English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

EC holds all-party meet; Opposition wants ballot papers, cap on poll expense, but BJP doesn’t

Published

on

EC holds all-party meet; Opposition wants ballot papers, cap on poll expense, but BJP doesn’t

The Election Commission (EC) has said that it would provide a “satisfactory solution” to concerns of political parties about the electronic voting machines (EVMs).

Many opposition parties led by the Congress had demanded return to the ballot paper system at an all-party meeting convened by the EC.

Briefing journalists after the meeting with political parties, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) OP Rawat said, “We will definitely look into all the suggestions given by them and there will be a satisfactory solution to them.”

Seven recognised national parties and 51 recognised state political parties were invited for the meeting. Out of the total 58 parties, 41 attended it.

In the meeting, several opposition parties raised the issues of EVM tampering and technical glitches in the voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) system.

Though EVM tampering and VVPAT glitches were not on the agenda, representatives of the Congress, Nationalist Congress Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Samajwadi Party, Aam Aadmi Party, Trinamool Congress, Janata Dal (S), BJP’s estranged ally Shiv Sena, Communist Party of India, CPI-M and Forward Bloc raised the issue. Many of them also suggested going back to the ballot paper system, representatives of parties and EC officials present in the meeting said.

Some parties also suggested that the number of constituencies where results of EVM and paper audit trail device are matched be increased to enhance the confidence of voters and parties in the reliability of the voting mode.

“Nothing final has been decided yet, but one way to allay fears is to increase the number of constituencies where EVM and paper trail machine results are matched,” a senior EC functionary said after the meeting.

VVPATs are used in all polling stations. But as of now, results of EVMs and VVPATs are matched in one polling station per constituency.

Senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the demand was made since there were doubts on the credibility of EVMs. He said the Congress’ stand was given in writing to the Election Commission (EC) many weeks ago and it was reiterated on Monday for the second time.

Singhvi said if the EC does not agree to revert to paper ballot, then it should adhere to the suggestion that in at least 30 per cent of the polling booths there should be paper trail of EVMs to check the authenticity of votes cast.

Responding to repeated questions on EVMs, Rawat said the EC takes a comprehensive view. “Some of the parties said going back to ballot is really bad as it will bring back booth capturing…we don’t want (that). At the same time, some parties said there are problems with EVMs, there are issues with VVPAT slip count so why not EC takes a call on this,” Rawat said.

Asked about the stand of the EC on EVMs and whether it remains the “same” as it was in the past, the CEC dubbed it as a “hypothetical question”.

In June last year, when the EC had invited parties to prove that the EVMs can be hacked, only two parties accepted the challenge but they too opted out of the event. As many as 13 parties had last year questioned the reliability of the EVMs.

Then Chief Election Commissioner Nasim Zaidi had maintained that the EVMs used by the EC were “non-tamperable” and with 100 per cent use of paper trail machines in all future elections the issue of tamperability of the machines “stands closed”.

The “failure rate” of EVMs in most elections has been 0.7 per cent, said a report in The Indian Express (IE).

EVMs were first used in election in India in May, 1982 in a Kerala byoll. But since there was no law prescribing its use, the Supreme Court struck down the election. The Representation of the People Act was amended in 1989 to allow use of EVMs. But a general consensus on its use was evolved only in 1998.

Over 11 per cent of the 10,300 VVPAT machines across 10 states had developed faults and had to be replaced during the bypolls on May 28 this year.

Cap on poll expenditure of parties – BJP lone opponent

The BJP was the only party that opposed a ceiling on election expenditure of political parties.

BJP general secretary Bhupendra Yadav, who, along with Union Minister JP Nadda, represented the ruling party at the meeting, told The Indian Express that since all political parties have to declare their expenditure in their income tax filings, “usmein kisi prakaar ki capping nahi lagai jaani chahiye (there should be no cap on that)”.

Yadav said elections should be based on issues, and not on caste lines or “muscle power” or “criminal power”. The parties, he said, “should not be restricted”, rather “usmein zyaada se zyaada prachaar karne ka avsar aur suvidha deni chahiye (parties should be given more opportunities and facilities to advertise)”. He said there should be transparency in “crowd-funding”. In a statement, the BJP said “ECI may moot for better transparency than limit the expenses”.

The Congress made a strong pitch for a ceiling on party’s expenditure and offered a formula: multiply the limit of an individual candidate’s ceiling with the number of candidates a party fields. It also suggested a ceiling on advertisements across all platforms.

Currently, there is a limit on poll expenses by a candidate in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies but there is no limit on the expenses made by a political party during elections.

“Unregulated party expenditure is a dangerous proposition… There should be a ceiling on the expenditure by political parties,” Singhvi said.

AAP’s Raghav Chadha said that funding of polls, “how one political party has unlimited amount of resources, how that should be looked into,” was part of the party presentation. He said the issue of an overall limit on party expenditure was raised by a “lot of political parties”.

“You cannot have that X candidate is spending only 5 lakh rupees but the BJP or Congress or whichever party is spending 500 crore in that constituency,” Chadha said, adding that the “entire election process gets vitiated, and there’s no level-playing field”.

The AAP leader also said “foreign companies through electoral bonds can fund political parties, that has serious national security implications”. The same issue was also mentioned by CPM’s Nilotpal Basu.

The Congress also raised the issue of electoral bonds, terming it “simply a legal channel for companies to round-trip their tax-haven cash to a political party”.

“The electoral bonds are yet another fraud (committed) on the nation… This is not a new stand. You are in fact legitimising anonymity; you are in fact legitimising large sums of money without even the scrutiny which happens today.”

“You are actually making it much worse… You are in fact legitimising humongous amounts of donation without revealing the name of the donor,” he said.

Publishing election-related matter 48 hours before polling

The Congress, along with some other parties, also supported inclusion of the print media in Section 126(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, barring publication of election matter within 48 hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of polling.

However, the BJP — in its written response to an EC questionnaire — said the print media, State as well as national newspapers, should be exempted from silent period proclamations.

Fake voters

The party said the single biggest challenge before the EC was to check “fake and duplicate voters” on the electoral rolls, claiming that in Madhya Pradesh, 60 lakh were suspect duplicate/fake entries and in Rajasthan, it was about 45 lakh. Both states go to polls later this year.

The opposition party further demanded weeding out of all duplicate and false voters from the voters list to ensure a free and fair election.

The Congress said this is a national issue affecting all political parties and therefore strict compliance is necessary.

The party has said that a comprehensive verification of voters must be carried out, preferably door-to-door, before the 2019 general elections as well an action plan to deal with the same must be prepared by the EC.

India News

Sonia Gandhi calls weakening of MGNREGA a collective moral failure, targets Centre in op-ed

Sonia Gandhi has accused the Centre of weakening MGNREGA, calling it a collective moral failure with serious consequences for crores of working people.

Published

on

Sonia Gandhi

Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi has sharply criticised the Central government over what she described as the steady dismantling of rights-based legislation, with a particular focus on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

In a recent opinion article published in a leading English daily, Sonia Gandhi argued that MGNREGA was envisioned as more than a welfare measure. She said the rural employment scheme gave legal backing to the constitutional right to work and was rooted in Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of Sarvodaya, or welfare for all.

Calling its weakening a serious failure, she wrote that the decline of MGNREGA represents a “collective moral failure” that will have lasting financial and human consequences for crores of working people across India. She stressed that safeguarding such rights-based frameworks is crucial at a time when, according to her, multiple protections are under strain.

Concerns raised over education, environment and land laws

Sonia Gandhi also flagged concerns beyond rural employment. Referring to education policy, she claimed that the Right to Education has been undermined following the National Education Policy 2020, alleging that it has led to the closure of around one lakh primary schools across the country.

On environmental and land-related legislation, she stated that the Forest Rights Act, 2006, was weakened through the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022. According to her, these changes removed the role of the gram sabha in decisions related to the diversion of forest land.

She further alleged that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act has been significantly diluted, while adding that the National Green Tribunal has seen its authority reduced over the years.

Warning on agriculture and food security laws

Touching upon agriculture reforms, Sonia Gandhi referred to the now-repealed three farm laws, claiming they were an attempt to deny farmers the right to a minimum support price. She also cautioned that the National Food Security Act, 2013, could face similar threats in the future.

Reiterating her central argument, she urged unity to protect statutory rights, stating that the erosion of such laws has implications that extend well beyond policy, affecting livelihoods and dignity on the ground.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi attacks G RAM G bill, says move against villages and states

Rahul Gandhi has criticised the G RAM G bill cleared by Parliament, alleging it dilutes the rights-based structure of MGNREGA and centralises control over rural employment.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com