One Nation, One Election: Does it reflect an Indian way of thinking?

This uniformity drive includes some procedures that have been established for many years, such as national examination systems for engineering (JEE for central institutions), medicine (NEET for all medical colleges), civil services (the UPSC exam), CAT (for management), CLAT (for law) and so on. 

More recently, we have seen the creation of the Aadhaar card system under the Unique Identification Authority of India. Its current form was established in 2016 (by the BJP-led NDA), but it was the brainchild of the Congress-led UPA and began functioning in 2009. This ‘voluntary’ mechanism is the world’s largest biometric database and increasingly feels like a requirement for all practical purposes. 

Also Read: One nation, one election: Consultation time has begun

A recent major national policy that affects all  residents was the introduction of the goods and services tax (GST) in 2017. Rolled out under the slogan of ‘One Nation, One Tax,’ this is an indirect tax that replaced numerous central and state-level indirect taxes (including excise duties and VATs). 

Something like the GST began under the Rajiv Gandhi government’s MODVAT policy in 1986; in 1999, a GST proposal was considered seriously by the A.B. Vajpayee government; the Manmohan Singh government introduced a Constitution Amendment Bill in 2011 to introduce GST, but was resisted by the BJP at that time. After gaining power, the BJP-led NDA passed the GST law and it has since become a fact of life in India.

The most recent effort at standardization is what is being called the ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal. The intent is to have the Lok Sabha election for central government formation coincide with all Vidhan Sabha elections in the states (and Union territories with elected bodies). 

The key argument being put forward is similar to the one that undergirded the GST push: efficiency (by saving time, money and bureaucratic resources). Independent India did indeed begin with simultaneous polls, but as state governments started falling before their term-end (either through internal dissension or because they were toppled by the Centre), the Vidhan Sabha calendars lost synchrony. 

The idea of simultaneous elections has stayed around (even under Congress rule), not necessarily with a catchy name, but this is the first time that this idea has gone as far as this: The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, which was introduced in December 2024 in the Lok Sabha.

Also Read: Simplify GST: It’s time for a single all-India identification mandate

It is not my intent to examine or critique the mechanisms in the bill. Interested readers should look up a meticulous analysis by Milan Vaishnav, Caroline Mallory and Annabel Richter (shorturl.at/miDvx). They conclude that the efficiency and  savings being projected by backers of the bill may not be realistic and that the Constitutional amendment, if passed, “could create new problems without resolving old ones."

My intent is instead to suggest that efficiency and cost savings, virtues as they are in most settings, may not be the most important objectives in all settings—in India perhaps more than anywhere else. What could be more important? In India, a broader perspective suggests that the more important objective may be the maintenance of a delicate balance of social diversity and tradition (even though some ‘traditions’ may be quite recent). 

Also Read: Ajit Ranade: A progressive GST is easier to promise than achieve

To help us think through the argument, I begin with the brilliant insights of the eminent linguist and poet A. K. Ramanujan. In a 1989 essay called  ‘Is There an Indian Way of Thinking?’ Professor Ramanujan argued that there is indeed one, at least in the sense that it’s different from ‘Western’ rationality, because Indian thought is characterized by context-sensitivity, internal contradictions and a lack of universals. 

For example, the punishment for a crime like cattle theft was not standardized (even within the same region); it varied by location, time of day, season, the social identity of the owner and of the thief, and so on. This way of thinking explained, for Ramanujan, why his father was both an astronomer and an astrologer.

One of the best examples of context-sensitivity is the collection of land laws in India. Land is a ‘state subject’ under the Indian Constitution precisely because of the wide variance in land rights and their history in various regions for different communities. 

Most readers of this column are likely to be familiar with India’s urban land and property markets and laws, which have some city-to-city variation, but are generally unrestricted. In the  rest of the country, its rural and especially tribal regions, there are hundreds of state-specific laws on who can buy land and from whom, who can sell and to whom, what can be sold and how much, what can never be sold, etc. 

Also Read: Through reels and shorts—how micro-influencers are shaping state elections

Does this patchwork of laws and customs lead to the ‘highest and best use of land?’ From a purely market efficiency perspective, the answer is surely ‘no.’ But from a political or social economy perspective, the answer is probably ‘yes,’ not least because the system has proven to be sustainable.

The Indian way of doing elections—everything, everywhere, all at once—is a hallmark of the Indian parliamentary system. No other multi-party parliamentary system comes close to India’s in size or complexity. Streamlining this massive and complex system is a temptation for sure. Short-term self-interest apart, many modern minds simply abhor this messiness. 

But, to streamline it may be foolhardy. What could be gained in time and cost (if anything) could pale in comparison with what may be lost: the flexibility and adaptability that make Indian democracy work.

The author is a professor of geography, environment and urban studies and director of global studies at Temple University.