One Nation, One Election: A 'Disruptive Exercise' Echoing Demonetisation, Warns CPI(ML) Leader

The air crackles with political tension as the 'One Nation, One Election' proposal takes center stage, sparking fierce debate across India's political landscape. Among its most vocal critics is CPI(ML) General Secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya, who has unleashed a blistering attack, branding the initiative a 'disruptive exercise' with chilling parallels to the infamous demonetisation of 2016.

Bhattacharya didn't mince words, declaring that just like demonetisation, which was touted as a panacea for black money but ultimately wreaked havoc, the 'One Nation, One Election' scheme is poised to inflict 'disruption and destruction' upon India's robust federal and democratic framework.

He views it not as a reform, but as a calculated move to engineer an 'artificial majority' by undermining the very spirit of popular representation.

The appointment of former President Ram Nath Kovind to head the committee tasked with exploring this proposal drew particularly sharp condemnation.

Bhattacharya labeled it a 'constitutional travesty,' arguing that such a pivotal decision, with far-reaching implications for the nation's governance, is being pushed through without the requisite parliamentary debate, consensus-building, or a true spirit of democratic discussion. The lack of open dialogue, he insists, is a deeply troubling sign of an authoritarian agenda.

At the heart of Bhattacharya's concern lies the potential obliteration of India's cherished federal structure.

He warns that 'One Nation, One Election' will effectively transform the country into a 'unitary state,' eroding the unique political identities and distinct needs of its diverse regions. Furthermore, he emphasized that frequent elections are not a burden, but a vital mechanism for ensuring accountability from elected representatives, forcing them to remain responsive to the electorate's demands.

Curtailing this, he argues, would severely weaken democratic checks and balances.

The timing of this proposal, strategically unveiled just ahead of the high-profile G20 summit, was not lost on Bhattacharya. He suggested it was a 'deliberate distraction,' designed to divert attention from pressing national issues.

While acknowledging that similar ideas have surfaced in the past from bodies like the Law Commission and Election Commission, he stressed that the current government's approach feels distinctly different – marked by an 'authoritarian push' rather than a genuine pursuit of electoral reform through democratic means.

In essence, Bhattacharya's powerful critique serves as a clarion call to safeguard India's constitutional values.

He implores citizens and political stakeholders to recognize 'One Nation, One Election' not as an innocuous administrative change, but as a fundamental assault on the principles of federalism, democratic participation, and accountability that underpin the very fabric of the nation. The debate, it seems, is far from over, and its outcome will undoubtedly shape the future trajectory of Indian democracy.