Analysis of The Hindu Editorial – December 16, 2024

Analysis of The Hindu Editorial 1 : Let’s talk about ‘one candidate, multiple constituencies’

context

The article discusses the controversial practice of one candidate contesting multiple constituencies in Indian elections, highlighting its challenges, financial implications, democratic concerns, and proposed reforms for a fairer electoral process.

Introduction

Democracy thrives on equality and fairness. For voters, the principle of “one person, one vote” embodies this ideal. But what about candidates? Shouldn’t it be “one candidate, one constituency” for politicians seeking office?

This issue has gained renewed attention amid discussions about “One Nation, One Election,” spearheaded by former President Ram Nath Kovind. While much debate has revolved around the feasibility and implications of simultaneous elections, the practice of one candidate contesting from multiple constituencies (OCMC) has largely escaped scrutiny. This article dives deep into the background, challenges, and potential solutions surrounding this contentious practice.

The Background: Understanding the System

India’s Constitution mandates elections every five years for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. Beyond this, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), governs how these elections are conducted.

Before 1996, there was no limit on how many constituencies a candidate could contest from. This often led to politicians running from multiple seats, only to vacate all but one after winning. This practice was partially curtailed in 1996, when the RP Act was amended to limit candidates to contesting from a maximum of two constituencies. Despite this reform, OCMC remains prevalent, particularly in state elections.

Contesting from Multiple Constituencies: A Persistent Trend

• Representation of the People Act, 1951: Until the 1996 amendment, there was no restriction on the number of constituencies a candidate could contest.
• Post-1996: The amendment capped the number at two constituencies, but this did little to eliminate the practice entirely.
• The Cost of By-Elections: When candidates vacate one of their seats, it triggers by-elections. These are not only resource-intensive but also tilt the democratic balance in favor of ruling parties.

Challenges Posed by Frequent By-Elections

1. Financial Costs

Elections in India come with a hefty price tag, borne by both the central and state governments.

• 2014 General Elections: Cost ₹3,870 crore.
• 2024 Projections: Adjusted for inflation, the cost surged to ₹6,931 crore, equating to ₹12.76 crore per seat.
• By-Elections Costs: If 10 candidates vacate their seats, the additional cost for by-elections would amount to ₹130 crore.

While this figure might seem negligible compared to the staggering ₹1,35,000 crore spent by political parties in 2024, it represents an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers.

2. Skewed Electoral Playing Field

By-elections often favor ruling parties. Governments in power can leverage state machinery, resources, and patronage to influence outcomes, leaving opposition candidates at a distinct disadvantage.

3. Financial Strain on Opposition

Defeated candidates and their parties are forced to participate in another costly election. This disproportionately affects smaller parties with limited resources, widening the power gap in favor of dominant political forces.

4. Undermining Democratic Principles

When politicians contest from multiple seats, it acts as a safety net for their careers rather than serving public interest. This “hedging” strategy prioritizes political aspirations over voter needs, eroding trust in democratic processes.

5. Violation of Voter Rights

The practice can confuse voters and lead to apathy, as seen in Wayanad, Kerala, where Rahul Gandhi vacated his seat in 2024. Voter turnout in the subsequent bypoll dropped to 64.24%, compared to 72.92% in the general election.

Advantages: The Other Side of the Coin

Though controversial, OCMC has its defenders.

1. Safety Net for Candidates

In competitive elections, contesting multiple seats provides a fallback option for politicians who might otherwise lose their political footing.

2. Leader-Centric Politics

In leader-driven parties, OCMC ensures continuity. For example, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee contested from two seats in 2021, allowing her to retain her position despite losing Nandigram.

International Perspectives

India isn’t alone in grappling with OCMC.

• Pakistan: No limits on constituencies. In 2018, a former Prime Minister contested five seats, vacating four after winning.
• Bangladesh: Previously allowed up to five constituencies; now capped at three.
• United Kingdom: Banned the practice in 1983.
• Europe: Most democracies have moved away from OCMC, prioritizing clear representation and accountability.

Misuse and the Need for Reform

The drawbacks of OCMC far outweigh its benefits. The system is often misused to maximize political influence, leaving voters and opponents at a disadvantage.

Proposed Solutions

1. Amend Section 33(7) of the RP Act, 1951

• Completely ban OCMC for the same office.
• This recommendation has been echoed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in 2004 and the 255th Law Commission report in 2015.

2. Recover Costs of By-Elections

• Candidates vacating seats should bear the full cost of by-elections.
• However, this may not act as a sufficient deterrent for well-funded political parties.

3. Delay By-Elections

• Amend Section 151A of the RP Act to delay by-elections by a year.
• This would provide voters time to make informed decisions and reduce financial strain on opposition candidates.

Conclusion

Elections are the lifeblood of democracy, but the current practice of OCMC drains resources and undermines fairness. While simultaneous elections have sparked widespread debate, enforcing “one candidate, one constituency” remains an overlooked but equally crucial reform.

Political willpower is essential to address this issue, as major parties must align to prioritize democratic principles over individual or party gains. By implementing reforms, India can ensure its electoral system is more equitable and representative of its people.

FAQs

---

Analysis of The Hindu Editorial 2 : ​India’s firmer attempts at mineral diplomacy

context

India’s mineral diplomacy aims to secure critical minerals like lithium and cobalt, essential for technological and industrial growth. This strategy reduces reliance on imports, counters geopolitical vulnerabilities, and fosters sustainable partnerships.

Introduction

In today’s rapidly evolving global economy, minerals like lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements are as valuable as gold once was. They power everything from electric vehicles to cutting-edge technology, making them critical to a nation’s industrial and technological ambitions. For India, which heavily relies on imports to meet its mineral needs, this dependency poses significant strategic vulnerabilities.

Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently highlighted this concern, pointing to the “weaponisation of resources” by some nations—a veiled reference to China’s dominance in critical mineral supplies. To counter these challenges, India is ramping up its efforts in mineral diplomacy, a strategy aimed at securing access to vital resources while reducing reliance on any single country.

Why Mineral Diplomacy Matters

India’s push for self-reliance in manufacturing and technology makes mineral security non-negotiable. Here’s why:

1. Rising Demand: With India’s expanding EV market and clean energy goals, demand for critical minerals is expected to skyrocket.
2. Strategic Vulnerabilities: Dependence on imports, especially from China, leaves India exposed to potential supply chain disruptions.
3. Global Competition: Nations are scrambling to secure resources, turning critical minerals into geopolitical chess pieces.

Pillars of India’s Mineral Diplomacy

India’s approach to mineral diplomacy rests on two key pillars:

1. Building bilateral ties with resource-rich countries.
2. Engaging in international partnerships and multilateral forums.

Pillar 1: Strengthening Bilateral Ties with Resource-Rich Nations

India is actively forging alliances with countries rich in critical minerals like lithium and cobalt. These bilateral ties aim to secure long-term access to essential resources while diversifying India’s supply sources.

Key Developments and Agreements

• Australia: In March 2022, India signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Australia to explore critical mineral investments, identifying two lithium and three cobalt projects.
• Latin America’s Lithium Triangle: Argentina, Chile, and Bolivia are at the center of India’s focus.
  • In January 2024, India inked a $24 million deal with Argentina to explore five lithium brine blocks.
  • Private players, like Altmin Private Limited, are also stepping in, securing agreements with Bolivia’s national lithium company.
• Kazakhstan: India formed IREUK Titanium Limited, a joint venture to produce titanium slag, marking its first significant partnership in Central Asia.

Country	Resource	Agreement Highlights
Australia	Lithium, Cobalt	MoU for investment in 5 mineral projects.
Argentina	Lithium	$24M pact for exploration of lithium brine blocks.
Kazakhstan	Titanium, Rare Earths	Joint venture for titanium production, plans for rare earths.

Pillar 2: International Partnerships in Mineral Security

India’s mineral diplomacy extends beyond bilateral engagements to include collaborations with multilateral forums and initiatives. These partnerships aim to integrate India into global critical mineral supply chains and align its policies with international standards.

Key International Initiatives

• The Quad (Australia, Japan, India, and the United States): Focuses on securing and diversifying supply chains for critical minerals.
• Mineral Security Partnership (MSP): Promotes collaboration on mining, refining, and recycling minerals.
• Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF): Aims to enhance economic connectivity, including in the critical minerals sector.
• G7 Engagements: Strengthens India’s integration into Western-led mineral security initiatives.

Benefits of Global Cooperation

1. Knowledge Sharing: Access to advanced technologies and expertise from global leaders like the U.S., EU, South Korea, and Australia.
2. Policy Alignment: Helps India streamline its domestic policies with international best practices, improving investor confidence.
3. Capacity Building: Enhances India’s ability to process, refine, and utilize critical minerals domestically.

Challenges in India’s Mineral Diplomacy

Despite its ambitious efforts, India faces significant hurdles in its mineral diplomacy journey.

1. Limited Private Sector Participation

• Policy Gaps: The absence of a comprehensive critical mineral supply chain strategy discourages private sector involvement.
• Need for De-Risking: A clear roadmap is required to integrate private players across the supply chain, ensuring alignment with national security and economic goals.

2. Weak Diplomatic Capacity

India’s diplomatic capacity in the mineral sector remains underdeveloped.

• Proposed Solutions:
  • Establish a Mineral Diplomacy Division within the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
  • Create specialized roles for mineral diplomacy in key embassies, akin to the New and Emerging Strategic Technologies (NEST) division.

3. Lack of Sustainable Partnerships

• India needs long-term, trusted partnerships to ensure a steady supply of critical minerals.
• Collaboration with partners like the EU and Quad nations is essential due to their technological expertise and robust supply chains.

Recommendations to Strengthen India’s Mineral Diplomacy

Challenge	Proposed Solution
Private sector exclusion	Develop a clear supply chain strategy for critical minerals.
Weak diplomatic engagement	Create a dedicated division for mineral diplomacy in the MEA.
Unsustainable partnerships	Focus on building long-term collaborations with trusted partners.

Conclusion

India’s mineral diplomacy is a crucial step towards securing its industrial and technological future. While notable progress has been made, addressing the gaps in private sector participation, diplomatic capacity, and sustainable partnerships is imperative.

By strengthening international and domestic coordination, India can build a robust, secure, and sustainable critical mineral supply chain. This will not only reduce its strategic vulnerabilities but also position India as a key player in the global clean energy transition.

FAQs

---

Latest Govt. Job News: Click Here NRITIHAS.COM

---