Why contesting from two constituencies?

Now that elections have been declared in India. As a natural consequence every party ruling, opposition or even non-entities currently but who wants to play a major role in case of a fractured mandate are busy with seat allocation, canvassing, alignments etc. Famous or infamous “Aaya Rams and Gaya Rams” or so called “Jumping Stars” who habitually move from one party to another party are very busy in their endeavours.

Like some of the earlier elections there is one strong contender for the post be it in the eyes of the main opposition party or the media. For the last 4-5 months there is a frenzy on the air waves chanting “NaMo” which is the short name of Mr Narendra Modi. Now it is declared by his party that he will be contesting from two seats viz., Varanasi (in Uttar Pradesh) and Vadodara (in his stronghold Gujarat).

May be I am naive about politics or may be I am not knowledgeable about the ways of politics, but I have a big doubt. Please note that I am not from any party or support any party and whatever my doubt applies to all those politicians who contest from more than one constituency.

My doubt is if there is a so called wave for the PM Candidate from the main opposition party then why should he contest from two seats? I thought a lot about this on the below lines

Representation or Popularity in different parts of the country

What anyone will achieve by taking this line which is generally popular with politicians that they want to show they belong to all areas in the country or people of all the areas love them. This looks very good at the face of it. But at the end of election, if the person contesting in two seats loses one and wins another does it mean that he is not loved / adored by people of other areas. If that is so, can he lead country? Alternatively take the case of Mr Manmohan Singh who ruled the country for 10 years by getting elected to the Upper House. Does he not represent the country?

In a positive case when a leader wins at both the seats he contested, he needs to resign from one of them as he cannot represent both the constituencies in Parliament. If he is resigning from one of these does it mean he does not like the area from which he got elected? If people from the seat from which the leader contested and subsequently resigned gets an inkling of things to come why should they elect him?

Safe Seats

When Tom, Dick and Harry (TDH) / Sorry Ram, Lakshman and Sita (RLS) (this is a Hindu ideology party) is declaring that the PM Candidate is going to be the Prime Minister why the party should look for safe seats. One still can understand looking for a safe seat in unfamiliar locations like Uttar Pradesh, but why a safe seat in Gujarat which is his home ground and his party enjoys almost 2/3 majority in Assembly. He can as well contest from any of the locations where there was an absolute majority in one of the constituencies where his party is winning for the past 15-20 years. Why looking for a safe seat?

One can understand such necessity for safe seats / contesting from multiple locations to de-risk in case of other parties and leaders who are not sure of winning but why two seats in this case?

Also, if the party and its leaders are so confident about the winning the elections why not get its top leaders contest from those areas from where they do not even have a representation in parliament like Tamil Nadu or Kerala? By doing this there is every possibility to build the party and its representation in those areas. Why not think on those lines.

Now comes the crucial question, when the leader resigns to one of the seats won, why should the Government foot the bill for conducting the elections? On whose money the politicians are playing? Supreme Court should look at this and formulate such guidelines that the leader or the party which has caused the reelection should foot the entire bill and possibly an equal amount towards loss of mandays of productivity.