In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench that included the Chief Justice of India, pronounced an important verdict on criminals in politics. The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking disqualification of candidates who had pending criminal cases. One of these petitions was a PIL filed by the Public Interest Foundation of India (PIF) in 2011. The director of the PIF had written these words even before the results of the 2014 elections were announced. “The next government will face the challenge of curbing corruption… It must be remembered that the government will be on probation as its performance would be critically tracked by a very vibrant civil society and media.”

That Director was later handpicked to become the principal secretary to the new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, in 2014. The PIF petition had asked for the removal of criminals from the ballot. This was the petition that was disposed of by the Supreme Court in 2018. But its verdict unfortunately stopped short of disqualifying criminally tainted candidates.

The Central government, which was a defendant in the suit, firmly opposed the petition, saying that legislating a new disqualification was not in the domain of the court. It was for Parliament to pass such a law. Besides, the Centre used the old argument, that a person is innocent until proven guilty and cannot be deprived of the right to vote, or the right to contest elections merely based on criminal charges. The court expressed helplessness, and not for the first time. But the court did ask political parties and candidates to widely publicise their criminal records, “at least three times in newspapers and TV channels” after filing nomination papers.

Two years later, the Supreme Court was again hearing a contempt petition, that its 2018 order was being completely ignored by political parties. This time, even the Election Commission joined the PIL and asked the court to make political parties strictly liable for the disclosure of criminal cases of their candidates. The EC is, of course, itself toothless in disqualifying tainted candidates.

This time too, the apex court passed a harsh order, asking parties and candidates to widely publicise criminal histories in local, as well as national newspapers and on social media, including Twitter and Facebook. The published material needs to list details of the offence, charges framed, etc. And most importantly, the political party has to explain why the candidate was chosen despite the criminal taint. Merely saying that the candidate is winnable is not enough. And all this has to be done within 48 hours after the last date for withdrawal of nominations.
The Bihar assembly election is the first time this 2020 order of the Supreme Court is being tested. In the first phase, where 71 of 243 MLAs will be selected, 1,066 are in the fray. Of these, 31 have criminal cases. If you look at the data party-wise, 73 per cent of the candidates from the RJD, 72 per cent from the BJP, 59 per cent from the the LJP, 57 per cent from the Congress, 43 per cent from the JDU and 31 per cent from the BSP have criminal cases, among the major parties. It looks like the percentages of tainted candidates keeps going up in every successive election, just like the cut-off marks for admissions to Delhi University colleges.

Prima facie, the observance of the Supreme Court order is more in the breach. The EC has specified a format (Form 7) for declaring a candidate’s criminal record: the form must list details why the party chose a criminal candidate. Most parties and candidates have written that chances of winning are higher. On this, the parties might actually be totally truthful. But this shows the impunity with which the Supreme Court and the
EC’s orders are being flouted. There does not seem to be even an iota of effort to give tickets to candidates with a “clean” resume.
Can voters punish the tainted candidates? Unfortunately, this is not so easy. In the first phase of Bihar polls, 61 of 71 constituencies are “red alert” ones, meaning each of these has at least three or more candidates who have criminal records. So, the choice for voters is criminal versus criminal. It has been seen by researchers that criminally tainted candidates win, despite their image, perhaps partly because of their ability to raise resources to fund their own elections. No wonder the parties are quoting “winnability” as the reason in Form 7, to justify their choice of candidate. In this current first phase, more than one-third of all candidates are millionaires. Among the major parties, nearly 80 per cent are crorepatis. Since moneyed “bahubalis” have a higher chance of winning, the ratio of tainted legislators is almost double that among the candidates.
This trend of criminality among lawmakers is relentlessly going up. The share of members of Parliament who have criminal cases against them, has gone up from 24 per cent in 2004, to 30 per cent in 2009, 34 per cent in 2014 and is now at a whopping 43 per cent, as of 2019. These cases are not only about offences like loitering, breaking a curfew or defamation, but even serious cases like rape, murder, theft, kidnapping, assault and extortion. If you consider only serious criminal charges such as these, then 29 per cent of the current members of Parliament carry them, and this proportion is the highest in the past 16 years. Among the elected representatives, the proportion of crorepatis has gone up from 30 per cent in 2004 to 88 per cent in 2019.
The Supreme Court, through its 2020 order, thought that perhaps by shaming the parties, it could put some restraint on the rising trend of criminality among candidates. But this is clearly not visible so far in the Bihar assembly elections. And going by the trend of the past 16 years, it is unlikely to change. The only hope, apart from fast-tracking cases, is to disqualify tainted candidates from contesting. This can be done by amending the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Those who are tainted and desirous of being in public service can surely clear their name in a court of law, before contesting elections. Will the lawmakers take up this challenge to cleanse the political system?

The article was originally published on Free Press Journal.

“Indian politicians start their legislative careers with a lie — the false spending returns they submit? – Atal Bihari Vajpayee”

Achchhe din (Good days) are here for at least one category of persons in India: Those who contest elections and have pots of money. This good news is derived from a press note issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) October 21, 2020.

For the record, the press note informs whoever may be interested that the ECI has constituted a two-member committee “to examine the issues concerning expenditure limit for a candidate in view of increase in number of electors and rise in Cost Inflation Index and other factors.”

Why should this be cause for celebration by those who contest elections, and have pots of money? The response to this question requires us to go into some legislative provisions (in simple words, ‘laws’) and some other regulations.

The root of the issue is found in Section 77 (3) of a ‘law’, The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act). This section reads, “The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.”

‘Laws’, most of the time, cannot be implemented as they are; they need to be operationalised by ‘Rules’ made under a particular ‘law’ by the Government of India. The RP Act was operationalised through The Conduct of Election Rules, 1966.

Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, ‘Maximum election expenses’ stipulates:

The total of the expenditure … which is incurred or authorized in connection with an election in a State or Union territory … shall not exceed … (an amount given in the accompanying Table).

These limits are specified separately for every state and Union territory and separately for Parliament and state Assemblies.

Since the power to amend the ‘rules’ rests with the Union government (and NOT with the ECI), all that the ECI does is to recommend to the Centre from time to time that the existing limit be increased to a higher amount that the ECI recommends. The central government usually approves the recommendations of the ECI.

This happens almost in every election. For example, the limit of election expenditure at the time of 2009 general elections was Rs 25 lakh for a Parliamentary constituency and Rs 10 lakh for an Assembly constituency in the bigger states.

These limits were subsequently increased and, till recently, were Rs 70 lakh for Lok Sabha and Rs 28 lakhs for state Assembly elections.

As recently as October 20, 2020, the Narendra Modi government has increased both these limits by 10 per cent, making the Lok Sabha limit as Rs 77 lakh and state election expenditure limit Rs 30.6 lakh.

Ostensibly, it is to replace such ad hoc or random increases (because there has never been a decrease in the limits so far) that the ECI has set up the committee. The ‘terms of reference’ of the Committee are:

1. To assess the change in number of electors across the states / Union territories and its bearing on expenditure
2. To assess the change in Cost Inflation Index and its bearing on the pattern of expenditure incurred by the candidates in recent elections
3. To seek views / inputs of political parties and other stakeholders
4. To examine other factors which may have bearings on expenditure
5. To examine any other related issue

To bring in a kind of a logical basis for fixing election expenditure limits is, on the face of it, a laudable exercise. But then why is it that the title of this piece has the word ‘charade’ in it? Let’s see.

Why ‘charade’

To unravel this, we need to understand what purpose are the limits supposed to achieve, and what do they actually achieve.

The ostensible purpose, though not explicitly stated, seems to be to minimise or normalise the impact of money, or big money, on the electoral process. To use a cliché, it is to provide a ‘level playing field’, or at least as level a playing field as possible.

This is so that persons who have humongous amounts of money to spend on elections, do not end up cornering all the seats, and those who have less money do have a more or less equal chance of getting elected.

To achieve this, every candidate contesting elections to Parliament and a state Assembly is required, under Section 77 (1) of the RP Act to:

keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by him or by his election agent between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both dates inclusive.

Further, Section 78(1) of the same Act, requires:

Every contesting candidate at an election (to) … lodge with the District Election Officer … an account of his election expenses … within thirty days from the date of (declaration of the result of the election).

This is required to be submitted as a sworn affidavit. As mentioned above, “The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.”

If the actual expenditure of any of the elected persons exceeds the permissible limit, that election can be set aside.

The reality

To do a reality check on these election expenditure affidavits, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) — a civil society group working on electoral and political reforms — analysed the affidavits of 5,743 candidates after the 2009 Lok Sabha elections.

This analysis showed that only four candidates declared expenditure above the then limit of Rs 16 lakh. Thirty candidates had declared that they had spent between 90 and 95 per cent of the limit.

The remaining (5,743-4-30=) 5,719 or 99.58 per cent said they had spent between 45 and 55 per cent of the limit.

Then there is other relevant information. On June 27, 2013, one of the prominent leaders of one of the leading political parties, who became a central minister after the 2014 Lok Sabha election, said in a public meeting that he had spent Rs 8 crores on his 2009 Lok Sabha election.

It is worth recalling that the limit for expenditure for Lok Sabha in 2009 was Rs 25 lakhs. The same person had declared in his sworn affidavit that his actual election expenditure was Rs 19.63 lakh.

With 99.58 per cent of the candidates saying that they had spent 45-55 per cent of the limit, there is a widespread clamour, almost at every election, that the ceiling on expenditure is too low and it should be increased.

A former chief election commissioner, when shown this data, said based on this data, the limit should be decreased and not increased.

To what extent has the election expenditure limit been successful in providing a ‘level playing field’ can be seen from the fact that while the 2004 Lok Sabha had 153 (30 per cent) of MPs who were crorepatis, the number in the 2009 Lok Sabha as 315 (58 per cent).

The 2014 Lok Sabha saw this number go up to 443 (82 per cent). The figure in the 2019 Lok Sabha is 479 (88 per cent).

It should be evident from the above that the limits on election expenditure by candidates does not serve any purpose at all.

Then there is the elephant in the room: There is no limit on the expenditure that political parties can incur during elections!

The only ways to control expenditure on elections and to provide a ‘level-playing field’ to rich and poor candidates alike are to (a) make political parties democratic in their internal functioning and (b) make their finances transparent, by law. How these two will achieve these objectives is another story.

The article was originally published on Down to Earth.

लोकतंत्र में राजनीति और चुनावों में पैसे की भूमिका बढ़ती जा रही है। कई रिपोर्टों में सामने आया कि 2019 के चुनावों में अमरीकी राष्ट्रपति चुनाव से ज्यादा पैसा खर्च हुआ। इससे लोकतंत्र, चुनाव और नागरिकों पर क्या प्रभाव पड़ता है, वह जानने के लिए चुनावों के तीन महत्वपूर्ण घटक मतदाता, राजनीतिक दल और चुनावों में चंदा देने वालों के उद्देश्यों को समझना होगा। मतदाता सुशासन चाहते है। वे चाहते है कि कर के रूप में वे सरकार को जो पैसा देते हैं, उसका उपयोग सरकार नीति निर्माण और उन सेवाओं की बेहतरी के लिए करें।

राजनीतिक दलों का सत्ता में आना ही लक्ष्य होता है। जो लोग चंदा देते है, वे चाहते हैं कि जीतने के बाद उन्हें फायदा मिले। चंदा देने वाले लोग या तो किसी प्रकार की कानूनी जांच से बचे रहने के इरादे से चंदा देते हैं या वे कहते है कि पार्टियों ने उनसे जोर जबरदस्ती से चंदा लिया है। कुछ ही ऐसे है, जो जन कल्याण के कार्यों के लिए पार्टी को चंदा देते है। कुछ प्रतिष्ठित एजेंसियों ने सार्वजनिक स्तर पर जो आंकड़े उपलब्ध करवाए हैं, उनसे ज्ञात होता हैं कि 2019 के लोकसभा चुनावों में 50 हजार करोड़ रूपए से ज्यादा खर्चा हुआ था। सवाल है कि ये पैसा आता कहां से है ? राष्ट्रिय दलों द्वारा आधिकारिक तौर पर घोषित आय का आकलन करें तो पाएंगे कि 2004 से लेकर 2019 के बीच सभी राजनीतिक दलों की कुल आय 11 हजार करोड़ रूपए ही थी, फिर बाकि खर्च कैसे मैनेज हुआ ? राजनीतिक पार्टियां सिर्फ और सिर्फ अगले चुनाव के लिए चंदा जुटाने में लगी रहती हैं।

मौजूदा स्थिति को तीन चरणों में समझा जा सकता है। पहला, राजनीतिक दलों द्वारा बताए गए चंदा उगाही के आंकड़ों में वृद्धि देखी गई। 2013-14 के आम चुनाव से पहले यह राशि 1,500 करोड़ से थोड़ी ज्यादा थी। 2018-19  तक ये 6,400 करोड़ हो गई। कुछ पैसा अघोषित भी हो सकता है। दूसरा, लोकसभा में आपराधिक पृष्ठभूमि के सांसदों की संख्या 2009 की 21 से 2019 में 43 फीसदी हो गई। तीसरा, आपराधिक रिकॉर्ड वाले धनी उम्मीदवारों के चुनाव जीतने की संभावना मध्यमवर्गीय ईमानदार उम्मीदवारों के मुकाबले ज्यादा होती है।

अन्य देशों में राजनीतिक दलों की फंडिंग को लेकर अधिक पारदर्शिता होती है। देश के कुछ कॉर्पोरेट हाउस अक्सर जांच के घेरे में रहते है और वे राजनीतिक पार्टियों के भी करीबी हैं। ऐसे आरोप भी लगते है कि पार्टियां इन व्यावसायिक घरानों को फायदा पहुंचाती है। चूंकि पुलिस और सीबीआई राजनीतिक दलों के प्रभाव में होते है। इसलिए दोषियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई होने की संभावना भी नगण्य रह जाती है। इस सम्पूर्ण ‘व्यवस्था’ में लोक कल्याण की नीतियां और बजट आवंटन भी प्रभावित होता है। सामाजिक क्षेत्र के व्यय में कटौती हो जाती है। इस बीच, ब्याज दरों में कटौती और आयकर में छूट संबंधी उपायों का फायदा भी कॉर्पोरेट घरानों को मिलता है। मान लीजिए, एक सेवानिवृत व्यक्ति ने यदि बचत के लिए फिक्स डिपोजिट करवा रखा है, तो ब्याज दर कम होने से उसका अच्छा खासा नुकसान हो जाएगा। दूसरी ओर कर्ज में डूबे व्यावसायिक घरानों को ब्याज दर कम होते ही लाखों का फायदा हो सकता है।

पिछले 15 वर्षों से राजनीतिक दलों की भरसक कोशिश रही है कि मतदाताओं को चुनावी फंडिंग के बारे में पता न चले। चुनावी बॉन्ड इसी कोशिश का व्यापक रूप है। स्वस्थ लोकतंत्र का तकाजा है कि राजनीतिक दल स्वत: प्रेरणा से अपनी आय और संपत्ति का सही ब्यौरा सार्वजनिक करें और विश्व के समक्ष मिसाल कायम करें।

2019 के लोक सभा में एक तिहाई सीटों पर आठ लाख से अधिक वोट मिले। सबसे अधिक जहानाबाद में 27 हज़ार 683 बार नोटा बटन दबा जहानाबाद में। ‘नोटा’ ने जहानाबाद के चुनावी नतीजों को प्रभावित किया। इस सीट पर हार जीत का अंतर महज 1751 वोटों का है, जबकि यहाँ नोटा को 27 हज़ार 683 मत मिले। देश भर में लोक सभा की कई सीटें ऐसी रही जहां पर जीत का अंतर नोटा को मिले वोटों से भी कम रहा। करीब दो दर्जन से ज्यादा सीटों पर प्रत्याशियों को नोटा की वजह से हार झेलनी पड़ी। भारत 2014 से भारत में नोटा को अपनाया गया। पहली बार 15 लाख से ज्यादा वोट नोटा को आया था। 16 वीं बिहार विधानसभा के लिए चुनाव में नोटा का जबरदस्त प्रभाव देखा गया। इसने 23 सीटों पर सीधे तौर पर परिणाम को प्रभावित किया। इन 23 सीटों पर जितने मतों के अंतर से जीत हासिल हुई। उससे कही अधिक नोटा के पक्ष में बटन दबे। यह चुनाव इस मायनों में भी रहा क्योंकि मतदाताओं  ने कई पार्टियों की तुलना में नोटा को ज्यादा वोट दिया।

नोटा के तहत होना यह चाहिए कि नोटा को यदि चुनाव में खड़े उम्मीदवारों में यदि सबसे अधिक मत नोटा को मिले तो वह चुनाव रद्द हो जाना चाहिए। उसके बाद पुनः चुनाव करवाए जाने चाहिए जिसमें पूर्व में खड़े उम्मीदवारों को चुनाव लड़ने की अनुमति नहीं मिलनी चाहिए। यानि पुनः नये उम्मीदवारों के साथ पुनर्मतदान कराये जाने चाहिए। नोटा भारत में नकारात्मक फीडबैक देने का काम करने लगा है, अब कुछ राजनैतिक दलों के प्रतिनिधि भी नोटा को लेकर नकारात्मक माहौल बनाने में लगे हुए है या इसकी प्रासंगिकता पर सवाल खड़े कर रहे है जो बिलकुल ही लोकतंत्र की अवधारणाओं की विरुद्ध है। हाल में महाराष्ट्र और हरियाणा स्टेट इलेक्शन कमीशन की पहलकदमी से नोटा के प्रति भरोसा जगा है। 6 नवंबर – 2018 को महाराष्ट्र में स्टेट इलेक्शन कमीशन ने एक ऑर्डर पास किया है कि नोटा को यदि बहुमत मिल जाता है तो पुनर्मतदान कराया जाएगा। 22 नवंबर – 18 को हरियाणा स्टेट इलेक्शन कमीशन ने भी यही निर्णय लिया। इसकी एक वजह थी कि महाराष्ट्र के स्थानीय निकाय चुनाव में कई ऐसी सीटें थी जिसमें नोटा को बहुमत मिला था। पुणे के एक पंचायत में नोटा को 85 प्रतिशत वोट मिल गया। यही ऑर्डर यदि देश व्यापी हो जाए तो उम्मीद है देश में नोटा की प्रासंगिकता बढ़ जाएगी और वोट बहिष्कार की धारा को भी मुकाम मिल जाएगा।

मूल रूप से प्रभात खबर में प्रकाशित

आयोग ने चिट्ठी माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के उसी आदेश के आलोक में लिखी है जिसमें न्यायालय ने पांच निर्देश दिए थे, ताकि मतदाता को वोटिंग से पहले प्रत्याशी की पृष्ठभूमि का पता चल सके। निर्देशानुसार प्रत्याशी को अपनी पृष्ठभूमि समाचार पत्र और इलेक्ट्रॉनिक मीडिया के जरिए तीन बार बतानी होगी। चुनाव आयोग के फॉर्म में मोटे अक्षरों में लिखना होगा कि उसके खिलाफ कितने आपराधिक मामले चल रहे हैं। उसे इस फॉर्म में हर पहलू की जानकारी देनी होगी। किसी भी सवाल को छोड़ा नहीं जा सकता। वह पार्टी के टिकट पर चुनाव लड़ रहा है तो उस मामले की जानकारी पार्टी को भी देनी होगी। पार्टी को अपने प्रत्याशियों को आपराधिक पृष्ठभूमि की जानकारी अपनी वेबसाइट पर डालनी होगी। ताकि वोटर नेता की पृष्ठभूमि से अनजान न रहे। गौरतलब है कि पिछले बार के पांच राज्यों के विधानसभा चुनावों में कोर्ट के आदेशों पर पूरी तरह अमल नहीं हो पाया। पुनः लोक सभा चुनाव 2019 में भी इसका पालन नहीं हो पाया। अब आने वाले बिहार विधानसभा चुनाव में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों का अनुपालन होता है या नहीं तथा निर्वाचन आयोग की चिट्ठी का असर कितना होगा यह जल्द ही पता चल जाएगा। चुनाव आयोग ने भी चुनाव में भाग्य आजमा रहे उम्मीदवारों को चेतावनी देते हुए कहा कि चुनाव प्रक्रिया के दौरान आपराधिक रिकॉर्ड के ब्योरे सहित विज्ञापन नहीं देने वाले उम्मीदवारों को अदालत की अवमानना की कार्यवाही का सामना करना पड़ सकता है। साथ ही अपने प्रतिद्वेंदियों के बारे में गलत आपराधिक रिकॉर्ड प्रकाशित करवाने वालों पर भ्रष्ट तरीके इस्तेमाल करने के आरोप में जुर्माना लग सकता है। चुनाव मैदान में किस्मत आजमा रहे प्रत्याशियों को निर्वाचन आयोग ने यह चेतावनी भी दी है। मालूम हो कि 2010 में जहां 85 यानी 35 प्रतिशत विधायकों के ऊपर गंभीर मामले थे वही 2015 में 40 प्रतिशत यानी 98 विधायकों के ऊपर गंभीर मामले लंबित है।

मूल रूप से प्रभात खबर में प्रकाशित!

2014 के लोक सभा चुनाव में एडीआर द्वारा उम्मीदवारों के हलफनामों के विश्लेषण के अध्ययन से यह ज्ञात हुआ कि 113 सांसदों की संपत्ति में सौ गुणा, 26 सांसदों की संपत्ति में पांच सौ गुणा वृद्धि हुई है। इनमें 113 सांसदों ने अपना पेशा बतौर समाज सेवा, राजनीति एवं सामाजिक कार्य बताया था। आश्रितों में आठ की पत्नियां गृहिणी थी, लेकिन उनकी संपत्ति करोड़ों में थी। जाहिर है ये सभी आय के स्रोत नहीं हो सकते है। बिहार इलेक्शन वॉच के अध्ययन का भी हवाला दिया जा सकता है कि पिछले विधानसभा में निर्वाचित विधायकों की संपत्ति से उनके आश्रितों की संपत्ति पचास प्रतिशत से अधिक थी। 2015 के विधानसभा में यह भी देखने को मिला कि 43 विधानसभा सदस्यों की पत्नियों की संपत्ति में पचास प्रतिशत से अधिक की वृद्धि देखी गयी। एक विधायक की संपत्ति दो लाख थी वही उनके आश्रित एक करोड़ के स्वामी थे। यानी आश्रितों की संपत्ति में 97.87 प्रतिशत की वृद्धि देखी गई। इस क्रम में 43 ऐसे माननीय है जिनकी संपत्ति अपने आश्रितों से भी कम है यानी समाज सेवा के नाम पर राजनीति कर रहे विधानसभा सदस्यों को अपने आश्रितों पर ही निर्भर रहना पड़ता है। याचिका कर्ता का यह कहना है कि अब जनता को अपने प्रतिनिधियों को पकड़ना आसान हो जाएगा कि उनकी संपत्ति पिछले कुछ सालों में कितनी बढ़ गई है और उसके आय के जायज स्रोत क्या है ? मतदाताओं को यह जानने का अधिकार है कि आखिर इनकी संपत्ति दिन – दूनी रात चौगुनी कैसे बढ़ रही है। अदालत के आदेश के तहत उम्मीदवारों को न सिर्फ अपनी आय के स्रोत बताने होंगे बल्कि अपनी पत्नी, बेटा, बहु, बेटी दामाद की आय के साथ उनके स्रोत की भी घोषणा करनी होगी।  सर्वविदित है कि बेहिसाब संपत्ति की घोषणा करने के साथ ही यह गोपनीय रहा करता था कि उनकी बेहिसाब संपत्ति का आखिर स्रोत क्या है ? गौर करने वाली बात है कि कमोबेश चुनावों में सभी उम्मीदवारों के द्वारा समाज सेवा या राजनीति को बतौर पेशा बताया जाता है। आखिर राजनीति या समाज सेवा कोई पेशा नहीं होता तो फिर उनकी अकूत संपत्ति का राज आमलोगों को समझ में नहीं आ पाता है ? किसी भी सांसद या विधायक के आय से अधिक संपत्ति माफिया राज को रास्ता माना जाता है। जिसका असर राजनेताओं के भ्रष्टाचार पर पड़ता है।

ऐसा देखा जा रहा है कि अपने परिजनों के नाम पर ऐसे राजनेता कई पीढ़ियों के लिए बेहिसाब संपत्ति बना लेते है वही दूसरी ओर गरीब जनता की सेहत में सालों कोई परिवर्तन नहीं आ पाता। इन माननीयों की संपत्ति और आय के अंर्तसंबन्धों को समझने के लिए 2015 बिहार विधानसभा चुनाव में 160 ऐसे उम्मीदवारों की आय का विश्लेषण किया गया जिनकी 2010 में संपत्ति 84.41 लाख थी, लेकिन 2015 में उनकी संपत्ति में औसतन 199 प्रतिशत वृद्धि देखी गयी यानि औसतन 2.57 लाख। इन पांच सालों में 1.71 करोड़ वृद्धि हुई। इनमें पांच ऐसे नाम है जिनकी संपत्ति 553 प्रतिशत, 480 प्रतिशत, 354 प्रतिशत, 279 प्रतिशत और 210 प्रतिशत तक वृद्धि देखी गयी। विधानसभा के साथ लोकसभा, राज्य सभा एवं प्रदेश के सर्वोच्च पदों पर आसीन राजनेताओं की स्थिति कमोबेश समान ही देखी गयी है।

मूल रूप से प्रभात खबर में प्रकाशित!

Unfortunately for him, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) turned it down. Why would TRAI turn down a free service being offered by the social media giant? The answer is subtle but very important. While some free access to internet is better than no access, the Facebook free offer was giving access to only certain websites. Thus the poor who opted for Free Basics would be able to roam only where Facebook allowed them to roam. This curtails a more basic kind of freedom, i.e. freedom to roam the internet. And all other smaller websites would have to pay Facebook to enter this “walled garden”. This is opposite to the principle of net neutrality. A profitmaking organisation like Facebook was offering “free services” because it hoped to make those free customers become sticky and paying customers, in the future. It was like a “foot in the door” policy, giving freebies in the beginning, that any monopoly uses to oust competitors. Once it has hundreds of millions of users inside the “walled garden”, it would charge monopoly pricing to those who wanted to access those customers. It would become a gatekeeper to a privately owned corner of the internet. Thanks to a nationwide people’s campaign for net neutrality, the Facebook plan for Free Basics failed.

That was five years ago. The power of platform economics is much better understood now. Their monopoly power is massive and has caused concern across the world. The US Congress recently summoned the CEOs of four large American tech companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple) to question them about their monopolistic practices. Apart from monopoly issues, social media companies like Facebook also have to contend with issues that impinge on freedom of speech. India is its biggest market. It owns WhatsApp and Instagram, and the combined user base is easily more than 700 million. FB says it does not censor free speech, but even President Trump has accused it of creating a negative bias. FB has faced severe criticism for allowing advertisement with fake information that influenced American voters. Its revenues from political ads are not easily disclosed. In fact since 2011 it has been asking the US Federal Election Commission to exempt it from disclosing revenue from political advertisements. Its employees do assist political campaigns who buy services from FB. But this sometimes makes the company too close to governments and ruling parties. This, combined with its enormous reach, power and data, make it a formidable force in electoral democracies. Add to this hate speech. The dividing line between hate speech and free speech is thin, but this gets decided by the company itself. What if it ends up helping one political constituency?

Last week The Wall Street Journal ran a full page story alleging that Facebook in India ignored their internal guidelines, and did not remove hate speech posts, because these were posted by politicians from the ruling party. Removing those posts, despite complaints from users, would have soured their business prospects in India, as per the article. Most remarkably, the company abides by much stricter guidelines on what can be posted in most other countries such as Germany, Singapore or most of Europe. So these posts would not have passed muster elsewhere. As a result of the WSJ’s explosive allegation, there has been an internal dissent within the company questioning the top management of such dilution of their own internal standards. India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT has summoned the company to appear before it, to clarify the charges. FB says it employs sophisticated artificial intelligence tools to detect fake news or hate speech. But that may not be good enough. There are provisions in India’s laws (InfoTechnology Act 2000 and Cable TV Act 1995) that are applicable. In the era of omniscience and almost monopoly power of social media companies, and proliferation of fake news coupled with hate speech, some regulation is definitely needed. It will need to carefully balance free speech versus hate speech curbs, and innovation.

The article was originally published on Mirror Now.

Image Credit: Reuters (Used for representation purpose only)

The exponential rise of Facebook itself, which grew from 40 million to 160 million users in the US in those four years, was crucial to the success of the 2012 election. Of course, television was more important, but the use of Facebook data in electoral campaigns was fast catching up. That was eight years ago. Today, social media-based campaigns are on par, if not surging ahead, in terms of efficacy in comparison to television. Today, Facebook also owns WhatsApp and Instagram, making it the single largest repository of user data owned in the private sector.

After the 2016 elections, the role of Facebook came under increasing scrutiny. Was it biasing electoral outcomes? President Trump has accused it of creating prejudice, which the company has denied. Its co-founder Mark Zuckerberg has said that his company offers a platform to all people to voice their ideas. It does not censor free speech.

It is a platform for civic engagement between voters and candidates. It remains non-partisan. It claims to remain a politically agnostic tool. But Facebook faced severe criticism that it allowed Russian-funded advertisements, with fake information, to influence voters.

In fact, increasingly, its role in catering to politically well-funded campaigns has been in the spotlight. Does this information get transparently disclosed? Does the company take care of removing fake information or misinformation? Actually, as per Bloomberg reports, since 2011 Facebook has been asking the US Federal Election Commission to exempt it from disclosing revenue from political ads. This would put it in a more exclusive situation as compared to television and broadcast media.

In general, the company will push back any government request about user data, to maintain users’ privacy, unless it is legally warranted. But then, its close work with political party campaigns means its employees get close to what can be called electioneering. Facebook helps elected officials connect to citizens, through live streaming, participative interactions and, in that process, helps governance. But its proximity to governments, combined with its enormous reach, power and data make it a formidable force in electoral democracies.

Added to all this, the phenomenon of hate speech, organised harassment and trolling. There are enough instances when bigotry and hate speech have been spread through social media. There have been cases of lynching and violence which arose out of messages circulating on social media. It is a company like Facebook (which also owns WhatsApp) which decides what is trolling or harassment and what is protected free speech. It has to draw the thin line between hate speech and free speech. But the company is not the judiciary, nor is it subject to broadcast licensing. So, what if it tilts, even unwittingly, to one side? Aer all, the incumbent candidates and governments can be lucrative ad buyers, and could potentially influence Facebook’s internal policing decisions. It does employ sophisticated Artificial Intelligence tools to detect fake news or hate speech, but that still may not be good enough.

India has the world’s largest number of Facebook and WhatsApp, and possibly Instagram, users as well. In China, these are banned. The reach, influence and potential power of social media can only be imagined. Prime Minister Modi has the largest number of followers on a variety of social media platforms, including Facebook. He has leveraged the medium to a great extent, and established direct connections with citizens in a way which is a break from the olden days or radio or television. The implication for electoral politics is obvious.

A few years ago, the Chief Election Commissioner of India said that in earlier days, the EC had to worry about the influence of two “M”s. These were money and muscle power. But increasingly there is a third “M” which is “media”. By which he meant the menace of paid news, fake news, misinformation and disinformation. He was mostly referring to print and electronic media, which are all licensed businesses. The EC’s job is to ensure free and fair election without the undue influence of money, muscle and media power. But to this third M, we have to include social media. The recent revelation in a Wall Street Journal article on the role of Facebook in India’s electoral politics, and in being uneven in its treatment of curbing hate speech or trolling, to help a particular political party, raises many questions. How should we regulate this immense power?

Even in the domain outside electoral politics, the CEOs of the big four, i.e. Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple were recently summoned to Washington to appear before a Congressional hearing. This was to grill them about their growing clout in stifling competition in the marketplace. There is a demand that some anti-trust, i.e. anti-monopoly, measures be introduced to curb their power.

Similarly, in the domain of elections, too, messaging, networking and microblogging social media platforms have to be regulated to curb misuse and also partisanship. This is a huge challenge for the Election Commission. Luckily, there is evidence that voters themselves, are becoming sceptical of fake news and paid news. Ultimately, an enlightened citizenry, or voters who invest time and effort in educating themselves, and don’t remain passive consumers of social media content, are the best protection and guarantee of a free and fair election.

The article was originally published on Deccan Herald.

Image Credit: Reuters

In the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections in Bihar, women voter turnout was nearly 59.92% against 55.26% male turnout. During the same elections, only 9% (56) women candidates contested in the elections and out of 40 overall winners, only three were women. Such a drastic gap between the large percentage of women voters and the meagre representation of women legislators, forces us to ponder over the possible reasons for such poor women representation in Bihar. Moreover, all these three women MPs were crorepatis, and had declared criminal and serious criminal cases against themselves. While one MP was 10th Pass, the other two were graduate and post-graduate respectively, at the time of analysis conducted by ADR.

As per a research paper titled – Women Representation in Parliament: A continuing predicament – by Ms Vaishali Rawat (previously a researcher at ADR) – about 75% of the 16th Lok Sabha women MPs had political connections, and only 20.63% women MPs had zilch political-influential connections. It is interesting to note that the three women MPs elected in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections in Bihar are/were wives of Indian politicians. This raises the issue of dynasty politics which is deeply rooted not only in Bihar but also in other parts of India.

During the Bihar Assembly Elections 2015, 8% (273)  women contested in the elections, out of which 15% had criminal and 10% had serious criminal cases against themselves. Out of 28 women MLAs analysed by ADR in the same elections, nine had criminal and five had serious criminal cases against themselves. The only woman who was given a ministerial berth, had an untainted background at the time of analysis and was 12th Pass. Moreover, 2015 Bihar Assembly Elections saw a decline in the number of women MLAs (28) against 2010 Bihar Assembly Elections (34 women MLAs). This decline raises questions regarding the changed mindset of the Bihar electorate.

Talking about the candidates contested in the Bihar Assembly Elections 2015, 24% women candidates were literate which made the majority, followed by 12th Pass & 10th Pass with 18% and 17%, respectively. Out of the 28 women MLAs analysed by ADR in the same elections, around 29% of the women MLAs were 12th Pass which made the majority, followed by 18% 10th Pass women MLAs. 

ADR’s analysis revealed that, out of 273 women candidates, around 88 (32%) were crorepati candidates and out of 28 women MLAs, about 64% were crorepati candidates. Also, it doesn’t come across as a surprise that the only woman who was given the ministerial berth was a crorepati minister, at the time of analysis.

Bihar recently saw bye-elections in 2019 in five constituencies wherein out of 43 candidates, only four (9%) women candidates contested in the elections and no one managed to secure a seat which again reflects the poor women representation in the Bihar Elections.

In an analysis by Economic & Political Weekly released in January 2011, patriarchal structure of Indian politics, no women reservation in Parliament and State Assembly elections, lack of family support, and reluctance in giving tickets to women by the political parties were some of the reasons for poor representation of women in the legislature. 

Political parties claim that “winnability factor” is one of the major reasons for not giving tickets to women. An article in Business Standard puts this myth to rest by revealing that in 2010 Bihar Assembly Elections, 91% of JD (U) and 84% of BJP female contestants had won. The same article also revealed how political realignment in 2015 Bihar Assembly Elections hurt the women’s representation.

In a research paper, Women Legislators and Economic Performance (paper focussing on India’s state legislative assemblies), researchers reveal that:

• legislators with a criminal record are more likely to practise corruption, to have priorities other than economic development, and, possibly, are less likely to provide a stable business environment
• male legislators (in the close election sample) are about three times as likely as female legislators to have criminal charges pending against them
• women legislators in India raise luminosity growth in their constituencies by about 15 percentage points per annum more than male legislators

2020 Bihar Assembly elections will be the first election wherein the Election Commission of India will implement the Supreme Court’s order on listing the reasons for giving tickets to tainted candidates by political parties. With this and the findings mentioned in the paper -Women Legislators and Economic Performance – as the basis, it can be said that there is a huge scope of increasing the representation of women representation. This development could reduce criminality and corruption, and advance the socio-economic condition of Bihar.

It is explicit that women voter turnout is increasing while women representation still remains insignificant in Bihar elections. To ensure better women representation in the upcoming Bihar elections, it is paramount that political parties in Bihar reserve 33% tickets for women, corresponding to West Bengal’s Trinamool Congress and Odisha’s Biju Janata Dal who had fielded 41% and 33% women candidates, respectively, in 2019 Lok Sabha Elections. The responsibility to empower women leaders doesn’t end with reserving seats, it is critical that the reserved tickets should be given to women candidates with no criminal and political-influential background. More importantly, the political parties should assure financial assistance by supporting the political campaigns of the women candidates.

Women in Bihar protested against the increased liquor consumption and it is noteworthy how to garner votes from them ahead of 2015 Bihar Assembly Elections, Mr Nistish Kumar (current Chief Minister of Bihar) promised liquor prohibition. It was the same demand which Mr Kumar had once refused but after winning the 2015 Assembly Elections, he declared Bihar as a dry state and fulfilled his promise which he made to the women of Bihar. With this, it is evident how women can influence policies positively. It is fair to say that women voters in Bihar will be playing a major role in deciding the new government in Bihar.

With the 2020 Bihar Assembly Elections around the corner, it raises some pertinent questions like – will the political parties give tickets to more women candidates and if they do so, will women dynasts be favoured?, will Bihar see a rise in women Ministers and MLAs?, will the current women MLAs retain their respective seat?, and more importantly, will the Bihar electorate vote for women candidates with no criminal background?

The article was originally published on The Logical Indian.

Image Credit: TV9 Gujarati