S.Y. QURAISHI, former Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), is presently the Chancellor of IILM University. He is an IAS officer of the 1971 batch from Haryana cadre and did his PhD in Communications and Social Marketing. He has served as a Secretary in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. In 2011 and 2012, Quraishi was named in The Indian Express list of 100 Most Powerful Indians. The first Muslim CEC as he was, Quraishi has authored a ground-breaking book titled An Undocumented Wonder – the Making of the Great Indian Election, and edited a collection of essays titled The Great March of Democracy: Seven Decades of India’s Elections.
In an interview with MOHD NAUSHAD KHAN, he said, when Judges, Central Vigilance Commissioner and Information Commissioner are all appointed through the Collegium system, why not Election Commissioners?
What challenges did you face as Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)? Do you think the challenges are the same today or are they different?
By and large, the challenges are the same because the electoral system back in 1950 and 51 is still 80%the same. We have almost the same election process. The first two elections were fine. The party which brings independence to the country – and that’s the story in many countries – wins hands down in the first few elections and then the contest begins and things start to get complicated.
Booth capturing and related violence leading up to the poll etc. were happening in the initial years. But then came Mr T N Seshan, who turned things around and put the fear of God in people’s minds by taking strong measures. By my time at the Commission, booth capturing had become a thing of the past. Then the Model Code of Conduct became an issue because political leaders tried to go out of bounds, making aggressive speeches, appealing in the name of religion, community and caste. All in all, the difference is only incremental and not drastic.
What kind of impact did measures you had taken as CEC make on the ground?
When I took over as CEC, I gave myself two challenges: One was money and the other was voters apathy. In my inaugural press conference, I announced that I would address these two challenges.
The question was why money power? It was so because it was getting out of hand and continues to be so. But we thought of dealing with it more systematically. Till then we used to appoint expenditure observers who were mostly Income Tax and Customs Officers. They used to come for two-three weeks, to do their job and then back home when there was nothing to follow. So I decided to establish a permanent Expenditure Monitoring Division headed by one Income Tax Commissioner (P K Dash) I had brought in from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. He had the experience of the field and also experience at the top; so he formulated the rules and guidelines.
I conducted the first election as CEC in October 2010 and that was the time when we experimented with our new rules which were very quickly put together, and they worked effectively. In the next three or four months we had more difficult elections in terms of money power, mainly in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. There we wanted to test our measures taken against money power and we were very successful. We seized money, raided hotels, farmhouses, buses, cars and helicopters to find money going through different channels. Initially, we had great success. In fact, I wrote a book around that time, An Undocumented Wonder: the Making of the Great Indian Election. In it, I documented 40 modus operandi of abuse of money identified till then.
We came across liquor parties, biryani parties, fake marriage parties, birthday parties, mundan ceremonies, etc. So we started keeping a tab on all banquet halls, hotels and bookings so that we can go and check. It is not that fake marriage parties are not happening now. Now they have a rented bride and a bridegroom and printed wedding cards to project it is a genuine wedding.
Money was also being carried in ambulances. Now, if we catch an ambulance and there is a genuine patient that could create issues; then we decided to chase the ambulances till hospital to see if the patient is really coming out of it or not. After the initial success, they have become smarter. They come up with ever newer ways and there is a cat-and-mouse game which goes on. We have resolved many problems but unfortunately, this is the only thing which I believe we have not been able to resolve till date. As a result, our initial successes haven’t continued. The money now reaches the destination before Election Commission comes into play. So, when there is no physical movement, how could one catch it?
As the election schedule has been announced and according to EC, there would be simultaneous polls in a few places. What’s your take on the advantages and disadvantages of simultaneous polls?
In coming elections, three to four states will have simultaneous polls. That is no novelty. The rule is: if any election falls within the next six months of a major election then we try to club them. The arrangements are very elaborate and cumbersome; so, why repeat the whole exercise again? Hence about four to five states have elections along with Lok Sabha polls, always.
But now, there is wider debate on simultaneous elections which LK Advani had raised in 2010. There was a resolution in the BJP in 2012-13. The party’s 2014 manifesto also talked about it. Prime Minister Narendra Modi took it to a higher pitch when he suggested a national debate on it. Since then the debate has been going on.
There are both advantages and disadvantages of simultaneous polls. The government gave two reasons and both are valid. One was about a lot of expenditure because the country is in perpetual election mode. The expenditure is not borne by the government and EC alone but by political parties as well. The other was that the normal work of administration comes to a standstill because the same machinery which is running the district gets busy during elections. The political parties are always in campaign mode.
I would like to add two more reasons. We have already discussed money power. Crores of rupees are spent. When one spends crores of rupees, one has to earn crores of rupees for the next elections and it becomes a vicious cycle. Secondly, communalism and casteism peak at the time of elections. So, whenever we are in election mode, hate speech and divisiveness become the order of the day. Also, from the point of view of the EC, simultaneous elections are very convenient because booths and personnel are the same. But there are disadvantages as well. Constitutionally it is almost impossible to club all these elections because of the federal nature of our polity. Suppose we had simultaneous elections in 1996, when Lok Sabha fell in 13 days, what was to be done in the rest of the country? Why should we disturb the states by asking to go for polls once again just because the central government fell? So it is both undemocratic and difficult. In the kind of federal system we have and the Westminster model we have adopted, simultaneous election is not a good idea. When the debate was resurrected, the demand was that all three tiers of government should go to polls together. Later, people forgot Panchayat elections and started talking about only Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha. Then suggestions came from the NITI AAYOG that if simultaneous polls are not possible, we can have two elections every five years. So with so much dilution, there is no force left in the original proposal.
You have been invited as Election Observer by many countries. How people there talk about our political system in place?
Countries all over the world are very curious to see how our electronic voting machines are working. We have had many delegations visiting us. They feel inspired and many have shown interest. About 20 countries are using machines of different kinds. For example, Namibia has been using the Indian machines. Introducing machines has always been a debated idea because everybody is initially suspicious. There are several questions raised like whether a machine can be manipulated or whether the ruling party can manipulate them. After all, when we initially started using it in a constituency in Kerala in 1982, it was so good that political parties started demanding it. The same parties are now opposing it.
Interestingly, every political party in India has opposed the machines at some point or the other and they won with the same machines. It is a pity that they should fail to realise that the governments have been changing with regular frequency. If machines could be manipulated, the ruling party would have long become permanent. There are many checks and balances, technological and administrative. Machines are made in two factories, one under the Defence Ministry and the other under Atomic Energy where three or four top engineers prepare the software. We have a committee of five independent experts who are professors of five different IITs of India who know the technologies. Unless they certify it, we do not touch it.
To say that by pressing every button vote goes to the ruling party is wrong. There is no fixed button for any party whether it is BJP, Congress, SP, BSP or any other. These machines are tested before deployment and testing is done in the presence of representatives of political parties. They all are invited, they come, sit and watch and give a certificate that it was run in their presence. There are three occasions where we do a mock poll on every machine. 50, 60 or 100 votes are cast to see that the results are according to the votes made. It is certified by party agents.
The machines are sent to the states by the Election Committee. Half the states get the BEL machines and the other half get the ECIL machines. Within the states, which district and which constituency will get what is decided randomly by a computer; even we have no control. So where is the occasion for anybody to manipulate the machines?
So do you believe EVM along with VVPAT can make our elections more transparent?
When BJP came out with the book, Democracy in Danger, in 2010, all political parties started demanding to go back to the ballot paper as the book questioned these machines. When the controversy was at its peak, we called an all-party meet in October. We asked what their exact concern was. All of them demanded that we introduce VVPATs. We accepted the demand immediately.
We asked the two factories which manufacture EVMs to start designing a machine which will have a printer with all the features to make their votes visible to the voters so that they can confirm it. In July 2011, we conducted a full day trial in five different cities with different climatic zones. Trivandrum, Jaisalmer, Leh, Delhi and Cherapunji.
We had thoughtfully selected these locations and in that one long trial, we found lots of bugs. We asked the factories to go back and fix those issues. A year later we repeated this exercise exactly in the same month and the same five places and this time it worked well. So we asked them to make 20,000 machines; we were to use them randomly. In 2013, when the case went to the Supreme Court, it took note and appreciated the decision of the Election Commission and directed the Government of India to provide adequate funds so that future elections could be conducted with VVPATs. Since 2017, every state election has been conducted fully with VVPATs. Before that the available machines were deployed randomly. The upcoming Lok Sabha elections will be conducted fully with VVPATs.
Now the issue is how many generated VVPAT slips should be counted. Election Commission says that only one per Vidhan Sabha constituency which means one per 200 to 300 machines, which to my mind is inadequate. All parties are demanding 20, 30 and even 50 per cent which I think is excessive. Rather, about 5 per cent would be the best sample. The Commission has set up a committee of experts to tell which would be the most scientific sample size which will ensure 99.9 per cent satisfaction. I think that’s a very reasonable decision and has to be expedited.
What are short-term and long-term measures which you feel could help reform our electoral system?
We have more than 40 electoral reform proposals pending with the government for the last two or three decades. One reform we have been demanding is that people against whom serious or heinous criminal cases like rape, dacoity, murder, kidnapping and corruption are pending should be debarred from contesting elections before their conviction and even during their trial.
We also want the appointment system of Commissioners to change. The Election Commission of India is the most powerful Commission in the world but our system is the most deficient. We are the only Commission in the world appointed by the government of the day without wider consultation. In most countries, there is a Collegium System where the leader of opposition is consulted. We have a Collegium System in India. The Judges, Central Vigilance Commissioner, Information Commissioner are all appointed through Collegium. Then why not Election Commissioners?
Another reform proposal is that while the CEC cannot be removed except through the process of impeachment, the other two Commissioners do not enjoy the same protection. Originally, the Election Commission was a one-man organisation. The protection was not for an individual but for an institution. That institution now has three people; so all three should have equal protection. Now, these two sometimes feel that they are on probation and this feeling is fatal for the independent functioning of the Election Commission. In many countries, there are not only Collegium systems but full parliament hearings. In some countries, the interview of the candidate is live telecasted for people to judge. The trust of political parties and voters in the Election Commission is paramount, and hence collegium is the best way forward.
Keeping the upcoming 2019 polls in mind, would you like to give any advice or suggestion to the present Chief Election Commissioner?
Well, I am nobody to advise him because they are all experienced people and it is a multi-member commission. They generally make correct decisions. I would only say that the commission needs to be a little more communicative. If people have doubts, they have a democratic right to question. Political parties are critical of some decisions of Election Commission but that is not all that serious because they finally come around. But the public perception about any institution particularly about Election Commission is extremely important. Any damage to that will have very lasting impact and that has to be avoided at all costs. The solution is: the moment some doubt is raised, the Election Commission should clarify. Even if it is a repeated concern, it should be clarified.
Some people are raising questions on the timing of election schedule during Ramadan and are saying that it has been done with some motives behind it. How would you like to respond to it?
No, I don’t think that is a correct perception. But the Election Commission should explain it. Lok Sabha election is due before the 2nd of June. If you see the last three-four elections, they were held during April and May. It cannot be advanced because we cannot do it in March which is examination month and all schools will be busy. All our polling stations are in schools.
Now Ramadan has come in the month of May. To Muslims, nothing stops in the month. The more active one is, the more he/she is rewarded by the Almighty. Continuing with normal activity is considered a good and rewarding fast. They can cast their vote in the morning before it gets hot. The Election Commission has also made sure that there will be appropriate shade so that people may not have to stand under the sun.
Another issue being debated is of Electoral Bonds. What’s your take on it?
I have always said that the introduction of Electoral Bonds is a retrograde step as it works against transparency.
Earlier any donation over Rs. 20,000 was reported to the Commission. Now crores of donations will not be known to the Commission as to who gave what to whom. The government says that the donors want to keep it secret. But the public wants it transparent.
Even the Election Commission itself opposed it in strong terms. It is now before the Supreme Court and I have no doubt the Court will give a very good judgement as they have done in the past. After all, the whole transparency debate started with the Supreme Court when all candidates were asked to declare their criminal and financial background.
People generally argue that we have achieved electoral democracy but are still far away from functional or institutional democracy. How would you like to respond?
When we talk of democracy, we also need to look at internal democracy and functioning of political parties in the first place. Inner party democracy in India is in shambles. It is common knowledge that the kind of election happening in most parties, are far from democratic. The Election Commission should also take note and force political parties for quality elections within the organisation.
Finally, what are new things possible for an incumbent CEC and what have you done earlier on it?
I did three things. One was to deal with money power which I have already discussed. Second was voter apathy. We saw a pitiful 20 to 25 per cent turnout in urban areas like Varanasi, Allahabad and Amritsar. We needed to deal with that as a priority issue. So we set up another division called voter education division and started a comprehensive voter education programme. Although initially there were many sceptics in the organisation who said that educating voters is not our job and is confined only to conduct and regulate elections. I believed it was part of our mandate. If the turnout is low and one gets elected as MP/MLA with only 10 per cent vote, can that candidate be a legitimate representative?
Everybody was concerned about low voter turnout but the responses were different. One suggestion was that there should be compulsory voting. We were against any kind of compulsion in democracy because compulsion and democracy don’t go together. Your right to vote includes your right not to vote. We thought we should change this situation by persuasion and education. It has been a tremendous success. It has been a virtual participation revolution.
Since 2010, you will notice that we have had record turnouts, highest turnout in history. The gap between men and women was about 10 per cent but has now been reduced to almost one per cent. We saw a larger turnout of women than men in as many as 17 states because we especially targeted women and youth through voter education efforts.
Another thing we started was National Voters Day, celebrated on every 25th January wherein at almost every polling booth (8 lakh polling booths) we organised functions where new voters were given their voter ID cards. When they came to take their cards they also took a pledge that they would come out on the poll day and vote honestly without any bribe and inducement. That led to an increased voter turnout in subsequent elections.
We also set up an institute called India International Institute of Democracy and Election Management (IIIDEM). It was done to train our own people, around 11 million, to conduct zero error elections. It has since created global interest in Indian elections and so we decided to throw it open to people of other countries for the purpose of training. I am very happy to say that in the last six years as many as 84 countries have been trained by us. There has been a beeline of election managers from different countries to get trained at IIIDEM. When we were just starting out with the project, there was stiff opposition but we had the last laugh on it. The results have been remarkable.