The introduction of the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal has ignited a fierce debate across the political spectrum. The BJP’s ambitious push for ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) proposes synchronized federal and state polls, aimed at simplifying governance and reducing electoral fatigue. However, this controversial reform faces mounting opposition, both in terms of numbers and principle, raising questions about its feasibility and impact on India’s democratic framework.
A Numbers Game: Does BJP Have the Support?
The bill, introduced with a division vote in the Lok Sabha, saw 269 MPs in favor and 198 opposing it. While the simple majority sufficed to table the bill, critics quickly highlighted the gap needed to ensure its passage. For a Constitutional amendment, a two-thirds majority of members present and voting is mandatory. With 461 MPs participating in the vote, 307 votes were required to move the proposal forward.
The BJP-led NDA, which holds 293 seats, falls short of the mark even with full attendance. To achieve the required majority, the government must court non-aligned parties or smaller allies. Currently, the YSR Congress and the Akali Dal have pledged support, but even their combined backing leaves the BJP nine votes short. Should the Lok Sabha be at full strength, the gap widens, with the BJP requiring 64 additional votes to fulfill its vision.
Opposition’s United Front: “A Path to Dictatorship”
The opposition has united in fierce resistance to the ONOE proposal, branding it an “authoritarian imposition” that undermines India’s federal structure. Congress MP Manickam Tagore and Shashi Tharoor have flagged the ruling party’s inability to secure broad support, warning that the bill lacks the backing necessary for a Constitutional amendment.
Regional leaders like Mamata Banerjee (Trinamool Congress) and TR Baalu (DMK) criticized the proposal as anti-federal, emphasizing the potential financial burden and logistical challenges of implementing simultaneous elections. The Dravidian and Leftist blocs, along with smaller parties like the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Indian Union Muslim League, echoed these sentiments.
The rhetoric escalated when Samajwadi Party MP Dharmendra Yadav cautioned against what he termed as a slide towards dictatorship, suggesting the bill is an attempt to centralize power at the expense of state autonomy.
BJP’s Defense: Reform, Not Regression
Amidst the backlash, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal defended the bill, framing it as a long-overdue reform. He argued that synchronized elections would streamline governance, reduce election-related expenses, and enhance the efficiency of the electoral process. Addressing concerns about tampering with the Constitution, Meghwal stated that the bill aligns with its basic structure and is focused solely on electoral reforms.
The BJP’s allies, including the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena faction, stood firmly behind the proposal. The TDP’s Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu highlighted Andhra Pradesh’s positive experience with simultaneous polls, expressing hope for nationwide implementation.
What Is ‘One Nation, One Election’?
At its core, ONOE proposes conducting Lok Sabha and state Assembly elections together, breaking away from the current staggered cycle. As of now, only four states—Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and Odisha—vote concurrently with Lok Sabha elections. Most states operate on independent cycles, creating a near-continuous electoral calendar.
For ONOE to work, significant amendments to key articles of the Constitution are essential, including:
- Article 83 (Term of Parliament)
- Article 85 (Dissolution of Lok Sabha)
- Article 172 (Duration of State Legislatures)
- Article 174 (Dissolution of State Legislatures)
- Article 356 (President’s Rule).
Legal experts warn that failure to secure these amendments could expose ONOE to judicial scrutiny, potentially violating India’s federal structure.
Financial and Logistical Hurdles
Opposition leaders like TR Baalu raised concerns over the financial burden of simultaneous elections. The Election Commission of India would need to invest heavily in new electronic voting machines (EVMs), estimated at ₹10,000 crore every 15 years. Critics argue that this expense, coupled with logistical challenges, outweighs the benefits.
What Lies Ahead?
With the bill likely heading to a joint parliamentary committee, where the BJP will enjoy a majority, discussions on ONOE will intensify in the coming months. The BJP’s efforts to consolidate support among smaller parties will also be crucial. However, the proposal faces significant headwinds, not only in Parliament but also across India’s political landscape, where federalism remains a cornerstone of governance.
A Vision for the Future or a Step Too Far?
The ‘One Nation, One Election’ debate underscores a larger ideological tussle between centralized efficiency and decentralized democracy. While proponents argue it is a pragmatic reform, critics caution against the erosion of federal principles. As the bill navigates through the corridors of power, its fate will hinge not only on numbers but also on the broader consensus of India’s diverse political and social fabric.
Whether ONOE emerges as a transformative milestone or a contentious misstep remains to be seen. For now, the battle lines are drawn, and the debate rages on.
