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.
Comments
Post a Comment