Time and again we forget one thing; the constitution
is an active document and not some sacred scripture that is to be preserved
under lock and key. Ever since Ambedkar scripted the constitution it has
undergone many amendments. But have these amendments really kept pace with the
changes in India? Have we made amendments to those sections of the constitution
that define our way of life today? Do these amendments plug the crevices and loopholes
that exist today and were (hopefully) absent 60 years back? We may have the
best constitution in the world but in many ways I feel it’s wanting.
The Indian today is very different from the
Indian of the 1950’s. Today we Indians be it from the highest layer of the
upper class to bottom layer of the lower class are subjected to some sort of
social evil in different degrees. What was then a mystery now is become common knowledge.
Infact I’m sure corruption, inflation to name a few are the first English words
a child would learn. Repeated attempts have been made in the past of routing
out what seems to have become our way of life. The Lokpal made its appearance
for the 6th or 7th time and galvanised the nation until it
was killed, raped and murdered by the very people who said they would pass it
through in the 3 high-voltage day/night session of Parliament. (I seriously
wonder what was Team Anna thinking? You make an act that is practically
accountable to no one and expect our corrupt parliamentarians to make it a law
knowing that the axe would first fall on them? In simple words that was really
bad strategy.)
The only way forward and what we should all
be putting our energies into is the way we elect out representatives. A party
puts up a candidate and we as voters vote for the one we feel is the best. (At
times it’s not the candidate we vote for but the party. And now with people
changing parties so often we vote for the person without bothering which party
he represents) But the question is not which party or candidate would not only solve
your problems of today but also prevent the problems of tomorrow. I often
wonder how can a person without the basic qualification to secure a job of a professor
be allowed to make laws for a demography involving highly qualified and skilled
people. Does being elected to the house entitle him to make decisions on my
behalf without even caring to know what I feel? Does he bother to know whether I
need a flyover bridge or not and consequently spend crores of taxpayers money
on it? (I’m not even taking into consideration the increase in costs due to
delays) Does he think of how painful it is for me and my kids to travel to
office/school/college in crowded trains and choc-a-bloc roads? Does he ask me
whether I want my 150 year old city’s name to be changed to a vernacular
version just because he doesn’t like it and has the power to change it and also
run after me just because I choose to say the old name over the new one?
I believe that an elected representative
has an obligation to know and understand what the needs of the people are and
then formulate and propose and table in the house a law that solves the issue. Present-day
Indian democracy lies in members making decisions as per their will for the
entire state/nation just because they have been elected. A member should remember
that he/she is a representative and should act like one. He has not been
elected to do as he pleases and thinks legitimate but to represent me and be my
voice.
But how can I as an individual make sure
that only the right person is elected. Going by what we have now is horrible to
say the least. In our present-day democracy we have the option of choosing a
candidate but do we have a choice? Can I as a lay man reject all the candidates
in the fray? One may argue saying that there is section 49-O where I can
declare that I wish to vote for none. Agreed but is that a secret ballot then?
Why should I make a declaration that I have no interest or confidence in any of
the candidates? When I do not have such an option the only option I have is not
to vote. Now does the low voter turnout make sense?
What I propose is that the Right to Reject
as in a “None of the Above” (NOTA) button on our EVM’s. The rules are simple.
If NOTA wins then all the candidates will be disqualified and will also lose
their deposit money. The elections will be re-held with a different set of
candidates. Incase NOTA wins again we repeat the same procedure. Many of my
friends will complain saying how many elections do you wish be conducted? Well
at the beginning we may have some held twice or even thrice but in the long run
the parties will be much more responsible and careful about the candidates they
put forward and the voters will have much greater role and participation rather
than choosing the less evil from the fray.
This would not only bring greater
accountability to our politics, check the flow of money during elections, get
better people to represent us but also start the trend for a better India and a
better tomorrow. After all true democracy is only achieved when the people have
a greater role and participation in the functioning of their nation and their nation’s
future.
