~ By Raghav Pandey

The recent debate on the reform of Muslim Personal Law has been spurred by the issue of notice by the Supreme Court in the case of Shayara Banu v Union of India. In this case the wife was not only arbitrarily divorced through Talaq-i-biddat (commonly known as Triple Talaq) by her husband but also was administered drugs, which affected her memory and other forms of cruelty during the duration of the marriage. Shayara Banu decided to not take this lying and challenged the constitutionality of three archaic practices under Muslim Law namely: (i) Talaq-i-biddat (ii) Nikah Halala (iii) Polygamy.

Talaq-i-biddat is a form of divorce where the Muslim man can instantly divorce his wife by uttering the word ‘talaq’ thrice. Instantly here means utterance during any period of time in a single tuhr (period between two menstrual cycles of the wife). After such an utterance, the divorce becomes final and binding. There has been a narrative in the media for the past few days that this form of divorce is only valid for Sunni Muslims and that too Hanafi Sunni Muslims. Even if one is to take this argument on merits, it is pertinent to point out that Hanafi Sunni Muslims are almost 80% of the total Muslim population in India[1]. Hence such an argument to not debate on the legality of Talaq-i-biddat is not only redundant but also absurd. This form of divorce being a paragon of inequality in its original form itself has attained heights of absurdity in the recent past where the men have been divorcing their wives through skype, WhatsApp, SMS etc. It is only reasonable in such context that Supreme Court has issued notice on this practice.

The Supreme Court about a decade ago in 2003 had referred to this form of divorce in the celebrated case of Shamim Aravs State Of U.P. This case has been cited in several news reports[2] recently as the case in which Talaq-i-biddat was declared unconstitutional. Nothing can be further from the truth and only a cursory reading of the judgment of the case will dispel such a misconception. In ShamimAra the point of contention was the method of Talaq-i-biddat. The husband had contended that he had a right to divorce even during the judicial proceedings and even in the absence of his wife. Such a method was declared unconstitutional and not Talaq-i-biddat per se.

The second and I believe the more horrendous practice of Niakh Halala has also been challenged in Shayara Banu’s petition[3]. This practice means that when a husband divorces his wife, both of them are forbidden to marry each other again; unless the divorced wife marries another man and consummates that marriage (has sexual intercourse with the new husband) and the new husband also agrees to divorce her. An example of such a practice can be found in the case of Nagma Bibi wherein her husband in the state of intoxication divorced her but the next day the husband himself wanted to annul it. But Muslim community leaders sent Nagma to her home and pressurized her to marry another man before remarrying her husband. This practice makes a woman pay for the deeds of her husband by forcing a sexual intercourse upon her if she just wishes to remain with her husband. This is equivalent to treating women like chattel and property.

The third demand in the petition of Shayara Banu is abolition of Polygamy. The petition says that this practice is as abhorrent as sati. This is so because the Muslim personal law allows a man to have multiple wives, the number is limited to four in India. On the other hand, the practice of polyandry i.e. a woman having multiple husbands is completely forbidden and is considered anti-Islamic.

Opposition of the civil society should not be limited to Talaq-i-biddat, Halala, Polygamy etc. because even other forms of divorce also create a superiority of men over women. Under Muslim personal law it is the man only who is empowered to divorce. The woman can demand a ‘khula’, which can be granted by the man but can also be refused by the man. Another argument is that women have a form of talaq in their favour called Talaq-i-tafweez. Again, nothing can be farther from the truth.

The expression ‘Talaq-i-Tafweez’ literally means Talaq through delegation. Under Muslim law the husband is also empowered to delegate his power to divorce his wife to anyone, which includes his wife. But again, it is up to the husband whether he chooses to delegate this power to his wife or not. In fact, this is a very dangerous practice, because the husband may choose anyone to irrevocably divorce his wife. This chosen person can affect a divorce between a husband and wife without either of them wanting it.

The opposition to these practices has also voiced an argument that these practices are also un-Quranic and find no sanction from the Holy Quran. Such an opposition usually leads to a debate on the interpretation of Islamic religious scriptures, which is devoid of any modern jurisprudence. Instead, it is more reasonable to oppose these practices in terms of the established global practices of Human Rights Law and laws pertaining to civil and political rights.

These practices are completely opposed to the jurisprudential notion of Right to Equality. This right has been incorporated under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also guarantees Right to equality as the foremost Human Right by the virtue of the fact that this right has been mentioned in the very first and second Articles of the document. Article 1 says, “All human beings are born f,ree and equal in dignity and rights….”. Article 2 also in the same vein says, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex……”.[4]

It can’t be a coincidence that a lot of Muslim majority countries[5] including Saudi Arabia, which is considered the fountainhead of Wahabi Islamic Jurisprudence, have neither signed nor are a party to the UDHR. These practices violate the UDHR and the Indian Constitution because of the fact that they create two classes of citizens in the form of Muslim men and Muslim women. One class, i.e. Muslim men has a dominion over the other class i.e. Muslim women.

Indian Constitution guarantees under Art 14 “Equality before law and equal protection of laws”. The archaic practices of Muslim Personal Law violate Art 14 on both of its senses. Equality before law means that the Law should accord equal respect and dignity to all its subjects when they are addressed by the state, which is not the case because a Muslim man is accorded more respect than a Muslim woman. Also, an “equal protection of laws” is also not accorded to Muslim women.

In this context, it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to utilise the opportunity in the Shayara Banu case to accord Muslim women the full extent of their constitutional right to equality. More importantly, the government should also take it upon itself to reform the Muslim personal law through legislation, like it did for the Hindu Personal Law in 1950s.

(Author is a Research Scholar at School of Humanities, IIT, Mumbai.)

[1]https://books.google.co.in/books?id=R3FZBgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA7&ots=lR11BT1Am5&dq=hanafi%20population%20india&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q=hanafi%20population%20india&f=false

[2]http://thewire.in/42276/the-indian-medias-focus-on-shayara-bano-betrays-an-ignorance-of-important-precedents/

[3]https://wallsofignorance.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/shayara-bano-writ-petition-maari-baari-62-18032016.pdf

[4] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

[5] Brunei, Malyasia, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates etc.

~ By Kanu Agarwal

After the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 2013 by the UPA Government, the Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha, formed after the present Government assumed office, has analysed the changes, incorporated suggestions from various stakeholders and presented a detailed report. The Bill is pending and may be passed once the dead lock in the Upper House is resolved. There have been comments and editorials on the pending amendments raising concerns over the amendments which allegedly roll back the government’s promise to fight against corruption amidst the demonitisation hullabaloo. When analysed closely, most of the criticism falls short. For starters, it is necessary to understand thatthe jurisprudence and precedents surrounding the unamended sections is not squandered and comes in aid to the construction and interpretation as and when needed. It is in this light, we must analyse the proposed changes in the Prevention of Corruption Act and the impact they may have on future prosecutions.

The first change that the amendment proposes in the standardisation of the usage of the term used to refer to the illegal benefit the public servant gains during the course of employment. The unamended Act, in various places used different terms like ‘illegal gratification’, ‘pecuniary advantage’ or ‘valuable thing’ to refer to the benefit gained by the public servant causing certain amount of confusion in defining and interpreting the said terms. The amendment seeks to introduce the words ‘undue advantage’ throughout the Act and stadardise the usage and provide a lucid definition, in line with the unamended Act, to harmoniously construct and amend the definition. The meaning of the term’undue advantage’ is well understood in the international jurisprudence andare taken from United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). It is defined as anygratification other than legal remuneration. The definition has a wide inclusionary clause of ‘any gratification’ to include gratification over and beyond the traditional pecuniary means and a restrictive exclusionary clause of ‘legal remuneration’ to include remuneration permitted by the Government.

The other noteworthy amendment is the imposition of time limit on the trial period on the Special Judge. The amendment is remarkable in its position considering the complex nature of the trial and the recurring phenomenon of long drawn trials before the Special Judge. The amendment imposes a limit of two years on the trial with the provision for extension of time period by six months each time recording reasons but with an upper limit of four years and is a very welcome move.

The major change that has created apprehensions are the changes to construction of Section 7 and Section 13. The unamended Act dealt with bribery and criminal misconduct by public servant in the said sections laying down conditions necessary to establish the commission of the said offences. Due to the overlapping nature of the construction of conditions in the two sections, on numerous occasions, the prosecuting agencies often utilise both to establish guilt, further burdening the evidentiary exercise. With the stratified construction of the amended Section 7 and 13, the offences now clearly stand segregated with bribery of any form under Section 7 and misappropriation and disproportionate assets cases under Section 13. Expanding the language, Section 7 contemplates a situation wherein a public servant induces another public servant to perform,improperly or dishonestly, a public duty even in anticipation of accepting an undue advantage from any person. The aforesaid situation was never contemplated in the unamended Act and would be instrumental in disrupting the present top down ‘food-chain’ of corruption by linking the activities of one public servant to another. Further, the Act removes the redundant phrase ‘agrees to receive’ from Section 7 in line with the prevailing precedents which mandate that the presence of an unequivocal ‘demand’ and the ‘acceptance’ in lieu of such demand is necessary for establishing the offence.

The omission of clause (d) of Section 13(1) has caused a certain confusion with the apprehension of removal of the provisions which had been instrumental in the trials of the Bofors scandal, 2G scam, Commonwealth scam, Coal scam, etc. Even experienced analysts like YogendraYadav[1] and Shalini Singh[2] have mistakenly assumed that the said omission amounts to decriminalisation of indirect forms of corruption. The said apprehension is fueled by the failure to critically analyse the expanded Section 7. The unamended Section 13(1)(d) refers to obtaining any valuable thingor pecuniary advantagefor himself or for any other person, by corrupt or illegal means or abusing the position orwithout any public interest. The amended Section 7 refers to ‘undue advantage’ in place of pecuniary advantage and valuable thing expanding the scope of the application of the Section. Further, the apprehension that the amendment removes the third party transactions which take place within the higher echelons of the bureaucracy ignores the nature of Section 7 and the Explanation 2[3] provided in the Section.

The explanation of the amended Section 7clearly provides for obtaining of undue advantage by a public servant for ‘himself or any other person’ would be included under said provisions. Further, Explanation 2(ii) expressly clarifies that any undue advantage obtained through a third party is at par with advantage obtained directly for the purposes of Section 7. Further, note the use of the same language (italicized portion) in the Explanation as the erstwhile Section 13(1)(d). The inclusion of the same in the explanation has mistakenly been seen subsuming of a provision and diluting the same amounts to ‘including of the crime of murder under provision for grievous hurt. The question here is the effect of the provision itself in light of language therein understood in light of the amendment which makes it abundantly clear that crime envisaged to be curbed under Section 13(1)(d) is clearly covered and in fact, expanded under the amended Section 7. Another important aspect that the unwarranted criticism fails to understand is that, in effect, the amended Section 7, if compared to the unamended Section 13(1)(d), is far wider and further lowers the prosecutorial burden by removing the caveats of corrupt or illegal means, abuse of position or lacking public interest which were often used by corrupt officials to wriggle out of allegations. The amended Section 7 provides that the obtaining of undue advantage is in itself an offence and there is no burden on the prosecution to prove improper performance of public duty or abuse of position or lack of public interest.One must remember that without the CAG reports in the 2G scam and the Coal-gate scam, the standard of proof improper public duty would have been impossible to prove. No wonder that lawyers like KapilSibbal advocated a ‘zero loss’ theory to camouflage the transaction as one done in pursuance of larger public good. Further, contrary to apprehensions, as per the construction of the Explanation 1[4] to Section 7, there is no need to prove any bribery or direct quid pro quo in the transaction. Where a public servant receives illegal gratification in a clandestine manner, he can still be prosecuted in the same manner and there is no additional burden on the investigating officer and in fact, lowers the prosecutorial burden in such cases.

In practice, while there were numerous high profile cases registered under Section 13(1)(d), there were rarely any convictions as vague and situational concepts of abuse of position and public purpose are extremely hard to prove and more so considering the ‘proof beyond all doubt’ approach of criminal law. Further, the tendency to judge the Act and the unamended section by merely keeping the high profile cases in mind would cause disservice to the law. The unhinged guillotine of the law is to be examined from both side in all kinds of cases. The law remains the same for the high and mighty corrupt and the law abiding peon, and the misuse of the same, would affect the latter more. Be that as it may, in effect, after the omission of Section 13(1)(d), with the changes and expansion in Section 7 and the holistic study of the amended Act, corruption through third party transactions has been explicitly illegalized and the scope of such transaction has been expanded as opposed the popular apprehensions.

The amendment expressly criminalises bribe-giving, a provision which was absent in the unamended Act. Although, as per the unamended Act, the bribe givers could be prosecuted for abetment of the crime under the Act but the amendment specifically brings in a new provision to deal with the issue. During the discussions before the Rajya Sabha Committee, there was emphasis on the separation of ‘coercive bribery’ and ‘collusive bribery’. The Committee noted that there exists a very thin line between the two even in the international arena with ample possibilities of persons falling on either side to misuse the protection. The definition of such terms would be difficult to frame and the evidentiary exercise required to separate the two would result in unnecessary delays. As per the Rajya Sabha Report, the clause criminalises all forms of bribe giving with an exception wherein the bribe giver had given the bribe under compulsion and reports the same within seven days to escape prosecution. The only protection afforded to a bribe giver is in cases where the accused is able to establish that she/she was being compelled to give the bribe. The said requirement to prove ‘being compelled’ to give the bribe, contrary to apprehensions, would not be difficult for honest bribe givers to prove. That apart, the deletionof Section 24, contrary to apprehensions, cannot have any effect on ‘trap cases’. Trap cases are one wherein on demand of money by the public servant, the bribe giver first approaches the Lokayukta Police which then lay the trap to catch the public servant red handed. The said trap cases would still be equally viable as a person who approaches the agencies before the payment of bribe is obviously protected as he has not yet paid the bribe. As for the bribe givers who have already paid the bribe, there can be no question of a trap case or them hesitating to come forward for the same as the procedure for trap cases does not work after the bribe has been paid.

The Act criminalises bribe giving by commercial organisations so that the law regarding the crime of bribe giving is in tune with the fact that most collusive bribes are given by or on behalf of commercial organisations. The only escape route for the organisation would be the establishment of adequate procedures to prevent associated persons from giving such bribes. The problematic provision therein is the definition of commercial organisation which excludes charitable organisations from the net. If one studies the NGO, trust and charitable organisations and their work in India closely, the misuse of the said organisations would result in a loophole which could be utilized by vested interests. Another apprehension is with regard to the deletion of Section 10 claiming that no effective substitutes are spelled out in the proposed bill, since while abetment of an offence is an offence, the abetment of abetment is not. This has no basis in criminal law as the abetment of abetment, if done knowingly amounts to abetment itself and the abetment of abetment, unknowingly, cannot be abetment (or for that matter any crime) as per the settled criminal jurisprudence of mensrea. Further, the apprehension at the deletion of Section 11 (Public servant obtaining a valuable thing without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant) as the same is amply dealt with by Section 7. To put it bluntly, the existing Act was defined and worded very shabbily with multiple overlaps and confusion which often made the work of the prosecution difficult with the accused presenting different versions of the same.

The next major amendment is in Section 13 of the unamended Act with the amendment merely juggling words from one place to another with hardly any impact on the legal usage of the Section. The apprehensions in various quarters that threshold of proof has been raised in the cases of disproportionate assets is highly misplaced if one studies the text of the previous Act and the amendment closely. The previous Act provides that if a person or any person on his behalf, is in possession of assets for which he cannot satisfactorily accounthaving pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, would be guilty of criminal misconduct. The amendment states that a person would be said to have committed criminal misconduct if he ‘intentionally enriches’ himself during the term of his office. By using the term intentional enrichment, the amendment has caused certain confusion with allegation of raising of burden of proof on the prosecution but a closer study of the Explanation of the said amended Section 13 would dispel all doubts. Using the same language, the amendment clarifies that a person shall be presumed to have intentionallyenriched himself illicitly ifhe or any person on his behalf, is in possession of assets for which the he cannot satisfactorily account for; beingpecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Therefore, in effect, the term intentional enrichment is the same as the previous unamended section and the only change would be usage of the term ostensibly to bridge the gap between the international jurisprudence and India laws on the subject. Further, the unamended Act defined “known sources of income” as incomereceived from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with law. The amendment removes the phrase requiring intimation of the receipt but would hardly have any impact considering the nature of investigation and trial in disproportionate asset cases and the surrounding precedents of the Supreme Court. The apprehension that the accused would be allowed to cite fresh sources of income after the trial has been initiated against them resulting in a loophole which was earlier plugged by the Act in 1988, is misplaced as the calculation of income and the known sources of income would, in practice, remain the same and merely because the said phrase has been omitted, the practice adopted by the agencies and the Court will not change.

Other than the above said, the protection of sanction under Section 19 has been extended to retired public servants curing an irrational position. As per the prevailing position, no sanction is required wherein public servants who have retired even though the allegations pertain to the time when the said persons were functioning in the capacity of public servants. Often the said provision is misused by investigating agencies which wait for the retirement of senior public servants only for the purposes of bypassing the protection enshrined under Section 19. The above said amendment are largely positive and there has been little or no criticism of the same. The amendment also fixes a time limit for according prosecution sanction vide Section 19 is a very welcome step as often the sanction from the concerned department delays the prosecution. Surprisingly, even this has been labelled half-hearted, in light of no provision for a “deemed sanction”. The concept of sanction is very important in terms of the prevention of corruption and it would be absolute anathema to introduce a concept of deemed sanction. As is often the case in government departments, such decisions are delayed for various reasons, sometime legitimate and sometimes not quite so legitimate. The concept of a deemed sanction would take away the vital protection in case wherein the delay has been caused on genuine reasons like transfers of senior officers, ministerial approvals, etc. In case the competent authority delays decision making beyond four months, it would still be bound to explain the said delay creating a strong enough deterrence for the same whilst providing the requisite protection in genuine cases.

Lastly, the other amendment which has attracted a huge amount of criticism, is the addition of Section 17A. The said section provides for additional protection to government servant especially during the tendering process wherein there were increased apprehensions because of frivolous complaints and harassment beingsuffered by officers. The section provides for permission to be taken from the appropriate authority before the police officer shall conduct any enquiry orinvestigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by apublic servant which is relatable to any recommendation made or decision takenin discharge of his official functions or duties. As the language makes it clear, the said protection is only available in situations wherein complaints have been made against a public servant pertaining to any official decision taken by him in the official capacity. A pertinent point herein is that official functions and decision making in a department is already regulated by the service rules which bound the officer. In case of the breach of any of the checks imposed through the service rules, a departmental inquiry results in various forms of punishment albeit of non-criminal nature. Further, decision making, especially pertaining to tenders and government property, is thoroughly controlled by the government policy and Rule of Business.It is a result of decision making process at various levels and often it would be wrong to make a particular employee the scape goat for a particular decision. While the enormity of scams like 2G, Bofors, Coal-Gate, etc, all of which were regulated by Government tenders is not to be ignored, it is necessary to note that other unscrupulous elements have been harassing government servant through various extra governmental and extra judicial means. Further, it has to be remembered that cases could be initiated and built in the 2G and the Coal-gate scams on account of the CAG reports which came out establishing serious doubts on the process. Without the said CAG report, which represents a cog in-built in the executive setup, it is unimaginable that any trial would have even started in these matters.

The said protection, which has been brashly termed as ‘diabolical’ in some quarters, is the prevalent practice across various Lokayuktas and Lokapals wherein the technical departments, before registering a FIR, refer the complaint to the requisite department for a comment and departmental action.If the said action is deemed to be inadequate, then criminal charges are pushed. The amendment may, in practice, result in inaction and perhaps protection of the certain corrupt officials in cases of high level corruption, it cannot be accused of worsening the present situation.Be that as it may, the provision is open to criticism as the process of investigation may be halted before the permission is taken. This may result in a redundant complaintsin the absence of an investigative material to serve as the basis of a decision of the appropriate authority.The amendment is hardly of a ‘diabolical’ nature as has been referred to in certain quarters. The said provision may still indeed be questioned before the constitutional Courts but it is completely different from the ‘single directive’ which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Vineet Narayan case.

Overall, if the amendments are to be analysed from a legal perspective ascertaining the impact on the prosecutorial process, it would be clear that the amendments are aimed at enlarging the scope of what is considered ‘corruption’ within the setup. The amendments aim to bring the Indian law at par with the international convention which the country has signed and ratified. The amendments standardise and rationalize the two main penal provisions of Section 7 and Section 13 providing a great deal of cohesion and cogent compartmentalisation. The amendment also extends vital protections to retired officers and clarifies the confusion regarding forfeiture of property. The controversy regarding the permission seeking before investigation under the proposed Section 17A could have been avoided considering there are genuine concerns over its applicability. Other than that, the criticism surrounding the alleged omission of Section 13(1)(d) is ludicrous if one studies the impact of the changes brought about in Section 7 of the Act through the amendment.

As isoften the case in democracies, public sentiment affects the law making process to a great extent. We must realise that law making is a highly technical process and requires discussion, debate and deliberation to result in to a viable draft. The over-reliance on public sentiment creates extraordinary situations wherein laws pertaining to internal security, external aggression or terrorism are sought to be made lenient even though they regulate genuinely troubled spheres and on the other hand, the laws pertaining to crimes against women, corruption, etc, even after being already being extremely strict, are expected to be made more ‘draconian’. This public sentiment basedinsincere approach, is an avoidable latch in the democratic law making. Often the critique of the amendment, in various respected quarters, rests onthe classic rhetoric of ‘sab mile hue hain’. While it is easy to fall prey and be cynical about the situation within the bureaucracy and politics in general, and create a holier than thou image by criticizing the same, one must be fair in interpreting the law. It is understandable that criticizing the amendment amidst the demonitisation drive might be politically viable and fashionable in some quarters, the said criticism must be borne out of genuine apprehensions and not by the incomplete reading of amendmentsand shallow understanding of the prevailing law.

(Author is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.)

[1] Time to blow the whistle, The Hindu, 12 Dec 2016

[2] Prevention of Corruption Act: Watered down version will make scamsters look like saints, Firstpost

[3] Explanation states:

(i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to obtain” shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or “accepts” or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;

(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain or is to accept or attempt to obtain the advantage directly or through a third party.

[4] For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitutes an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.

 

Pakistan’s Policy Tripod

Publisher: Viking Penguins

Second Edition (2016), Pages: 462, Price: Rs 699

Book Review by: K Raka Sudhakar Rao

Pakistan has always been a mystery wrapped inside an enigma even for those who vouch for it. It’s a country that calls itself Pak (pure), but practices taqiya (dissimulation and deceit) to perfection. Despite being a geo-political construct of the imperialist British, it is the first Islamic republic to have been formed in the world, much before Iran called itself one. Let alone India, even its best of friends have problems knowing if it’s a friend or foe. It fights war against terror and breeds terror at the same time. With Islam as its bedrock and being the fulcrum for radical terrorist and disruptive elements, Pakistan is the most enigmatic country, perhaps after North Korea.

As a former Pakistani diplomat, as a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment and as a political commentator, Hussain Haqqani has both an insider and a ringside perspective of Pakistan and its seven-decade long journey as a country that is desperately in the quest of the core of its absentee nationhood. His work ‘Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military’ is seminal both in its honest exploration of policy tripod on which Pakistan stands and the description of edgy civilian establishment’s predicament of sleeping with its Islamic enemy.

Pakistan’s policy triad comprises religious nationalism, anti-India sentiment and dependence on the West. The tragedy is that the more Pakistan tries to be anti-India, its umbilical link with India hits back with equal vengeance. Its alliance with West too is uneasy as anti-West sentiment is ever on the rise in Pakistan despite its abject dependence on the US. Worse still, its concept of religious nationalism suffered its biggest defeat when Bangladesh parted company. Even now, the Centre is unable to hold Sindh and Balooch provinces and there is simmering discontent against Sunni colonization and shameless exploitation of essentially Shia Gilgit and Baltistan.

Haqqani argues that the policy of islamisation is not aberration, but is an extension of a consistent national ideology. He posits that the “political commitment to an ideological state gradually evolved into a strategic commitment to Jihadi ideology.”

In fact, a top functionary had even queried thus:  “An Arab without Islam is still an Arab, an Egyptian sans Islam is still an Egyptian. What is a Pakistani without Islam, a second rate Hindu?” This dilemma has forced the Pakistani ruling elite to even tweak Jinnah’s historic speech of national reconciliation in Pak Parliament as it goes against the grain of Pakistan’s raison d’etre. This strategic commitment led to the origin of the expedient relationship between the mullah and the military. As a result, Pakistani army guards the ‘ideological frontiers’ of the country.  Ever since Sher Ali Khan put forth his formula for military dominance, Pakistan slid into an ideological abyss extricating out from which is extremely difficult if not entirely impossible. The author forcefully argues that Pakistan’s animosity to neighbor India only benefited the Pak Army. Even in its first ever budget, a fledgling Pakistan allocated 70 per cent of its budget to defence.

Jihadi Militarism, as many wrongly believe, is not a Zia-ul-Haq era aberration. It has been ingrained in Pakistani mindset almost since its inception. Even in 1965, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, an avowedly anglophile, modernist and a staunch ally of the US,  declared “the 100 million people of Pakistan whose hearts beat with the sound of La Ilaha Illallah Mumammad ur Rasool Ullah will not rest till India’s guns are silenced. Even Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, despite his liberal outlook, was an inveterate believer of religious nationalism.

Haqqani documents how ‘Jihadism and extremist Islam in Pakistan are a state-building project gone wrong.’  He argues that a country that inherited one third of the British Indian Army but only 17 per cent of its revenue resources can ill afford perpetual animosity with a big and resurgent neighbor. This fostered an anomalous dependence on foreign benefactors, whose help comes with strings attached. This skews priorities and hits development goals.

Consequently, Pakistan, which has the 11^th most powerful army, ranks a paltry 146 out of 187 countries on the Human Development Index.  The other indices too are no less depressing. Its primary education is 136 out of 144 countries. Its higher education ranking is 98 and in terms of Global Connectedness Index it is 114 out of 140.

Haqqani forcefully argues that “only by moving out of the shadow of a permanent state of war will Pakistan be able to achieve its true potential as a modern state.’ This conciliatory and farsighted approach makes Haqqani’s work significant. He frankly admits that Pakistan suffers from two major distortions – firstly an exaggerated view of its own power and secondly of being a rentier state- have ‘negatively influenced the internal dynamic of Pakistan’ and that they have ‘bolstered the military’s praetorian ambitions.’

He firmly believes that “Unless Islamabad’s objectives are redefined to focus on economic prosperity and popular participation in governance, the state will continue to turn to Islam as a national unifier. (Page 379). He calls upon the ruling elite of Pakistan to take a long-term view and strive to transform itself into a functional rather than ideological state so that the country can focus on development and delivery of basic amenities.  One cannot but feel that Pakistan should come out of the delusional state of being a military or strategic equal or counterpoise to India in South Asian geopolitics.

Haqqani’s sage advice may not exactly be music to Pakistan’s Deep State ensconced in Rawalpindi, but there is a flicker of hope. Voices are growing within Pakistan to call for a relook into its premise of being an ideological state. Pakistan urgently needs to address its flirting with debilitatingly dangerous sectarianism and end the practice of allowing its land to be used by non-state actors it fathers, fosters and uses to bleed its neighbor by proverbial thousand cuts. The book is important for those who want to understand Pakistan, its false raison d’tre and actual role in the comity of nations.

(Reviewer is a journalist-activist based out of Hyderabad. He can be reached at krakasudhakarrao@gmail.com )

 

 

~ By Dr. S.Y. Quraishi

On November 26, we celebrate the Constitution Day. On this day in 1949, our Constitution was adopted.It was promulgated on 26^th January 1950. On 26^th November 1949, six articles of the constitution regarding the election commission were also promulgated. Initially they were differently numbered from 289 to 295; later on they became Articles 324 to 329. The Election Commission of India was born on 25^th January, 1950, i.e, a day before India was born as a Republic. That is the importance framers of the constitution gave to elections.

One Nation, One Election is a very beautiful concept. We have been talking about it as simultaneous election. When Prime Minister Modi on 19^th March 2016 was addressing party workers, he talked about it. Media went to town saying he floated the idea. Actually he had not floated the idea, but had only flagged the idea, which has been known for a long time.

The Prime Minister talked about the cost – Rs.30,000 crores – asbeing spent by political parties. Rs.4,500 crores is spent by Election Commission on election management. This also actually does not reflect the entire cost because many of the costs are hidden. For example, the 1,10,00,000 people who conduct the elections for ECI – their salary is not calculated. Their TA, DA comes from their normal budget, it is not calculated. Only the extra costs, i.e., the honorarium ECI gives, the machines, stationary, movement, logistics – those are the costs which are included.

Second, the Prime Minister mentioned that there is work paralysis, which is largely true. And then he talked about saving the party workers’ time because party workers were spending too much time and money in electioneering. He also talked about holding simultaneous elections at all three levels – Panchayats i.e, local bodies, states and parliament.

PM Modi only flagged issues, which have been there for sometime. Law Commission, as far back as in 1999, had recommended in detail that staggered elections are very cumbersome, that they are creating problems and that there should be simultaneous elections.  L.K.Advani was a strong proponent of it. In a blog in May 2010, he strongly recommended that there should be simultaneous elections and he also offered a solution saying no-confidence motion must also accompanied by a confidence motion. BJP manifesto itself in 2014, talked about simultaneous elections. ECI in 2015, when asked to give its comments to Parliamentary Committee, suggested that it was a very good idea if there is consensus and legal and constitutional amendments are taken place. And Parliamentary Committee on 17^th December 2015 came out with recommendation. So, it has a long history.

Mr. Vasanth Sathe (of Congress) had recommended it for decades. This concern has been voiced by all political parties at different times. Therefore, it should not be coloured by any political considerations. It is a general concern and it has to be taken in that spirit.

Parliamentary standing committee in its 79^th report talked about massive expenditure on separate elections. It says model code of conduct leads to policy paralysis. Delivery of essential services is adversely affected. Burdenof deployment of large manpower on election management disrupts normal functioning of offices. All four concerns very correct. One more reason that is being missed is the scourge of casteism and communalism. Because of elections, people who do not know their caste or have nothing to do with it are reminded of their sub-sub-sub caste. Vote bank politics perpetuates the caste system. Communalism and polarization are happening because we are perpetually in election mode. After elections, things become very normal and peaceful.

The otherreason in favour of simultaneous elections is the matter of freebies – free bicycles, free laptops, free TVs, etc. All political parties are agitated. But they do it because it is a very competitive environment. One party spends money, because the other party is spending money. One party gives ticket to a criminal, because rival party is giving ticket to a criminal and therefore they have to put a bigger criminal. Now it becomes the level playing field of the rich and the criminal. This is a vitiation of the electoral process, which was not intended.

Root-cause of all corruption in the country is electoral corruption. When crores are spent, crores are to be collected. Everybody knows how they are collected. Because of frequent elections, corruption gets perpetuated.80% fund collection by political parties is cash collection, and that is very dubious. Whether cash comes from liquor mafia, real estate mafia or is it foreign money, we do not know. At this time of demonetization, it is also a great opportunity for electoral reforms. If electoral reforms happen, it would be very good fall-out of demonetization.

There are some counter points as well. Because of model code of conduct, every service is paralyzed is an exaggeration. All that ECI disallows is new policies. What stops the governments from announcing new policies in four years and eleven months? Why all the bright ideas come only on the eve of elections? That is ECI’s only objection. Everything ongoing must continue.

Governments may not like to work in normal times. But, the moment elections are announced, political parties start sending all the files to election commission whether it is coal allocation or steel plant or something. ECI is flooded with files. ECI only says, no new announcement will be done, which would seduce the voter. That is all. But is it true that since ministers go out for three months campaigning, minister’s office is closed and work stops. Since entire district machinery, DM, SP and down the line is involved in election related works, normal work comes to a standstill.

I am not in favour of painting election commission as an obstructionist. Once I got a call from Cabinet Secretary, when Shri Pranab Mukherjee was the Finance Minister, saying they want to increase MP land scheme from Rs. 2 crores to 5 crores a year. The expenditure would be 8,500 crores. I was strolling in my lawn. We had five elections – Tamil Nadu and others. I said, go ahead. There is no problem except that the matter has to be kept it in abeyance in these five states. Within half an hour, the Finance Minster announced this scheme quoting the conversation saying he had spoken to Quraishi and Quraishi had allowed except in these five states. If Rs. 8,500 crore decision can be taken in telephone in 30 seconds, to say that ECI stops work, is not true. But it is true that in the field, things do come to a standstill.

There was a case with regard to disruption of schools because of elections in Delhi.The matter had gone up to the Delhi High Court in 2007. The High Court ruled that teachers cannot be deployed. That would have upset election management totally. ECI went to Supreme Court and Supreme Court said teachers will have to be deployed because without them elections would not be possible. At the same time SC said there should be guidelines so that work of the schools does not get disrupted. So, if there is a single teacher school, ECI would not disturb.

ECI gives election timings in such a way that in March there are never any elections. There are lots of things in place to ensure that there is minimum dislocation. Article 324 (6) says that the President of India and Governor of the states would provide Election Commission of India with whatever staff they may require. And law requires elections to be managed only by government servants. So, where does ECI gets the staff from? After Right to Education Act, teachers were debarred from doing any other thing except election and census work. Census come once in 10 years and elections come more frequently and that is why it is in limelight.

Why are simultaneous elections not feasible? What is holding it back? The terms of Lok Sabha and Vidhana Sabhas do not coincide. 7 out of 16 Lok Sabhas were prematurely dissolved in 1969, 1971, 1980, 1984, 1996, 1998, and 1999. Legislatures lately have been completing their terms because of the anti-defection act and Supreme Court coming down heavily on misuse of article 356 in SR Bommai case in 1994. Because of this coalition era, this uncertainty and certainty would continue.  Unfortunately coalition era has come to stay. The current government is an exception. After 25 years, we have a government with clear majority. Otherwise for the last 25 years, it was government with 20, 25, 30 parties. Apparently, that will continue because regional parties are becoming stronger by the day. What is the safeguard that coalition would not break down? Vajpayee government fell down in 13 days. There is also instance of his government losing the confidence motion by just one vote.

There are many arguments against simultaneous elections and in favour of the continuation of the present system. It makes the politicians accountable. It keeps them on toes. Politicians who meet the people only during elections do not remember the promises made to voters. If they are to meet people more frequently because of frequent elections, they may not forget the promises. When Rs. 30,000 crores come into circulation, there is creation of many temporary jobs like painters, transporters etc. Money circulation is good for economy.

Election commission banned defacement of public and private properties. After 10 pm, loud speakers will have to go off. There used to be 500 – 1,000 vehicles in processions. ECI stopped all that. Only 10 vehicles would move in convoy. When ECI banned moving of 500 vehicles, how much of petrol are we saving? How much of pollution and traffic jam we have safe guarded against? ECI also banned use of plastic. Many criticize that ECI has killed the festival of democracy. But voters love ECI discipline. Voters’ participation in elections is the index of festival of democracy. ECI had started voters education division. Some criticized saying educating voters is not the job of Election Commission, but only conducting elections. But it is very much the job of ECI. Legitimacy of our politicians comes from the legitimacy of our election process.

In our country people who lose vote by one vote also trust the legitimacy of elections. CP Joshi lost elections by one vote. He called returning officers to request for recounting of postal ballots, which was done. Second time, he requesting for physical tallying of votes total, which was also done. Third time he called to thank the returning officer for conceding to requests and saying the process was very legitimate. The side story is that his wife did not vote in those elections. His wife and daughter went to temple to pray. The lessons are – every vote counts, you cannot take family for granted. On the day of polling, the most important temple is the polling station. He was a potential contender for chief minister-ship and later he won parliamentary elections and became a minster at the centre.

Our electoral system is healthier than Americans. Hillary Clinton had said that Indian election is a global gold standard.

There is another benefit of staggered election to law and order. Six months before elections,ECI enquires all DMs and SPS about pendency of non-bailable warrants. ECI asks them to bring it down to zero. ECI ensures catching hold of illegal arms and ammunition, also asks for deposit of legal arms. Lowest crime rate is ensured in the election period.

Local and national issues get separated. It may not be true to think simultaneous elections would be of benefit to national parties, it can also be a loss to them. Clouding of local sentiments with national sentiments may be counter-productive and that needs to be analysed.

Niti Aayog had come out with a document listing the pros and cons of simultaneous elections, and it is a good document to take the discussion forward.

Prime Minister was talking about simultaneous elections at all three levels. But many normally forget the Panchayat elections while discussing the idea. I went as an election observer to Kenya, where seven elections were happening simultaneously.

What was there in the minds of the framers of the constitution? They visualized simultaneous elections. They discussed the role of the Election Commission. They thought of part-time election commissioner. They grudgingly gave one fulltime election commissioner. Within eight years, mid-term elections came in Kerala as the government fell. Vision of simultaneous elections had broken. In 1971,many state legislative assemblies were dissolved and elections had to be held.

What is the stand of election commission? ECI said it would be happiest if there are simultaneous elections. Media gets so much TRP ratings and business during elections. Now elections are stretched for as much as three months. Election commission and political parties would be happy if they are completed at one go. Election Commission said simultaneous elections are a good idea so long as political parties agree, which is the crux. Logistical challenges like requirement of too many EVMs would be there.

People criticize holding elections in seven or nine phases. But election commission doesn’t want loss of lives and takes adequate security measures to protect law and order. Bihar CM Nitish Kumar said that if needed, we must hold elections in 10 phases but deploy para military forces. That statement is very significant, which means that the chief minister of a state did not trust his own police. He expects police to come from outside. Because it is a reality, that state police has become police of some particular leaders rather than police of the state. Central forces are limited. Hard bargaining happens for deployment of forces. Forces are drawn from border areas and from terror affected areas. Such deployment increases the forces by one or two lakhs. Para military forces also supplement army. If adequate security forces are available, we can complete election processes by reducing the number of phases.

Parliamentary standing committee did not talk about Panchayat elections, which meant surrendering of 1/3^rd of the formula. But any benefit – even simultaneous elections at two levels – is a good benefit. Niti Ayog had suggested onetime curtailment of tenure of some state legislative assemblies and enhancement of tenures of some. The suggestion is very worthwhile.

Advani’s suggestion of having a confidence motion along with no-confidence motion is not feasible. Normally the opportunity to form government comes to the next largest party after the ruling party. Hypothetically assuming there is a no-confidence motion against BJP government at present, the next largest party is one with just 44 seats. Legally and constitutionally, it would be unfeasible. It would account for cheating the voters. The party, which was rejected by voters,cannot be given power by the Lok Sabha.

There is a need for constituting a think tank to evolve a road map to conduct simultaneous elections, to evolve a formula that can muster consensus of all parties. There is no ceiling on expenditure by political parties. There is ceiling only on expenditure by candidates. There is a need for ceiling on both – expenditure by candidates as well as expenditure by political parties so that there can be a level playing field. Also, if adequate security forces are made available, election process can be completed in shorter duration of time. The concern of large scale expenditure of money and time can be addressed to some extent by these steps.

(This article is the summary of the key-note address made by Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India at the symposium on ‘One Nation, One Election’ jointly organized by India Foundation and Nehru Memorial Museum and Library on 26^th November, 2016)

 

~ By Bhupender Yadav

Before we discuss simultaneous elections, we should understand what the purpose of elections in a democracy is. The reason political parties are given an opportunity to contest elections is so that they can form a government and work for the welfare of public.  However, in our country, without a timetable for elections, political parties are perpetually in election mode.

Let me share a personal experience. In 2013, we started preparing for Rajasthan assembly elections in April-May. Since elections were in October, model code of conduct was imposed in July-August.  By December we formed our government and presented an interim budget in February 2014 before LokSabha elections were announced. By June 2014 the national polls were over but before we could begin working, local body polls were announced and model code of conduct was imposedagain. So from May 2013 to Feb 2015, Rajasthan government was continually in election mode.

This reminds me about Gandhi’s statement on means and ends. Our end is to have a government that works for the people for a period of five years but the means we have chosen are not delivering it. Even political parties are contesting elections based on short-term, immediate issues and not long-term policies that will deliver sustainable benefits to the public- just look at their manifestoes and vision documents.

To fix this problem, we must first arrive at a consensus that elections are just a means not an end. Therefore, it is imperative that they should happen as per a fixed schedule causing minimum inconvenience to the ultimate end of delivering governance. When we have LokSabha polls in 2019, there will be about 26 states where elections will be due since May-June 2018. Those states where such elections are due, can hold elections in two batches of 2.5 years each. This can be the beginning of the process of setting up a timetable for elections.

Ultimately the biggest beneficiary of such a timetable will be the public because it will greatly curtail the influence of money in politics and policy-making. Simultaneous elections will also enable a level playing field. If the state has to provide platforms for political parties to debate and discuss respective ideologies, issues of good governance, it is a welcome step.

Transparency in electoral spending is a must. Either we strictly implement the cap of Rs.40-50 lakh on electoral spending to propagate one’s ideology or completely do away with a cap while ensuring that all expenditure is accountable. Removing a spending cap will also ensure that the public knows how much money power is being flexed by respective candidates.

What if a government is not able to complete its term and falls prematurely?  Maybe we can have a simultaneous confidence motion in favour of a new formation along with a no-confidence motion against the present government. Else, maybe we can have an alternate arrangement for the remaining term.

For example, in RajyaSabha if a seat falls vacant before the fixed term of 6 years, we have elections only for the remaining term. Can we do something similar for state assemblies and national parliament? How will any such arrangement reflect the will of the people? Another issue is the conduct of bye-elections in a regime of simultaneous elections. We will have to fix a designated time during the year when all bye-elections are held. What about anti-defection law and what will be the role of the Speaker?

These are issues on which we need to have a healthy public debate and any one person (including me) cannot decide what the best course is.  My purpose here is just to highlight these issues. My larger point is that as a nation, we need to start working towards a timetable for elections and bring transparency in electoral funding. Countries all over the world are coming around to the importance of this idea. For example, Britain passed a law in 2011 that fixed the national electoral calendar.

Finally, I want to reiterate that our mandate should be to deliver a stable government and good governance between elections without being prejudiced on the issues of caste, religion, language and other fault lines. For this to happen, we need to seriously undertake electoral reforms in the country. I wish to thank India Foundation for starting this important debate in India and inviting me to participate in the deliberations.

(This article is the gist of the address made by Bhupender Yadav, National General Secretary, BharatiyaJanata Party, at the symposium on ‘One Nation, One Election’ jointly organized by India Foundation and Nehru Memorial Museum and Library on 26^th November, 2016)

 

~ By Bhatruhari Mahtab

When Lok Sabhas were being frequently dissolved, the then President of India, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, came up with an idea that pre-poll alliance will get precedence, if it has a common manifesto, to a coalition that comes after the election, in the event thatthe coalition gets an invitation to form government. I think from then on, Shankar Dayal developed this idea, after receiving suggestions from the Supreme Court. 1996 to 1999 were turbulent years for India’s democracy. People were repeatedly asked to vote andthe country continued to give a fractured mandate. This was happening for the first time showing clearly that there was no party, which was competent enough to form a government with absolute majority.

This had happened earlier in respective state legislatures as well. Even today, Jharkhand stands as apolitically volatile case. Orissa witnessed fractured mandates till 1977. From then onwards, repeated governments enjoyed full majority. In 1961, when Biju Patnaik led the Congress government to power, it had full majority of 80 members in a house of 140. But at that time also his government lasted only for two years and four months. Subsequently, there were two chief ministers, during the remaining tenure of the Legislative Assembly. So, with absolute majority also there is no guarantee that the government would continue. If there is fractured mandate, more volatility can ensue.

Figures at times educate us about a situation that was prevalent at that period of time. But the basic question is that this issue has now opened for debate. It needs to be told in public How many times promulgation of Article 356 has happened till 1967 and between 1967 and 1999? So, what is the crux of the problem? And how does one address the problem? With a full majority in the LokSabha, it would be the right time to propagate that idea of one election among the public at large.

It is time to try and establish a national consensus that there should be attempts to avoid frequent elections. There was a time in 1990s when there was a general complaint regarding frequency of elections. I will tell you some hard truths. I have contested elections seven times. And during this period, I have learnt that people love elections. People want that their candidates come to their house so that they can ask questions. Also, there is a wrong notion that black money is freely spent in elections. Rather, black money turns white during elections. These are hard facts, however unpalatable they may be. But this is the problem and we have to address that problem.

Leave aside assembly elections and parliamentary elections simultaneously. In Panchayati Raj and Municipal elections, the voter has to vote for his/her ward member, has to vote for Sarpanch, has to vote for Samiti member, and also vote for Zilla Parishad member. One has to cast four votes in the same room at four different tables. They are all paper ballots. 90 to 95% polling is witnessed in some cases.

There are some political parties, which deposed before the parliamentary standing committee of law and justice headed by Dr. Nachiappan, saying that there would be confusion if simultaneous elections areto be held. They said that in Lok Sabha people vote on determination for national perspective.Some political parties might take advantage of and regional parties and smaller parties might be rendered losers. But Orissa had proved this concern wrong.

AtalBihari Vajpayee went for election in 2004, six months before the completion of his tenure. Orissa was supposed to have elections in 2005 and one more year of tenure was remaining for the house. Naveen Patnaik too decided to have state elections one year before schedule to have them along with national elections. The election commission agreed. Simultaneous elections were held both for parliament and Orissa State Legislative Assembly. It proved beneficial to BJD.

What happened in 2004? Bharatiya Janata Party did not come to power. They lost miserably in Parliament. BJD did not lose. It formed the government in Orissa. Its strength also increased. Though it contested only for 12 seats out of 21 seats, its strength increased from 9 to 11. It lost only one seat. Bharatiya Janata Party came down. Congress got 6 seats. People at large decided. Perhaps they got a sense of the direction in which the wind. BJP was out of power. In 2009, there was no BJD alliance with Bharatiya Janata Party. BJD was fighting on its own. It went to election. It increased its number in simultaneous elections for assembly and also in parliament. In 2014, when there was strong northerly wind, BJD could withstand the wind. BJD increased its strength not only in Assembly, but also in parliament. It lost only one seat out of 21.

How could this happen? It is not a matter to be discussed, deliberated in political science class. This is a matter to be deliberated specially by those who say, if we have simultaneous elections, so-called national parties would prevail, national issues will prevail and regional parties and small parties will just fade away. It doesn’t happen. At least Orissa has proved that wrong. Tamil Nadu has proved that wrong. West Bengal has proved that wrong. To a great extent, Telangana has also proved that wrong.

So, when a citizen of this country goes to vote, he knows for whom he is going to vote and for what reason. And that is the reason why, we maintain the sanctity of the mandate that the citizen gives or elects for five years. Can we fix the term of the house? If term of the house is fixed, can we fix the date of the election? That on such and such date next election would be held. We know how elections are held in the United States.

I have submitted a private members bill in Lok Sabha on 2^nd May 2016. It would come up for discussion and deliberation in the house. I have suggested three amendments to the Constitution. And the first amendment is related to a government losing to a no-confidence motion. In Law Commission’s Report of 1999, it is recommended that if at all a no-confidence motion is moved, it should also be simultaneously moved for a confidence motion. Articles 75, 164, in respect of the parliament and also the state assemblies, must be amended. Similarly, one more amendment is necessary to Article 326 (A)in order forLokSabhaand all state legislative assembly elections to beheld simultaneously.

We have heard former Chief Election Commissioner of India Dr. S.Y.Quraishi say that Election Commission is competent enough to hold simultaneous elections provided certain things are given to them – security forces and other things. It can be done. It is a very encouraging statement that Election Commission can conduct elections within 33 days. I think for the first time this thing is being said. Earlier I did not read it anywhere.

In 2014, after elections it used to come in news papers that I would lose. I went to my leader and said, this is going to happen, what should I do? He said forget it and go to some other place and relax. The more you stay in your constituency, the more tense you would be. But ultimately when the results came, my lead was more than 2 lakh votes. However, I suffered during that one month period, the gap between the polling date and declaration of results.

It was a private discussion I had with the Prime Minister, but I can share with you. Last year, the session was going to commence and Prime Minister was to go to campaign in certain states. A news item had come in some newspapers that he would be very busy campaigning for the party instead of attending the house. I was tempted and I asked him, “Sir, don’t you think it is necessary we should have simultaneous elections both to state legislative assemblies and parliament so that it would save time and energy and also to a very great extent, will minimize the cost.”  He said, “You want it?You want it?” I said, “Yes we want it. Yes it should be done.” He said, “First ask Khadgeji”.

Khadgeji was sitting just across the table. I do not know whether he would vouch for it today or not, but that day, he said that all of them want simultaneous elections. But when their written statement was sought by the committee, the Congress party said, “The proposal of holding simultaneous elections, ideal as it may sound, is impractical and unworkable and can lead to a scenario where the necessary balance in Indian democracy given the diversity of the country is lost.”

I think it is workable.  I believe it can also protect the diversity of the country. Some say it is ideal, but not implementable. But it is implementable. Our constitution is dynamic, a living document. People of this country through their voice have made dramatic changes in the constitution that was conceived in 1949 and 1950. I have also proposed we can also try to bring adjustment related to the elections so that we can lead to a situation, perhaps in next 10 to 15 years time, where all state legislative assembly elections and LokSabha elections can be done in one go. The more we deliberate the more we discuss in public, it will have an impact on the respective political parties. And a voice will come up.

On 1998 17^thApril 1998, when Atalji’s government had fallen by one vote, it was not Giridhar Gomang who was the culprit. He had been vilified and our party BJD had been at the forefront making the allegation. He belonged to the Congress party. He did not defect. He was the chief minister of Orissa that time and he did not resign from the Lok Sabha. There were three members of National Conference in Lok Sabha. Omer Abdulla, Prof. Souz and there was one more member. Prof. Saifuddin Souz voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. Whereas Omar Abdullah voted against the no-confidence motion, he was with the government. The other member obtained. Prof. Souz was rewarded later on.

It is necessary that we must have simultaneous election. We should have national and international outlook. The prerogative is not only with national parties. People also think about the country. They also want a strong government in Delhi. That is the reason why, they may vote differently for the state and for the centre. There is need not only for simultaneous elections but there is also a need for fixed term for respective houses.

(This article is the gist of the address made by Bhatruhari Mahtab, Member of Parliament in Lok Sabha from BJD, at the symposium on ‘One Nation, One Election’ jointly organized by India Foundation and Nehru Memorial Museum and Library on 26^th November, 2016)

 

~ By Swadesh Singh & Sushant

Introduction

The kind of electoral exercise that we witness in India is unparalleled in the world. Due to the sheer size of electorate and the expanse of our democracy, this electoral exercise doesn’t only assume gigantic proportions, it also leads to huge electoral expenditure. To add to the existing woes, our general and state elections are not held simultaneously and thereby one part or the other of our country is always electorally alert. The Election Commission of India is on its foot throughout the year because of this. This is the situation when we are not taking account of local elections for panchayat and urban municipalities. The ever-rising electoral expenditure on the country because of this can prove detrimental to our governance and developmental goals.

One of the pillars of Indian democracy is the periodic organisation of free and fair elections. Thenature of our elections to be free and fair is threatened by the rising cost of elections as political parties and candidates who contest look out for other sources to cover these costs. It is an open secret that this contributes to political corruption as pointed out by many studies. The frequent elections are also an ever increasing administrative burden for the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Simultaneous elections at the Parliament and state assemblies’ level have been mooted out by many as a remedy to this problem of Indian democracy.

History of Indian Elections

The first election after Independence was held simultaneously for the Parliament and State Assemblies in 1952. The practice was followed without any hitch in three subsequent elections held in 1957, 1962, and 1967. This was mainly because non-Congress regional parties (except Communists in some places) were not as powerful and influential as Congress and thereby were not in a position to dislodge it in the legislatures or in general elections. Things after 1967 changed. It was on account of both state and national politics due to which elections to parliament and state assemblies were delinked. The Fifth General Elections were due in 1972. But in early 1971, Indira Gandhi dissolved the LokSabha, and held the Fifth LokSabha elections in March 1971. The Assembly elections took place as scheduled in 1972. This is how the initial delinking of LokSabha and Assembly elections took place. Due to irresponsible and politically motivated use of article 356, many state assemblies were dissolved in between leading to finalisation of this delinking process.

Simultaneous elections have become exceptions rather than rule. As a result, the Election Commission is busy throughout the year conducting polls in some part of the country or the other. Apart from general elections in 2014, we had legislative assembly elections for eight states: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Odisha and Sikkim. In 2015, we witnessed elections in Delhi and Bihar. In 2016, five state legislative assembly elections took place: Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Puducherry and Assam. That is, in a span of three years (2014-2016) we have conducted one general and 15 state assembly elections.

Countries conducting simultaneous elections 

• England has chosen to hold general elections and local government elections on the same day since 1997. But, in practice, local elections are delayed if polls to European Parliament have to be held.
• Italy, Belgium, and Sweden are some countries that conduct general and local elections together.
• In Canada, municipal elections are on fixed dates while provincial and federal elections take place at any time. The Canadian Prime Minister and provincial Premiers have a right to call elections at any time during their tenure of five years. This right could be used by them to prolong their stay in power by going to polls when their popularity is rated high. This led to the rise of “fixed election date” movement a decade ago. It succeeded in introducing set election dates in eight out of 10 provinces. At the centre, the Fixed Election Date Act was adopted in 2007.
• In South Africa, national and provincial elections are held simultaneously. Municipal elections are not linked with these.
• In India, the question of a fixed tenure has been discussed several times without arriving at any consensus. In 1999, the Law Commission recommended that the cycle of elections every year should be put an end to.

Now we will discuss the issues that arise due to delinking of national and state elections.

Rising Electoral Expenditure for the Government

The expenses incurred by the Government in preparation of electoral rolls, I-cards, election booths & officers etc is significant. The table below indicates expenditure incurred on LokSabha Elections in various years as available on the website of Election Commission.

Year	Expenditure Incurred (Provisional) (Cr Rs)
1952	10.45
1957	5.9
1962	7.32
1967	10.8
1971	11.61
1977	23.04
1980	54.77
1984	81.51
1989	154.22
1991	359.1
1996	597.34
1998	666.22
1999	880
2004	1300
2009	1483
2014	3426

Source: Election Commission of India

2014 elections were the most expensive LokSabha elections ever, entailing a cost of Rs.3,426crore to the national exchequer, a substantial jump of 131% over the Rs.1,483 crore incurred in the 2009 polls. In 1952, the cost of elections per elector was 60 paise which increased to Rs 12 per elector in 2009, a 20-fold hike.

Rising Electoral Expenditure for the Political Parties

Electoral expenditure of political parties as per details given to ECI for 2014 elections.

Political Party	Expenditure incurred (in Rs)
BJP	7,14,28,57,813
INC	5,16,02,36,785
NCP	51,34,44,854
BSP	30,05,84,822

Source: Election Commission of India

The funds collected by the political parties also show a significant rise. The EC report indicates that funds collected by national political parties increased by a whopping 418 per cent in the past 10 years. It is an open secret as to what form of political corruption takes place in fund collection by various parties.

This situation was no different in 2009 when cash accounted for 75% of the money raised by the Congress and half of that of the BJP. In 2009, BJP spent Rs 448.66 crore in the 2009 LokSabha elections, while the Congress spent Rs 380.04 crore. Data analysis shows that only 24 per cent of the total election funding the Congress received was made through cheques and demand drafts, the remaining being in cash. The BJP, however, received close to half (49 per cent) through cheques and demand drafts.

The funding of political parties increased by 35.53 per cent from Rs 854.89 crore in 2009 to Rs 1,158.59 crore in 2014 general elections. The poll expenditure jumped in recent years as over a period of 10 years, as the spending by national political parties during the LokSabha elections went up 386 per cent.

Altogether, the political parties exhausted Rs 858.97 crore on publicity, Rs 311.8 crore on travel, Rs 104.28 crore on other expenses and Rs 311.47 crore on expenditure towards candidates.

According to a projected expenditure estimate of Centre for Media Studies (CMS), Rs 30,000 crores would be spent by government, political parties and candidates in 2014 elections. A study carried out by CMS on poll spending says “unaccounted for” money pumped in by “crorepati” candidates, corporates and contractors has pushed up the expenditure to elect 543 MPs.Out of the estimated Rs 30,000 crore, the exchequer will spend Rs 7000 to Rs 8000 crore to hold the electoral exercise for the 16th LokSabha. While the Election Commission is likely to spend around Rs 3,500 crore, the Union Home Ministry, Indian Railways, various other government agencies and state governments will spend a similar amount to put in place means to ensure free and fair polls.

In India while we have ceilings for the expenses to be incurred by a candidate in their constituencies, there is no such ceiling on the use of money by political parties. The money spent by political parties is not added to the candidate’s expense statement. Another data (published by Association for Democratic Reforms) which gives a good idea about the increasing expenses of the political parties and candidates is the amount received by candidates from their respective political parties. To make matters worse, election expenditure statements have to be submitted only by national and recognized regional parties and rest are exempted from it.

Table: MPs’ declaration of aid for election expenses from the party

S. No	Party	Total LokSabha MPs	No. Of MPs who have declared receiving aid from party	Total amount declared by MPs as received from party	No. MPs to whom aid was given by the party	Total amount declared by party as given to MPs
1	BJP	282	229	Rs 6,589.22 lakhs	159	Rs 4,875.03 lakhs
2	INC	44	18	Rs 403.60 lakhs	7	Rs 270.00 lakhs
3	NCP	6	6	Rs 279.70 lakhs	5	Rs 250.00 lakhs
4	CPI	1	1	Rs 21.83 lakhs	0	Rs 0
5	CPM	9	9	Rs 265.46 lakhs	4	Rs 128.50 lakhs
Total		342	263	Rs 7,559.82 lakhs	175	Rs 5,523.53 lakhs

Source: http://adrindia.org/content/lok-sabha-2014-election-expenditure-analysis-declaration-lumpsum-amounts-political-parties

This data is still limited to national elections. One can imagine the scale of problem if we add up the electoral expenses incurred during various state elections happening almost every year.

From the above data presented in this section, one can imagine and make a fair estimate of the gigantic proportions our electoral expenses have assumed. It’s a burden for the government, taxpayers, political parties and the candidates.

Policy Paralysis due to Code of Conduct

The model code of conduct (MCC) is a set of norms which has been evolved with the consensus of political parties who have consented to abide by the principles embodied in the said code in its letter and spirit. It comes into effect the moment Election Commission of India announces an election schedule for polls and stays in force till the end of the electoral process. Under the code, governments cannot do anything which may have the effect of influencing voters in favour of the party in power. Grants, new schemes / projects cannot be announced. Even the schemes that may have been announced before the MCC came into force, but that has not actually taken off in terms of implementation on field are also required to be put on hold.

Due to these stringent guidelines, which comes into effect for 45 days after the schedule for elections are announced by the EC, the whole country (during the times of general elections) and states (during elections to state assemblies) come to a virtual standstill. The normal functioning of the government is hampered. It leads a situation of policy paralysis. It has become a model for inaction. Designed to prevent pre-poll populism by governments and political parties, the frequency of its application has turned the Election Commission’s model code of conduct into a charter for non-governance. There are many examples as to how application of Model Code of Conduct for elections causes policy paralysis, however, we have listed a few prominent ones.

Even if status quo is maintained on the code of conduct, there are ways to ensure continuance in decision-making. One solution stems from the way the Delhi High Court decided the dispute over the new telecom policy – by making its continuity conditional on its clearance by the next LokSabha.

Instability

Connected to the above issue, the delinking of elections also leads to a situation where we witness instability at the national level. When elections happen, it involves the whole machinery of government. The party in power cannot afford to look away and even the ministers of highest ranks get involved in the campaign process. In the Bihar elections we saw that even the PM was not spared and was actively engaged in the hectic campaign process. This leads to hampering of normal functioning of the government and negatively affects the governance of the country. Among the parties, the BJP organized the highest number of election rallies — 850 — which were addressed by the party chief Amit Shah, several union ministers, Chief Ministers, party’s MPs and other star campaigners.

Lack of bold decision-making

If a party which is in power at centre loses election in a state, it is projected by the opposition as the results have made severe dent on its mandate to rule. This also leads to loss of confidence in the ruling regime. A negative atmosphere is created which contributes in affecting the governance of the country in an adverse way. A loss in a state election in the middle of the tenure of a government at national level is rapidly projected as a loss of credibility and hence all efforts are made by the strengthened opposition to stall any new reform measures.

Security issues

Fearing outbreaks of attacks by Maoist rebels, terrorist violence and communal clashes between communities, the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2014 mobilised some 200,000 security personnel – comprising 175,000 paramilitary forces and 25,000 state police officers – across the country to protect polling stations and safeguard election results. In the last general election in 2009, the central government-provided security deployment consisted of 120,000 personnel. These figures do not include the hundreds of thousands of other provincial police and local security forces that were deployed to polling stations across the country. This added feature makes our elections more expensive and the fierce competition in elections may also lead to loss of lives at many places. With the elections happening so often, these features have become a recurrent theme of our democratic process.

Recommendations made in this regard

• In the first annual report of the Election Commission submitted in 1983, the then chief election commissioner R.K. Trivedi had observed: “The commission is of the view that a stage has come for evolving a system by convention, if it is not possible or feasible to bring about a legislation, under which the general elections to the House of the People and legislative assemblies of the states are held simultaneously.”
• 170^threport of Law Commission of India on ‘Reform of the Electoral Laws’, 1999 mentioned in this regard the following:

This cycle of elections every year, and in the out of season, should be put an end to.  We must go back to the situation where the elections to LokSabha and all the Legislative Assemblies are held at once.

• One of the reform proposals mentioned in National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution is: “Hold State level and parliamentary level elections at the same time. This would reduce election expenditure.”
• The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice headed by EMS Natchiappan submitted its report on the Feasibility of Holding Simultaneous Elections LokSabha and State Legislative Assemblies. The Committee noted that the holding of simultaneous elections to LokSabha and state assemblies would reduce: (i) the massive expenditure that is currently incurred for the conduct of separate elections; (ii) the policy paralysis that results from the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct during election time; and (iii) impact on delivery of essential services and (iv) burden on crucial manpower that is deployed during election time.
• There have been demands to hold the two elections together as it can save money, time and resources and ex-Chief Election Commissioner HS Brahma recently said that he is not averse to exploring the possibility.
• President Pranab Mukherjee, during his lecture to school students on the Teachers’ Day (5 September) had endorsed the idea of holding simultaneous LokSabha and state legislative assemblies’ elections. President Mukherjee had said that with some election or the other throughout the year, normal activities of the government come to a standstill because of model code of conduct. “This is an idea the political leadership should think of. If political parties collectively think, we can change it”, he had said.
• TheElection Commission has supported the idea of holding simultaneous elections to Parliament and State Assemblies, in a letter sent to the Law Ministry in May, 2016. This is the first time the poll watchdog has officially expressed its willingness to conduct LokSabha and state polls together. The ECI wrote, “In so far as the Election Commission is concerned, the issues involved in holding simultaneous elections are not insurmountable for it. If there is political consensus and will across the board, needless to say, the Commission supports the idea of considering simultaneous elections”.
• The NitiAayog’s discussion paper, ‘Analysis of Simultaneous Elections: The What, Why and How’, bats for simultaneous elections stating that frequent polls change the focus of policy making because “short-sighted populist” and “politically safe” measures are accorded higher priority over difficult structural reforms.
• Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself has floated a very pertinent idea of having simultaneous elections for the LokSabha and state assemblies.

Conclusion

Despite all the difficulties and occasional setbacks that we face, one of the admirable features of Indian democracy is the consistent and fairly high voter participation in elections. This undoubtedly reflects the deep entrenched belief of Indian people in the democratic traditions of this country. We should not return this favour by burdening our citizens with sky-rocketing electoral expenditure and the ill-effects that comes with it. India, being a developing country, cannot ill afford to bear the huge expenditure involved in electoral exercise. From the above discussion it is evident that the issues that we are facing now in terms of spiraling costs of elections, administrative burden on government and Election Commission and governance deficit resulting from these can be better resolved if we revert back to our earlier electoral system whereby we had simultaneous elections for both parliament and state assemblies.

(Swadesh Singh teaches Political Science in a College of Delhi University and Sushant is a Research Scholar in JNU, New Delhi)

~ By Arjun Sinha

Introduction

The 2014 general election ushered in a new phase in India’s electoral history. It was the first time in three decades that a single party won majority in parliament and the first time in India’s post-independence history that a non-Congress party obtained an outright majority. This marked the onset of stable and decisive political choices, at sharp contrast from the coalition era of the 1990s.

However, while the stability question in our governance seems to be answered for now, several challenges to the political health of our country still remain.

Our political system is extremely fragmented, with nearly 15 political parties contesting each seat in 2014. States like Haryana see political competition rise to as high as 23 parties per seat.  This fragmentation increases the political choices and as a result the amounts of money needed to be spent in an election cycle.

Rising electoral costs lead to parties relying on high net worth individuals.  In the 2014 national election, 79% of the Congress Party’s candidates and 73% of the BJP’s candidates had declared assets greater than Rs 10 million.  This not only creates a barrier of entry for talented leaders without significant financial capabilities but also leads to selection of a class that is not representative of a country with an annual per capita income of INR 79,920.

The 1990s and 2000s also saw centralisation of power by parties, with the rise in family run units supported by legislation and policy changes such as the anti defection laws.  This has affected internal party democracy and dismantled traditional cadre units.  As a result, these parties are prone to relying on candidates with their own grassroots machinery -either contractors with business interests in the constituency, dynastic politicians or criminal elements.

Over the past ten years, the number of sitting members of parliament with criminal charges has risenfrom 24% (in 2004), 30% (in 2009) and 34% (in 2014). While the number of dynasts in the 2014 LokSabha has reduced to 21% from the earlier level of 29%, we still see certain parties, such as the Indian National Congress, with nearly 48% of their successful members with political lineages.

The knee jerk response has been to treat symptoms rather than the disease. The ECI has sought to increase restrictions against the participation of criminals in elections or limit the use of finance in elections.  However, these low-level changes cannot look to improve the health of the Indian political system. Any long lasting reform must  amend the rules of the games, on how political parties and candidates contest elections, and raise finances.  This article will focus on the key changes that need to happen for our election process to be more transparent.

1. Reforming campaign finance: Increasing transparency, closing loopholes

Historically, parties have been financed by contributions from friends, family and supporters or philanthropic. Corporate donations were legal from the inception of the Representation of the People’s Act in 1951.

It was only in 1968 that donations by corporate entities to political parties were banned. While the official position was to prevent the role of black money in politics, the popular view has been that the move was to block the rise of C Rajagopalachari’s Swatantra Party and its liberal economic agenda. However, instead of clamping down on corporate donations, the move only led to funding being driven underground.

To undo some of this damage and promote disclosure of interests, political parties from 1979 onwards were permitted to claim exemptions from income and wealth taxes, as long as they filed returns listing donations of Rs10,000 and above, along with disclosing the identity of the donors. Changes in 1985 sought to incentivise companies to disclose their donations by granting income tax exemptions for contributions. In a fragmented political landscape, donors saw greater interest in maintaining anonymity rather than taking advantage of tax exemptions.

Therefore, the immediate need is for an increased transparency in campaign finance.  An opaque system promotes various undocumented quid pro quo systems.  This is especially problematic in a country where the government plays a large role in the economy.  Conversely, political parties would obviously find it more efficient to raise finance from a small pool of donors rather than a large base.  A trend seen even in developed jurisdictions such as the US, where a recent study demonstrated that merely 158 family interests controlled 50% of the early political funding of the 2016 elections.

However, along with reforming political parties our policy makers need to realise the true cost of campaigning in India. With an average population of 22 lakhs in each parliamentary constituency current expenditure limits allow a candidate to only spend INR 3 rupees to persuade a voter.  As a result, while candidates on paper seem to conduct campaigns within prescribed expenditure limits, it is rarely the case in practice.  In 1999 the National Election Audit conducted by CSDS estimated that the two principal national parties spent nearly four to six times of the cap.  Moreover, misreporting by candidates also undermines the strength of the electoral institution.

In addition, the nature of campaigning itself is changing over time.  Campaigns were fought by each candidate in their respective constituencies as representatives of the party. The electoral law framework recognised this model, and sought to regulate expenditures by each candidate, and not the party. However, current political dynamics require parties to share their vision of the nation with their voters based on a single agenda.  This increases the role of the presumptive prime ministerial or the state chief ministerial aspirant therebymaking the party’s expenditure (currently uncapped) more relevant.

The ECI should look to either raise the limits imposed on candidates to realistic levels—or alternatively, consider removing caps on expenditure with better reporting and funding norms in place.These measures can be achieved by amending section 77 (to amend the timeline for calculating the expense limits) and section 77A (to amend the information required to be disclosed by individual candidates and its frequency of disclosure) of the Representation of Peoples Act.Similar to the UK, the ECI could look to create a long term and near term campaign periods, and prescribe separate caps for this period (to the extent such caps are realistic).

Along with tackling the rising costs of campaigns and the role of money in elections, the Election Commission should also focus on disseminating greater information to our citizens.  The ECI should impose frequent and true disclosures from both parties and candidates.  Currently, Indian parties are not required to disclose the source of any income below INR 20,000. Leading to situations such as the Bahujan Samaj Party’s disclosures in 2014 stating that it had received no donations larger than INR 20,000. As recommended by the 255^th report of the Law Commission of India, a new section 29D to the Representation of Peoples Act can mandate the disclosure of donations even below INR 20,000 (to the extent the donations exceed 20% of the party’s total contributions / or INR 20 crore whichever is lower).  In addition, the current section 29C of the Representation of People’s Act would need amendment to create an obligation on parties to disclose audited financial statements within six months of every financial year, and submit expenditure statements within 90 days of an election.

Once the ECI can increase reporting compliance from parties, the goal should be to reduce the ability of an entity to influence political parties.  This can begin with restricting donations from vested interests, such as entities with government contracts. Instead of capping expenditure, the ECI can also look to limit the donations.  Caps on donations should exist on each transaction as well as on an aggregate basis in a financial year.  Relying on definitions of associates and group companies, the ECI can look to create separate limits on donations by group and affiliated companies.  This would force parties to broad base their sources of funds and return to the earlier model of funding parties through donations by cadre/ supporters.

1. State funding of elections: Is it a viable solution to murky campaign finance?

State funding as an alternate to private campaign funding has been gathering support over the years. There are various models of state funding currently in practice globally.  Some countries, such as Japan provide parties with a direct transfer of funds based on the number of voters. Germanyon the other hand looks to match donations based on the number of votes awarded in the previous election.

However, a common funding support for parties based on population may not reflect support for parties.  A common pool would result in more popular parties being forced to receive the same amount as a far unpopular organisation.  Funding parties based on the votes received would be backward looking, recognising past performance and not current support.  Moreover, parties would still need to raise finance privately and then be reimbursed to an extent based on their performance.

Another form of state funding currently being discussed is the subsidisation of goods and services.  Even here, the choice of state funding may not be useful for the parties.  Firstly parties depending on the nature of their support base may choose alternate mediums of campaign.  Some may rely on social media, while other more on traditional on ground means of outreach.   The efficient allocation of financial resources should best be left to the parties in question.  The ECI identifying private sector partners has its own set of challenges in terms of proprietary.

One solution of state funding that does resolve some of these challenges is currently being piloted in the city elections of New York.  The city has agreed to provide a 6:1 grant ratio for every small donation raised by a candidate.  This recognises the current popularity of candidates and allows those with lesser resources to raise the finances required to match well-funded campaigns.  However, in India any such model would first require greater financial transparency and discipline from candidates and political parties.

1. Case for state regulated political party reform

While it may be useful to add new layers of regulation and compliance,as the NCRWC report on Electoral Reforms and Political Processes notes, no electoral reforms would be effective without reforms in the political party system.

Currently, section 29 A of the Representation of the People requires parties to incorporate democratic rules in their constitutional documents at the time of registration. The model guidelines provided as a part of the application form mandates parties to create standards for democratic decision making, appoint elected officers, and regular turnover of organisation position holders.  Moreover, as per the model guidelines, parties ideally do not grant veto powers to an individual, and mandate fixed terms for position holders.[1]

The ECI now needs to be empowered to conduct regular audits to confirm the parties’compliance with their internal constitutional documents, and the organisation of internal elections.  Infact, in 2011, the Law Ministry had already prepared a Political Parties (Registration and Regulation of Affairs) Bill. Section 6 of the Political Parties Bill required all political parties to form an executive committee to oversee the implementation of democratic norms and intra party elections at all levels.  However, after being drafted, the Political Parties Bill saw little to no subsequent debate.

1. Empowering our guards: giving teeth to the ECI

As things currently stand, the election commission has limited powers to take action against candidates or their political parties.  For example, in 2009, on a misreporting in electoral expenditure by Maharashtra based politician[2], the ECI was unable to take direct action against the candidate.

The corner stone of electoral governance in India, the Model Code of Conduct is technically not legally binding and any compliance by parties or candidates is only voluntary.  In 2013, the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, had recommended granting legal status to the Model Code.  Penalties for noncompliance can include withdrawal of the party’s tax exemption status, financial penalties in the range of INR 25,000 for every day of non-compliance.  Similar to the approach taken under financial legislation, any mis-reported donation or receipt of a donation from illegal sources should attract a penalty between 3 to 5 times the underlying amounts.  In addition, the ECI should also have the power to derecognise repeat offenders or those entities that are found guilty of grave offences.

Along with granting greater regulatory power, it would be necessary to ensure greater independence. This can be granted by granting the other commissioners the same constitutional protections granted to the CEC under Article 324. As recommended by the 1990 Goswami Committee and the 255^th Law Commission Report, appointments of all the ElectionCommissioners (including the CEC) should be made by the President inconsultation with a three-member collegium – of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.

1. Synchronising India’s elections

India’s continuous electoral cycle, which averages around 2-3 elections a year imposes a high cost on parties. A continuous electoral cycle also diverts the attention of incumbent from governance. The imposition of the Model Code of Conduct, which prevents governments from issuing fresh policy, has unquantifiable costs on the economy.

Therefore, the need of the hour is to synchronise state and central elections. The key concern is that a popular central government may create a down ballot effect, and increasing support for the parties even in the state election.  There may be some truth to this view.  A recent study by the IDFC Institute noted that in a simultaneous election nearly 77% of all voters choose the same party/ alliance for the state and central election.  In addition to reducing informed political choice, it would also reduce the role of the Rajya Sabha, which acts as a counterbalance to the lower house.

Therefore, instead of a single national and state election, the ECI can look to organise elections in two cycles.  This would reduce the time spent on campaigning. In addition, a mid-term election would act as a referendum on the central government’s performance.

[1] Article IV: Organs of the Party (Organizational Structure): Powers and Functions of each of these organs (Decision making power should reflect democratic spirit – no veto power) Method of appointment (and terms) of members to each of the organs (Not more than 1/3rd members can be nominated; Tenure should be fixed not exceeding 5 years; Periodic elections within 5 years maximum)

Article V: Office-bearers of the Party: Powers and functions of each of these office-bearers (Decision making power should reflect democratic spirit – no veto power) Method of appointment (and terms) of each of these office-bearers (Should be elected; Not more than 1/3rd can be nominated; Fixed tenure not exceeding 5 years for everyone; Periodic elections within 5 years maximum)

[2]Ashok Chavan v. MadhavraoKinhalkar SLP (C) NO.29882 OF 2011.

(Arjun Sinha advises on law and policy issues (focusing on technology and energy), and has been consulted on national and state election campaigns.  In 2015, Sinha was an adviser to the Election Commission’s National Consultation on Political Finance. He can be contacted at sinha.arjun@gmail.com)

 

~ By Dr. Pratyush Kumar

India’s 70^thanniversary finds the world’s largest democracy living in challenging times, in a complex and dangerous geopolitical neighborhood. Regional powers and rivals are pressing ahead with aggressive plans to challenge India’s longstanding airpower superiority, which has been the cornerstone of India’s national defence since 1971.  This has required India to continue modernizing its defence capabilities.

Over the past 70 years, India has relied largely on import and technology transfer from the Russian Federation (erstwhile USSR), France, and the UK for most critical tactical airpower needs.  The model for Transfer-of-Technology (ToT) has essentially been transfer of build-to-print drawings to Defense Public Sector Undertakings (DPSU) such as Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).  While this model has served a useful purpose, it has also left critical gaps forcing India to carry the dubious moniker as the largest arms importer in the world.

ToT Model with DPSUs have Outlived their Utility

Relying on ToT with DPSUs has generally led to vertical integration of manufacturing of full aircraft platforms without significant development of India’s domestic vendor/supplier base of components.  This has led to bottlenecks in production capacity leading to significant gap between demand and supply.  It has also forced huge over reliance on knocked-down kits imported from the source countries.  By some accounts aerospace DPSUs import over 60% of their output.

This has also led to under-development of design and development capability in India, so that every new need forces a new and self-reinforcing cycle of fresh ToT and continued reliance on imports.

At the same time, Indian defence services have found platforms coming out of such production lacking in maintainability, reliability and availability, resulting often in less than 50% mission readiness of most critical platforms.

As India looks ahead, historical ToT with DPSU is unsustainable; a different model must be explored to keep defence capabilities contemporary, to build an indigenous industrial capacity, and to reduce over dependence on import.

A Proven Production Model

Modern Aerospace & Defense (A&D) platforms require billions of dollars in development.  They need a complex production system – global in scope with multilayered deep capability.  Several countries, notably the United States, the UK and France, have developed a tiered production model where A&D majors such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Dassault Aviation, and BAE provide overall systems integration supported by a cadre of Tier 1 suppliers for components such as engines (GE, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, and Safran), avionics (Honeywell, Rockwell, UTAS, Thales), aerostructure (Triumph, GKN, Leonardo), and radar (Raytheon, Telephonics, Thales).

Each of these Tier 1 suppliers is a highly specialized A&D giant who in turn deploys a large network of Tier 2 suppliers spread across the globe.  Tier 2 suppliers, in turn, rely on a bevy of other sub-tier suppliers, many of whom are Small and Medium Enterprises (SME).

System integrators do the overall design and development of the platform.  They do the final assembly of the aircraft, testing and certification constituting about 30% of the value.  A tiered vendor base contributes the remaining 70% value of the platform.

Such as system has proven to be quite successful and sustainable and has enabled stakeholders to:

• Distribute investment across many suppliers so no one company is left holding a big check.
• Diversify development risk by distributing work packages in manageable chunks across the vendor base.
• Broaden industry involvement and expertise enabling the full power of private sector enterprise to contribute.
• Allow specialization on specific domains such as engine, radar, and avionics which are highly complex and need continuous improvement.

As India plans for the future, it must take a fresh look at developing its own version of this kind of tiered structure that will allow private enterprise to participate and enable the public sector to build new capabilities.  Of course managing such a tiered and deep vendor base requires new capabilities of supplier management, supplier quality, and program management.  The systems integrator is ultimately responsible for the platform and thusthe quality of each and every one of its direct (Tier 1) and indirect (Sub-Tier) suppliers.  This is not an easy skill set to acquire; it needs a systematic, thoughtful, and long-term plan, leveraging new programs and opportunities and breaking the historical cycle of ToT through DPSUs. India must look at model where the public sector and private industrial base co-exist, each contributing to India’s capabilities and continuously upgrading and modernizing their processes and operations.

Any new aircraft procurement India undertakes must be structured to “jumpstart” India’s domestic aerospace manufacturing capabilities and the development of this tiered system as much as possible. The goal is not to replace or leave behind the existing DPSUs in aerospace, but to develop a deep and robust private sector supply chain to complement and strengthen DPSU operations and that includes a substantial DPSU manufacturing role going forward.

India’s Challenge and Opportunity

By many accounts, India will face tactical airpower shortfall approaching 300 aircraft in the next two decades.  This is a watershed moment both for India’s national security and its economic development.

Today’s decisions will determine whether and how India can close that gap. Most vitally, it is critical to replace retiring fighter jets to maintain the current 33 squadron strength with new fighters that have a qualitative advantage. And that advantage must be built into a forward looking “development spiral” that keeps India’s air force ahead of the curve as rivals upgrade and enhance their fleets in coming years.

As Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative has demonstrated, the most reliable way to ensure India’s long term economic, political, and national security is to develop its domestic capabilities – which in the aerospace context means pushing high quality, high value work down into a tiered private sector supply chain.  And the best way to do this is to carefully structure the next procurement of tactical fighters to maximize long-term technology transfer and aerospace supply chain benefits, working with an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) that knows how to operate in India and is fully committed to making a cutting edge technology transfer process work.

In the foreseeable future, India’s biggest challenge will be countering potential threats on two fronts. Just matching the upgraded capabilities of F-16s that operate in the region will be insufficient.  This means selecting a partner that can provide an aircraft that can outfly even the most advanced jets like the stealthy J-20, is affordable enough to ensure a large enough buy to provide tactical defense across the long and volatile western front, and can serve as the foundation for development of a “bottom up” industrial aerospace economy that will propel economic development forward – a contemporary aircraft platform that will remain cutting edge and preserve India’s airpower superiority for the next 40-years.

Aircraft Capabilities and Overall Force Structure

Indian air superiority is vital to the nation’s security and to preserve the regional strategic balance. Any new multirole fighter must sustain and extendI ndia’s historic airpower advantage.

Many experts have observed that when maintenance and operational availability are taken into account, the true size of the IAF drops to below its current 33 squadrons.  And that figure includes large numbers of obsolete or limited capability aircraft that would contribute little if a conflict should erupt.  Without a new procurement, and even factoring in the introduction of the Light Combat Aircraft and the limited fleet of Rafales currently under contract, the shortfall is predicted to grow to 200-300 aircraft by 2038.

Regional rivals, by contrast, are quickly modernizing, focusing procurement on highly advanced fighters and working to develop a quantitative and quality edge that could put Indian air superiority at risk.[1] In many cases, even the legacy aircraft fielded by India’s rivals are superior to the IAF’s older planes. As a result, the next Indian multirole fighter must be able to outcompete/overcome the capabilities represented in advanced aircraft like the J-20 and J-31, as well those in upgraded Block 52 F-16s.

That means a survivable, multi-role, maintainable, high availability aircraft that can perform a wider variety of missions, outfly or at a minimum match the most advanced rival aircraft head to head. It also needs to be cost effective and available enough to ensure a high degree of readiness – ensuring India gets the very most out of its new fleet.

A detailed review of the full suite of design features, performance metrics, avionics, sensors, weaponry, and other features that contribute to an aircraft’s overall performance is beyond the scope of this paper.  However, a few key items merit particular attention.

Combat Extension Capabilities.

For some time to come, the IAF is likely to field fewer aircraft than the combined forces of its regional rivals.  This makes it vital to select a multirole fighter with enhanced survivability and flexibility options that can allow the fleet to outlast larger rivals in a protracted conflict.

One key feature that allows a smaller force to take on larger rivals is twin-engine design, offering added survivability and increasing the odds an aircraft can remain airworthy and return to base even after a direct engine hit. When facing a larger force, the impact of every aircraft lost is magnified and the value of this added margin of safety cannot be overstated.

Other features bring similar “combat extension” value – such as “buddy” refueling capabilities that allow IAF frontline fighters to stay on station for longer periods of time.  While a larger air force with a more robust fleet of dedicated refueling tankers may be able to forego this kind of fighter-to-fighter refueling capability. But for the IAF, looking to stretch limited funds across as many needs as possible, this is a vital force multiplier.

Finally, a substantial degree of stealth to maximize survivability and increase mission flexibility is valuable.  While the general public tends to view “stealth” as a yes or no proposition, the truth is all advanced aircraft have greater or lesser degrees of stealth.  And while stealth may not be a primary consideration compared to the others identified, all things being equal, an aircraft with a higher degree of stealth will be more survivable and better able to conduct a broader range of missions.  That generates more options for commanders and keeps losses at a minimum in any engagement where the IAF faces a larger foe.

Newer Technology, Extendable Capability

The IAF should strive to procure the aircraft that entered service most recently in order to stay at the front edge of the aircraft’s development curve and technology upgrade spiral, and to obtain the longest window of likely service life between procurement and obsolescence.  Procuring an aircraft with an older Initial Operation Service date risks locking India into fading or unsupported designs. India shouldn’t get locked into producing end-of-life aircraft with no future technology upgrade path.

Newer planes are more likely to have built in high-performance features and depend less on major retrofits.  Built in stealth, for example, is generally superior to airframe treatments or modifications bolted on decades after initial entry into service.

More fundamentally, a new aircraft model is likely to be relatively early in its development “spiral” – the process by which aircraft manufacturers and advanced militaries strengthen and upgrade their aircraft to keep them at the cutting edge over their entire service life.  An aircraft at the beginning of this process will have a far longer “top of the line” lifetime than one that has been in service for many decades and will inevitably face an earlier platform retirement.

Ensuring Qualitative Separation from Key Rivals

The most reliable way to ensure the IAF’s qualitative edge is to invest in a newer, more robust basic platform that potential adversaries are not able to field.  While some argue that flying the same aircraft as rivals is a safe way to ensure that they do not surpass India’s capabilities, this is tantamount to a defensive crouch that essentially places the nation’s security at risk. And the problem becomes acute when potential adversaries have a significant experience lead on a platform – in a combat situation they can eke out more based on their experience.

By the same token, aircraft proposals that promise to engineer a qualitative advantage for India over potential adversaries flying the same basic platform by limiting those competitors’ access to upgrades and enhancements should be viewed skeptically.  It’s an easy promise to make at time of sale but a very difficult one to enforce over the long haul.  Better to start out with a more advanced, newer platform and build forward from there.

Lifecycle Cost.

Given the larger size of rival fleets and the IAF’s lopsided dependence on older aircraft, this procurement must bring as many advanced fighters on line as possible to close the potential 200-300 aircraft shortfall.

All else being equal, an aircraft that is more affordable over the long term is always better.  That means carefully evaluating both up front purchase costs (once all discounts, offsets, and other factors are considered) and life cycle costs (including cost per flight hour and maintenance, upkeep, and depot requirements over time).  A newer aircraft is likely to have lower maintenance costs and, over the long haul, easier and more affordable access to supplies and spares.  Of currently available aircraft, Super Hornet has the lowest cost per flight hour in the U.S. inventory, including the F-16.

Another factor that can generate substantial long term cost savings is the availability of off-the-shelf variants that use the same basic airframe to meet airpower needs beyond the basic fighter bomb mission.  For example, an aircraft with electronic warfare ready variants would bring greater economies of scale if India should in the future seek to acquire those capabilities.

Similarly, and more immediately, while no one expects the IAF to base its tactical airpower decisions on the needs of the Indian Navy, it is clear that over time the Navy will need to upgrade and expand its carrier air wings.  Selecting an IAF fighter now that offers a carrier ready variant would permit substantial cost savings and force integration benefits when that occurs.

“Make in India” and the Development of an Advanced Domestic Aerospace Capability

This procurement represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to jumpstart India’s domestic aerospace industrial base and accelerate the development ofits advanced military grade manufacturing capability.

The importance of this objective cannot be overstated.  Development of a modern aerospace capability and supporting tiered supply chain is vital for India’s long-term national security – as the only way to reduce and eventually end the nation’s reliance on foreign suppliers of advanced defense systems.  And it is a doorway India must pass through in order to develop advanced industrial capabilities that will allow it to compete in high tech markets around the world.

Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative is providing an enormous boost to the development of India’s modern industrial economy.  But all prior ‘Make in India’ initiatives pale in comparison to the prospect of standing up a new cutting edge aerospace manufacturing facility to build one of the world’s most advanced fighter jets.

The IAF knows from hard experience how challenging it can be for manufacturers to live up to their ‘Make in India’ commitments in the context of advanced aerospace projects.  For this reason, it is vital to select both an aircraft and a manufacturing partner that gives ‘Make in India’ the greatest chance to succeed and yield the most substantial domestic industrial gains.

Five elements must come together to create a globally competitive A&D industrial base in India that not only serves India’s needs but is fully integrated into the global supply chains of major OEMs for the long term:

111.Product & Technology: A Long-Term Competitive Aircraft

For similar reasons, the aircraft itself must be a competitive new model fighter that can be expected to compete in and win international procurements for years to come.  Leveraging global demand and international sales to drive up export volume in this way supercharges ‘Make in India’ by vastly extending the useful life of the manufacturing facility and the number of Indian aerospace workers who will be able to gain experience there.

By contrast, an older model aircraft trying to eke out a few last sales before platform retirement is unlikely to be competitive with international buyers over the long haul, saddling India with a “white elephant” manufacturing plant that has little long term economic or “know how” value.

The chosen aircraft and manufacturing strategy must also lay a clear and direct pathway to the domestic design and production of a new Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

In large part, that simply means ensuring that procurement focuses on obtaining the most advanced technology available and putting in place an effective ‘Make in India’ manufacturing plan that accelerates development of an advanced manufacturing supply chain and boosts domestic aerospace capabilities.  But in certain areas it is worth considering up front whether the selected aircraft and ‘Make in India’ arrangement will fill key gaps needed on the pathway to the AMCA.

Fluency with advanced composite materials has become a core manufacturing competency needed to produce cutting edge highly capable combat aircraft.  This is a highly specialized field with a small number of military capable suppliers and an area where India must become self-sufficient if it is to domestically produce the AMCA.  Care should be taken to ensure that this procurement results in meaningful skills and technology transfer in the area of composites.

NAVR, public release SPR-2016-904
Distribution Statement A – approved for public release, distribution is unlimited

It is also vital to prioritize a two engine (2E)Make-in-India fighter to counter the growing threat on the eastern border while giving HAL chance to develop the Light Combat Aircraft. India has dual needs – finding a replacement for retiring one engine (1E) MIG-21s and maintaining a Force Balance for operational needs which calls for more 2E fighter/attack aircraft.

From a Force Balance point of view, IAF has already determined that it requires 126 2E aircraft during the MMRCA AoN process. So with only 36 Rafale on order, there is a clear and present gap of 90 aircraft which will become even more acute in coming years.

Given the regional geopolitical situation, India needs an effective counter to J-20 aircraft, not just upgraded Block 52 F-16.  Therefore, India needs to move quickly on the 2E aircraft decision, which will also give a timely boost AMCA development and send an important geopolitical message.

2. Business Case and Scale

  Scale is a must to close the business case for developing indigenous capability. For example, developing a domestic engines capability is vital if the AMCA program is to yield a truly indigenous aircraft.  Based on current specs and development plans, the GE F414 engine would be viable in the LCA, the Super Hornet, and the future AMCA.  Taking advantage of a common engine would do much to advance a logical technology transfer agenda in one of the most complex and high-performance areas of aircraft manufacture.

3. Skilled Workforce – A Must for Aerospace & Defense manufacturing in India

Aerospace manufacturing requires uniquely tight tolerances and production has to be essentially defect-free.  Therefore, it necessitates highly skilled factory workers and services capability.

To realize growth in aerospace manufacturing and achieve government’s vision, Aerospace & Aviation Sector Skills Council (AASSC) estimates additional 90,000 trained workforce will be needed over the next decade.  Aerospace sector not only needs engineers from multiple disciplines — ranging from computer science to mechanical engineering to materials sciences, but also requires skilled frontline manufacturing workers.

The government of India is addressing this problem through initiatives such as setting up the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) and AASSC operating under the auspices of NSDC. India’s vocational education and training institutions are in the process of addressing the requirements of the industry.

For similar reasons, India’s new fighter must be built in India at an advanced top of the line manufacturing plant that uses the most current and forward-leaning technologies and processes.  India must refuse to accept “last generation” technology or dated “hand me down” production facilities that will lock its domestic aerospace economy into a cycle of obsolescence for an industrial generation.

Indian aerospace workers who gain experience and skills working at this facility must learn the most advanced manufacturing methods and work with the newest processes and equipment available to lay the foundation for a domestic aerospace supply chain and long-term capability that will ultimately perform most of the work on this new ‘Make in India’ fighter.  There should also be a role to use this process to strengthen and modernize India’s aerospace PSUs, who ideally would have some role to play in the end stage work bringing these new aircraft online.

As workers rotate out of this facility to start their own businesses and staff existing aerospace suppliers, they should be equipped with skills equal to those at any of the world’s most advanced economies.  This is vital with experts predicting India will need 90,000 trained aerospace workers to meet coming demand and currently producing only 4,000 qualified graduates a year.

4. Know How: The Right Partner Committed to Sharing Capabilities and ToT

The most important factor by far is selecting an OEM partner that has experience in complex local sourcing arrangements such as evidenced in the ‘Make in India’ program. Ideally it should be one that has a record of success in this regard.

The partner company must have extensive experience working through technology transfer issues, to ensure it can navigate its own domestic legal and national security review processes and understand and comply with Indian requirements, as well.  Given the unique opportunity at hand, and the devastating opportunity costs for India if the local production and technology transfer components of the program do not succeed, choosing a reliable partner with a strong track record making ‘Make in India’ work is crucial.

For similar reasons, it is also important to select a partner that already has concrete, hands on experience building its own aerospace components in India and working with existing vendors, suppliers, and partners.  A manufacturer that has seen the value of building in India and that has an existing network of relationships with India’s current supplier networks is more likely to hit the ground running.  By contrast, a company with no real pre-existing footprint in the country or one that has only participated in India’s domestic aerospace economy when compelled to do so by ‘Make in India’ will be less likely to succeed.

There is also tremendous value in working with a partner that has both commercial and military aerospace experience and operations.  The purpose of ‘Make in India’ is to develop domestic industrial capabilities – and the benefits will be far more substantial with a partner that can help boost both India’s military and commercial opportunities and expertise.  A partner with a broad diverse aerospace business will be better positioned to integrate nascent Indian suppliers and vendors into their global supply chain, particularly those who have done ‘Make in India’ work relevant to the fighter aircraft they propose to supply for this procurement.

5.Supply Chain.  Co-opt Private Enterprise without Sacrificing Public Enterprise

At this time, HAL needs a fair opportunity to build LCA Mark 1 & 1a.  Depending on HAL’s performance, production decisions on a new 1E fighter can be made in a couple of years.  In the meantime, to meet critical operational need of 2E aircraft in near-to-medium term, the immediate ‘Make in India’ fighter jet decision should be focused on 2E aircraft.

India wants to develop an alternative to HAL for military aircraft manufacturing and therefore wants to partner with private industry on the new ‘Make in India’ fighters.  A key complication is how to develop objective criteria to select the partner, which won’t be challenged by parties not selected.  Any such controversy, or fear thereof, will drag out decision on strategic partner selection.

Also, there is risk that any such pre-selected partner may act as a monopolistic player complicating negotiations. Therefore, it’s best to go through the established Buy & Make category as defined in DPP 2016 and leave the choice of India partners to the selected OEM.

At this stage, while HAL’s capacity is a concern as “they have more on their plate than they can deliver,” it would be prudent not to rule out a possible structure where HAL or DRDO participates in a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) with the selected OEM.  To avoid distracting HAL, this SPV wouldn’t be controlled by HAL and would require only minimal management oversight from them.  In line with the earlier rationale, 70% of the value will be added by the private players feeding into to the SPV which will do final assembly, testing, and certification totaling to 30% of value.

Such a structure would enable future collaboration of next generation aircraft such as AMCA with HAL and DRDO.  SPE with a global OEM can become conduit for delivering much needed manufacturing best practices for existing HAL factories.

G2G Approach is Preferable for Speed, Transparency, and Cost

There is a school of thought to ask for fresh Expressions of Interest (EOI) for ‘Make in India’ fighters.  Based on the response to this EOI on level & depth of technology transfer and indigenization, IAF/MoD will then decide on a government-to-government (G2G) procurement via Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) or decide to float a tender.  Having been through a lengthy (10 year) and ultimately inconclusive tender process for MMRCA at the end of which India had to rely on a G2G transaction, it will be prudent to stay on the G2G path.

The G2G route also allows India to buy into huge procurement scale of big buyers like the United States.  That brings unrivaled cost advantages; FMS deals tend to be more economical than competitive procurements given the scale advantages and cost plus nature of such deals.  Besides, G2G procurement is transparent and avoiding delays and potential controversies.

*   *   *   *   *

India’s ability to maintain its edge versus potential regional adversaries depends on expanding and upgrading its tactical aircraft fleet.  A G2G approach prioritizing a two engine tactical aircraft for the ‘’ in India’ project is the best way to counter emerging threats and build India’s industrial base and supply chain capabilities for long term development and growth.  This will allow the IAF to get the best out of opt private enterprise while enhancing and strengthening the capabilities of its DPSUs.

[1]While it is common to refer to “Fourth Generation,” “Fourth Generation Plus,” and “Fifth Generation” aircraft in discussions of advanced airpower, these terms do little to clarify the issues.  The available multirole fighters exist on a continuum of version “blocks”, capabilities, attributes, and treatments that represent a much more fluid set of choices than the broad, rigid, “Fourth” or “Fifth” Generation categories suggest.  For this reason, the analysis here focuses on specific capabilities and related considerations such as in-service dates and expected development spirals in comparing aircraft options.

(This is the summary of the address made by Dr. Pratyush Kumar, President, Boeing India at the India Ideas Conclave at Goa on 4^thNovember, 2016)