SY Quraishi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, on Nepal’s federal experiment, growing concerns over political finance and the current state of the EC. The conversation was moderated by Ritika Chopra, Chief of National Bureau (Govt), The Indian Express.Ritika Chopra: In your new book, Democracy’s Heartland, while you’ve described Nepal as a bright spot with credible elections with inclusivity in its Constitution, you have also spoken of its instability. Given the current political flux, do you see this instability as a passing phase or could this threaten the democratic experience?When I started studying, I came across important statistics. Eight countries of the world out of 203 have 25 per cent of the world’s population. Forty per cent of the world’s democracy lives in these eight countries. This region is highly neglected — no UN organisation, no international donors, no academic community, whereas this is the hub of democracy and it does influence at least the region, if not the wider world. Also, there is more to South Asia than India. That, I felt, was a valid point and became the theme of my book. Many of our neighbours are upset with us because they think we are arrogant of our size and democracy. Indeed, we are the largest democracy for which we cannot be faulted. At the same time, we shouldn’t behave like a big brother, but like an elder brother.As for Nepal’s instability, in the last 70 years, we have had only one Constitution; they have had seven. We hear that an eighth is a possibility.In the last five years, there have been five PMs. So people in general, youth in particular, were disgruntled. They were using social media to comment on it. That was the hidden provocation for the Nepal government to target social media. But they came out with an official reason that these agencies had no office in Kathmandu and that they could not regulate them. After that, about 27 of them were banned. They didn’t realise that social media has become the lifeline of every nation. So, when the entire social media died, a complete breakdown of communication happened. They went berserk. Forget politics, their personal matters, health matters, family matters, remittance matters, they all got endangered, and that is when they came out on the streets. This youth movement was not anti-democracy, it was for democracy, for a better democracy and cleaner democracy, for a deepening of democracy. Initially, their protest was very peaceful. Since the government was arrogant, they fired at these protesters — young people, students — and the death figures moved to about 70. After that there was no stopping the youth. Was it a battle for power? No, because they did a referendum for who should become the interim PM. They chose Sushila Karki instead of choosing one of their own youth leaders. That shows they were not after power.Ritika Chopra: Given what’s happened in Bangladesh, where a person with a formidable reputation was also tasked with heading an interim government, do you think Nepal may just backslide into the Bangladesh situation where there is no elected government?I don’t think Nepal will go the Bangladesh way. One month before the Bangladesh election, I had a one-hour-long meeting with Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka. She clearly mentioned that the US is asking her to be friendly with Khaleda Zia and the Opposition. She said that ‘the day I see Donald Trump and Joe Biden shaking hands, I will go and hug Khaleda Zia’. The reports which we have heard show how he (Muhammad Yunus) has been a donor to Hillary Clinton’s foundation. And for the last 30 years or so, the Clintons have been wanting a regime change and to plant Yunus there, they finally succeeded. Therefore, the reasons for the government falling in Nepal and falling in Bangladesh are different. But there is no denying that there was a lot of resentment brewing against Sheikh Hasina because she had become very authoritarian. Authoritarianism has an expiry date. While Bangladesh may have had a foreign hand in regime change as alleged, Nepal’s movement was homegrown.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Nepal: Probe panel bars former PM Oli from travelling abroadRitika Chopra: You describe the electoral processes. Nepal follows a hybrid model. In India there is the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system, which produces stable majorities but can disadvantage ethnic minorities. Do you think Nepal’s model offers a better democratic bargain?When I wrote my first book, An Undocumented Wonder: The Making of the Great Indian Election, I described all the systems and supported FPTP, giving all its benefits. This is simpler and the oldest system. We adopted it from the UK, and it is running properly there. Lately, however, there have been some murmurs. About a decade ago there was even a referendum on it. In the third edition, I changed my opinion. Not out of fickle-mindedness, but because of experience on the ground. BSP of Mayawati got the third-largest vote share of 20 per cent. But she got zero seats in Lok Sabha. This is not representative democracy. At least a proportional system will give some seats under that system, one which is originally a German model. The mixed system was picked up by Sri Lanka first. It is there in Pakistan too, and Nepal is the last to follow. It’s not equal but some seats are reserved for minority (not religious) voters under proportional representation, which is good for representative democracy.On Nepal’s youth movement | This youth movement was not anti-democracy, it was for democracy, for a cleaner democracy… Was it a battle for power? No, because they did a referendum for who should become the interim PMThen the most important thing — appointment of the Election Commissioners. In India, it went to the Supreme Court. The Collegium was set up in the first draft. It had the PM, Chief Justice and leader of Opposition. In the second draft, which became an Act, they made a mockery of the system because it has the PM, a Union Minister appointed by the PM and the leader of the Opposition. It really is a joke.In Nepal, they have multi-tier appointment system. First a Constitutional Council consisting of PM, CJ, LoP and Speaker. Then a joint parliamentary committee of 15 MPs drawn from all parties and both houses conduct a public hearing. This ensures totally non partisan appointments. If I can take the liberty of bringing in a personal experience. My late wife, Ila Sharma, had been the Election Commissioner (EC) of Nepal. And there was a possibility she could be chosen as SC judge. But she said, when I go to this committee, they will grill me on marrying an Indian. Marrying a Muslim was not the issue in Nepal. In India it is. But she said they will surely grill me on marrying an Indian.Story continues below this ad ‘An institution is largely the incumbent’s personality. If he or she is good, institution is good, if he or she is bad, institution is bad’Ritika Chopra: What is the model that you think works best?The hybrid model is the best idea. It is definitely a better system because every section of society should feel that they have a voice in Parliament, however small.Also Read | Energy Minister of newly-formed Nepal Govt to visit India in OctoberRitika Chopra: You’ve described India both as an anchor and a cautionary tale for South Asian democracy. In this day and age, how weak or strong do you think the current EC is?Surely something has gone wrong. And when I criticise, I’m criticised back by certain segments of the population. I’m concerned as a citizen but also as a person who laid a brick or two to that institution. In our time, the high credibility of this institution made our task easier. So if you have credibility, even your mistakes are forgiven, and if you don’t have credibility, even your bona fide steps are questioned. I feel very hurt that questions are being raised about it. I keep telling my younger colleagues that they are all wiser but have to do some introspection if the image has gone down. The studies show that the rating that was about 90 per cent has come down to 30-35 per cent. You can’t brush it under the carpet.Story continues below this adRitika Chopra: But the EC is no stranger to controversies. What is different about the challenges it’s facing now?An institution is largely the incumbent’s personality. If he or she is good, institution is good, if he or she is bad, institution is bad. The EVM controversies were not anti-Election Commission. They were about the idea that EVMs can be manipulated. And when I took over, the EVM controversy was at its peak. Who was the critic of the EVM? The BJP. Who is the greatest champion of it today? The BJP. They even wrote a book called Democracy at Risk. They were attacking the EVM. The first thing I did was to call a meeting of all political parties. Because why should I be defending the EVM? It is my constitutional mandate and duty to give the nation a free and fair election. Anybody who raises questions is a friend and not an enemy. The meeting was led by Chandrababu Naidu. I told him, ‘You are an icon of technology and you are leading an anti-technology agitation. For me, the challenge is that you go out of this room as a brand ambassador of the EVM. Now tell me what you have to say?’ He said, ‘We are not saying EVMs have manipulated results or can do in future. These do not have transparency’. I asked him how he wanted transparency? He said, use VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail). The same day we called up the two factories that make these machines and told them to start designing them.Ritika Chopra: Let’s suppose the same allegations that the Congress is making now about the voters list were made at the time you were the CEC, how would you have responded?I am liberal and feel that the person on top has to be open-minded. My office knew very clearly that any leader, particularly a leader from the Opposition parties, seeking an appointment, should be given an appointment within five minutes. To me the Opposition gets preference, they are the underdogs. The party in power can get many things done. Who was the underdog and who was the Opposition party at that time (when I was EC)? The BJP. They were the beneficiary of my open-mindedness. You have to win the trust of the Opposition. Now, three-four years ago, 23 Opposition leaders went to the SC saying that they were not getting an appointment. It’s not acceptable.On the EC’s image | I’m concerned as a citizen but also as a person who laid a brick or two to that institution… they have to do some introspection if the image has gone down. You can’t brush it under the carpetStory continues below this adVikas Pathak: MS Gill, who was the CEC, joined the Congress and became the Minister for Youth Affairs and Sports. Do you think there has been some kind of a precedent, where even if he was fair as a CEC, he should have avoided joining a political party?There is no bar in the Constitution or in any law. But I feel, ethically, there is a conflict of interest. Even though he kept saying that he was offered the post three years later and not immediately, it was percieved as quid pro quo. Critics say, he must have done some favours for Congress for which he was offered the post. If such a thing was offered to me, I would have refused it outright. For me, the image of neutrality, even retrospectively, is more important than any incentive. He should have avoided it.Also Read | Deposed PM Oli speaks publicly for first time since ouster, denies giving shooting order during ‘Gen Z’ protest in NepalHarish Damodaran: TN Seshan had also fought on Congress’s ticket against Lal Krishna Advani in 1999.But his achievements were so big. He became too ambitious and really started believing that people thought of him as a great man. It was a mistake. But his achievement was so great that this mistake of fighting against Mr Advani has been forgotten and forgiven because of his larger achievements. And he really was the need of the time, he did wonderful things.Story continues below this adManoj CG: The new charge from Rahul Gandhi is that an automated software was used to delete votes. Is it possible to do that?Whatever and however flimsy the allegation, it is for the EC to respond and explain. My worry is that not only the reputation of the EC has taken a beating in the eyes of the politicians but in the eyes of the people, too.Harikishan Sharma: Ruling parties like the BJP are getting more than 2,000 crore a year in contribution. Do you think there should be an upper limit set to contributions?It is a normal thing for the ruling party to get more contributions. Obviously, because businessmen only want to please the government. They don’t give this money without expecting return in terms of contracts, licences, bank loans, among others. All these are realities. I have no complaints if a ruling party gets more money. It’s natural. But the electoral bonds were an attempt to completely end the transparency. Fortunately, the Supreme Court declared it illegal and unconstitutional.On Appointment of the EC | In the second draft, which finally became an Act, they made a mockery of the Collegium system because it has the PM, a Union Minister appointed by the PM and the leader of the Opposition. It is a jokeRitu Sarin: What should replace electoral bonds?Story continues below this adThe core issue here is that there is no cap on the election expenditure. When the PM had just started his term, he said that there should be simultaneous polls because too many elections mean a lot of money spent and time wasted. So from that day onwards, I have been writing many articles that the money power can be solved if there is a cap on the expenditure of political parties. The Centre for Media Studies came out with the figure of one lakh crore in the 2024 election which is a huge amount of money. It will come down 90 per cent the day you put a cap. State funding of political parties was one solution. Seventy per cent of the countries in the world already follow this system, particularly in Europe. I had written, give Rs 100 for every vote obtained to every party, every candidate.Also Read | Bihar Assembly elections 2025: Days after SIR-based new electoral roll is out, EC to visit Bihar on Oct 4-5 to review poll prepJatin Anand: The allegation of demographic change always picks up around elections. In your experience, how easy is this alleged process? Is it possible? And how do you view it?I wrote a book three years ago called Population Myth – Islam, Family Planning and Politics in India, and it deals with all these issues. Every year, how many infiltrators came? 1,200, 1,500, 2,000. Now, if in a country of 1.45 billion, the demography gets upset by the figures given by the government in Parliament, surely it needs to be re-examined. Till today we have no authentic figures. Then who allowed the infiltration? By all means, catch every infiltrator and send him back.Ritika Chopra: In this day and age, technology is also disinformation. Is technology further strengthening the electoral process or do you think it’s hollowing out the electoral elections?Story continues below this adTechnology is a good thing. But technology is value neutral, it depends on how you use it. To me, social media, is a very important development. But it can have dangerous implications. You’ve already seen what happened in Nepal and that was because of total ban on social media. I would like a basic change in our current electoral system.We have been holding Lok Sabha elections in six-seven phases. Why? Because it was introduced by TN Seshan at a time when it was needed.There used to be 1,000 murders leading to the poll and even 100-200 murders on the polling day. So every party started demanding Central Armed Police Force (CAPF). So, we started sending them. The election became peaceful. But in the social media age, when the election is spread for so many days, apart from the expenditure, in the seven phases over a prolonged period, social media can set the country on fire. Because if it is 2.5 months, there is so much time for hate speech, fake news. In the changed situation and especially when otherwise the peace has been restored as the government has repeatedly claimed and the mass threat has declined, return to one phase poll deserves serious consideration. This will also hugely reduce the poll expenditure.