the machines, the problem could be addressed. If 20 machines could be connected, which is possible now, nobody would know which polling station went which way. If we could have done this before the Uttar Pradesh elections, in constituencies where baahubalis, with dacoit or criminal backgrounds, contested, people could have come out and voted with much more confidence. At places like Chitrakut, Pratapgarh and some other areas, we were told, ‘You are there now. But after the election is over, we are the mercy of these people. So, who is going to save us at that time?’

• They’l come back and say, ‘You did this.’

In fact there were rumours floating around about one of the candidates whose son was a dacoit, or whose relative was a dacoit. The dacoit sent word, saying, ‘Better vote for my candidate. Otherwise, I’ll see you after the election.’ So this is something that we can do, within the resources we have.

• So can you imagine, an election being a great dacoity management exercise. So here are the two things the CEC is pushing for: one, there should be some kind of cut-off for criminalisation; second, the time has come to look at the way we elect out representatives.

Well, looking at the lighter side, we will have work throughout the year.

• Well, it’s not as if you don’t have to do it now, because we have elections all the time.

True, but one could say it’s somewhat more seasonal now. One election, then a couple of months before moving on to another.

• You know that brings me to a third issue — too many elections. Now you’ve stuck your neck out and made these two very strong and powerful recommendations, there’ll be controversy, they will be debated, which is a good thing. Would you also look at the idea of fixed term for legislatures, of clubbing elections? Why must there be elections every six months?

One, elections are running throughout the year. Second, and more important, is that every time we announce an election, we say stop all your activities, except for what are emergencies. So many states complain that they are stopped in their work right in the middle of something.

• So we are always in a state of suspended animation.

Yes

• Does that worry you?

Yes. We keep interfering with their work. Of course, under the model code of conduct, we have to stop any activity which is not already sanctioned, all developmental activity will have to be suspended. And maybe this is only for 50-60 days. But the fact of the matter is that we ask them to stop all their activities during that period. Another thing that we have recommended is that one person should not contest from more than one constituency.

• Where have you recommended this?

This is part of our set of recommendations. There are 23 of them, and some are procedural. Like the affidavits. Today, the affidavits have to be filed by the candidates themselves, one giving the criminal antecedents, the other stating the assets and liabilities. Now, this is being done under the direction of the Supreme Court. We said, please incorporate it in the law, so that it becomes part of the law. So this is more procedural, rather than a substantive recommendation. Among the substantive recommendations are the ones on criminalisation, negative or neutral voting, surrogate advertising and so on. One of the recommendations is that a person should not be allowed to contest from more than one constituency. Recently, you saw in the elections to the Parliament that candidates who were MLAs contested. The moment they were elected, we have to conduct MLA elections. And in the MLA election, if he is a new candidate, fine. But if the MP now contests for the MLA election, then again, we have to conduct additional elections. This has happened in Madhya Pradesh and a couple of other states very frequently, in fact, within the last six months.

• Right, right. Even in Uttar Pradesh, chief ministerial candidates are not contesting the election. So, you know there will inevitably be another election. So how does one get around this — this constant code of conduct business.

I think the idea of having elections of all tiers together is good. At least, if not the panchayats, have the Assemblies and the Parliament elections together.

• But how do you start this cycle?

That’s going to be difficult because each state goes for a different time period.

• So maybe, at a time when there is a gap of six months, or even four or five months, that can be done?

No, for this, some special law has to be passed.

• Like the anti-defection law.

Yes, something similar to that, saying that now the legislative terms will also be fixed with effect from so-and-so date.

• So Parliament has to do it. And will you also look again at this code of conduct business? Has it become too inflexible? Because everything stops.

I don’t think so. We must first understand that this a document which has been created, by consensus, by the political parties. Now, where the political parties have differences with the Election Commission is something beyond the model code of conduct. I don’t think we have overstepped the code.

• But you don’t think there is need to loosen it up a little bit, to redefine it?

Where will you loosen it? Now the position is that it is actually directed against the party in power.

• But why should all the functioning of Maharashtra government come to a standstill because there are Mumbai municipal elections?

Well, it should be restricted to Mumbai. But any policy which applies to beyond Mumbai will also be affected.

• So the government gets an excuse for not doing anything for two months.

It’s an excuse, as you say. Which means that they can do it, but they are not wanting to do it, so they put the blame on the model code.

• Well, your own civil service gets an excuse, because who takes a chance? So you are the toughest civil servants right now — you can fire chief secretaries, DGs of police. And you’ve done it — in Punjab, you moved the DG of police, in UP you moved the chief secretary. You do it much as chief ministers do — peremptorily.

Well, that is one way of looking at it.

• So who takes a chance.

True, true. If, supposing you bring all the elections together, then this particular problem is taken care of, other than the election period.

• So that’s the third thing you would like the system to look at.

The other thing we would work very strongly is looking at the socio-economic reality at the ground-level. People who have never voted before voted for the first time in UP. In Bihar, or Tamil Nadu, or in West Bengal, we concentrated on the polling booth. We secured it. That was our main concern. Nobody should interfere in the polling process, no booth capturing, no bogus voting. But now in UP, we moved out of the polling station, having secured it, to see whether access is available. That is where the vulnerability mapping came. We found seemingly everything is alright, but people from this category or this area are not given access or will be prevented from voting. We are very seriously thinking that we should increase the number of polling stations. What inhibits us is the number of security personnel as well as polling personnel that will be required.

• But you can solve it?

We can do mobile polling. We need some rules etc. But we can take a mobile polling station to a village. Four hours of polling there, then move to the next village, where there is another four hours of polling. This is something we are going to work on very seriously. If there are people in a particular hamlet of a certain weaker section and to vote they have to come to the main village, populated by a particular group, they don’t feel very confident.

• This mobile polling station is a brilliant idea.

It has to be done now.

• Another reform required is that some steps have to be taken so that the Election Commission does not face any controversy in terms of appointments of its members.

True, I think the time has come when we have to look at bipartisan participation in selecting the members. In fact, it is already available in the case of the Chief Information officer, the appointments to the National Human Rights Commission. And my predecessor rightly recommended that we need to have something similar for selection of persons for the EC.

• Because these have been tough times with the appointment of one of your colleagues.

In future, looking at the polity getting so fragmented, the time will come when there will be opposition to somebody or the other. Anyway, each one of us gets appointed at the time of a particular government, and that doesn’t mean that you should be branded pro that government or pro the party in power. So in order to avoid this, I think it is essential that this appointment procedure is changed.

• And again, does this find any purchase in the system?

Possibly, because they have already done it in the case of the NHRC, the CIC. So, it’s already there, it’s part of the act.

• And maybe this experience will make them move in that direction?

Well, it’s time. My predecessor has already written about this.

• Let’s conclude this on a happy note. You know, we talk about criminals getting into politics, we talk about people with a small minority of votes getting elected, we talk about elections all the time, malpractices, corruption, surrogate advertising, controversies over appointments of EC members, but in which poor democracy in the world can the Chief Election Commissioner walk outside on the streets, not accompanied by two trucks of CRPF personnel!

This time we were particularly very happy. Many of the observers who went to the field reported with tears in their eyes that this time I helped some people to come and vote. Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than that. I think the time has come to introspect why should the state police be given the responsibility.

• And why shouldn’t elections be a military operation — a military-style operation.

Exactly. It seems such a contradiction. The greatest democracy, but run by having gun-toting personnel.

• By musclemen of the Election Commission, such as they are. Mr Gopalaswami, thank you very much and congratulations for a job well done. And also thank you for making these really revolutionary suggestions.

Thank you so much.