Hot Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Congress Attacks BJP's One Nation Poll Plan with a Two-Thirds Majority

Congress Attacks BJP's One Nation Poll Plan with a Two-Thirds Majority

New Delhi: As part of the ruling BJP's 'one nation, one election' campaign, the Lok Sabha held a division vote on Tuesday to present two measures to change the Constitution and allow for simultaneous federal and state elections.

According to the rulebook, the bills were approved by a simple majority with 269 MPs voting in favor and 198 against. Critics of the 'one nation, one election' law, however, pointed out the margin, arguing that it revealed the government's lack of support for the proposals, even at this point.

Out of the 461 votes, a two-thirds majority (i.e., 307) was required; however, the administration only received 269 votes, while the opposition received 198. The 'One Nation, One Election' plan was not supported by two-thirds of people. Manickam, a Congress MP.

Shashi Tharoor, a colleague of Mr. Tagore, also brought attention to the apparent disparity in statistics.

"Undoubtedly the government has larger numbers on its side... but to pass it (bills to amend the Constitution) you need a 2/3 majority that they very clearly don't have," he told reporters following a brief recess in the House "It is obvious (then) that they should not persist too long with this..."

The regulations state that in order for these constitutional reforms to pass the Lok Sabha, two-thirds of the MPs who are present and voting must approve them. Using today as an example, the Congress noted that 461 members participated in the voting to present the bill for a constitutional amendment.

Only 269 of those 461 voted in favor of the bill, which would have required 307 of them to do so. As a result, the Congress declared, "This bill does not have support... many parties have spoken against it."

Despite their immaturity, there is some truth in the Congress's exultations.

Numbers Game: "One Nation, One Election"
As of right now, the opposition party, the Congress-led INDIA, has 234 MPs, while the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance has 293. As the Congress leaders stated, the NDA's score is insufficient, even at full strength, to pass legislation amending the Constitution.

Therefore, the BJP will require the backing of non-aligned parties, but the only options are the Akali Dal with one MP and the YSR Congress with four. Both have already committed to helping.

That means that in order to pass the Lok Sabha with his "one nation, one election" vision, Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs at least nine more votes, which is not impossible to acquire for the BJP.

For the time being, the bill will probably be referred to a joint committee, which will be formed according to the number of members of each party in the Lok Sabha. The BJP will therefore have the most members and serve as the committee's leader.

Congress and Opposition Slam ONOP
Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal presented the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill to the Lok Sabha this afternoon. The opposition launched vicious attacks after the implementation.

Leading the charge were Manish Tewari of the Congress, Dharmendra Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, Kalyan Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress, and TR Baalu of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam of Tamil Nadu.

Opposition was also expressed by the Nationalist Congress Party group, led by Sharad Pawar, the Shiv Sena party of former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, and other minor parties, such as the Indian Union Muslim League and the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

Critics of the 'One Nation, One Poll', or ONOP Bill, all agreed that the plan for simultaneous elections violates the fundamental framework of the Constitution and ought to be revoked right away. Meanwhile, Mr. Yadav cautioned the House that "this is the path to dictatorship."

Mamata Banerjee, the chief minister of Bengal and the leader of the Trinamool party, had earlier denounced the "anti-federal" effort as "an authoritarian imposition designed to undermine India's democracy and federal structure" and described it as "a design to subvert the basic structure of the Constitution."




Post a Comment

0 Comments