ECI’s delimitation endeavour

Meenakshi Mishra

In a remarkable display of commitment to democratic principles, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has taken on the daunting task of ensuring a multi-ethnic, politically, and socially diverse society in Assam through the delimitation process. Employing consensus, consultation, and active participation, the Commission has endeavoured to bring various stakeholders with conflicting viewpoints and interests to the same table, fostering an inclusive, participative, and representative approach towards redefining electoral boundaries. During the public hearing, CEC Rajiv Kumar, who has been seen as a consensus builder on critical matters, appreciated the ability of the people of Assam to share their conflicting viewpoints on an issue in a congenial manner. This exercise will redefine the boundaries of the Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies in the state after a gap of nearly 40 years; the last was in 1976. Neither the delimitation exercise started in 2002 nor the NRC exercise under direct control of the Supreme Court could see the light of day.

Consensus Building: An Art in a State with Diverse Political Viewpoints

Assam has a rich and diverse culture, a multi-ethnic society, and vast geographical diversity. Assam’s society is a reflection of its diverse history and cultural influences. The region is inhabited by numerous indigenous communities like Bodo, Karbi, Mishimi, and others, each with its own distinct customs, practises, and beliefs that contribute to the state’s social fabric. Bodoland, an autonomous region within Assam, holds significant cultural and political importance for the Bodo community.

CEC Rajiv Kumar, along with ECs Anup Chandra Pandey and Arun Goel, recently concluded three days of public hearings in Guwahati from July 19th to July 21st on ECI’s draft delimitation proposal for Assam. The participation of over 6,000 people and the hearing of over 1200 representations in person during the three days of public hearings in Guwahati is a testament to the trust the people have placed in the constitutional body. Through public hearings, consultations, and open discussions, the Commission enabled stakeholders to voice their concerns, propose solutions, and engage in constructive dialogue. An ECI statement quoting CEC said, “The ability of different groups to present their conflicting claims on various issues, with detailed reasons for their point of view, in a respectful and friendly manner, without creating confrontations or hostility, is conducive to constructive dialogue and open-mindedness, allowing for a deeper understanding of diverse perspectives”.

Conflicting viewpoints by different groups

Convening a three-day-long series of public hearings, the Election Commission of India received a staggering 1200+ representations from a wide array of groups, each presenting their unique perspectives on multiple issues related to the delimitation process. These representations came from political parties, ethnic organisations, social and cultural groups, and individual citizens. During the public hearings on the draft delimitation proposal, various groups shared conflicting views on a particular matter. There were certain demands by the groups that were beyond the scope of the delimitation exercise. Such as:

n Highlighting the historical, cultural, political, and ethnic significance, there were many conflicting representations for the change of nomenclature for ACs. For eg:

n Kendriya Koch Rajbangshi Lok Sanskriti Samittee sought a change of nomenclature for ‘Bhawanipur AC’ to be ‘Barnagar, while Chakchaka Block Congress Committee wanted it to be ‘Sorbhog’.

n Similarly, one of the groups, namely Ananda Das and 24 others, wanted the name of Dimoria AC to be changed to Pragjyotishpur, while another group opposed it.

n One of the representatives, a social worker, wanted Ratabari AC to be renamed Ramakrishnanagar, while the Greater Dullabcherra Progressive Citizens Forum wanted it to be Dullabcherra.

n In Barpeta district, one of the groups requested to rename Mandia AC as ‘Jania’ AC, while another group wanted it to be renamed ‘Kalgachia’ AC.

n The United Karbi Citizen Council and Amri Karbi National Council wanted Dimoria LAC to be reserved for ST, while Assam Plain Karbi Adarbar and Dimoria District Tribal Sangha Committee wanted the LAC to be de-reserved.

n All Assam Bengali Youth-Students’ Federation, Silapathar, and Silasuti Gaon Panchayat localities want the Inclusion of GPs Silasuti and Muktiar in the 79-Sissiborgaon LAC, while the United Bodo Peoples’ Organisation, Silapathar, Bodo Sahitya Sabha, Silabali village under Silasuti Gaon Panchayat locality, and many other representations opposed it.

n There were certain demands by Muktiar Gaon Panchayat localities that would lead to the breaking of Gramme Panchayats as many sets of villages wanted to shift to different ACs.

n President, Gobardhana Primary Bodo Sahitya Sobha, and All Koch Rajbongshi Students’ Union welcomed the draft delimitation proposal of Assam retaining the ‘Gobardhana’ LAC under Baksa District of BTR, while Khwla Bijni Anchalik Committee ABSU and others want to change the nomenclature of 41-Gobardhana LAC to 41-Manas LALAC, while some representations wanted certain villages, namely Angulia, Charna, Rajghat, etc. under Silbari VCDC, to be included in the Bajali AC instead of Gobardhana AC.

n While the Dima Hasao Delimitation Demand Committee (DHDDC) requested the creation of two ACs in the district, the All Apex Bodies Coordination Committee requested increasing the number of seats in the AC by at least 3. Similarly, the Dima Hasao District Congress Committee requested to retain the name of the proposed Dima Hasao (ST) as the existing Haflong (ST) AC and to increase one more AC and a PC in Dima Hasao.

Despite the inevitable challenges posed by handling such a diverse influx of opinions, the Commission demonstrated unwavering commitment and patience, allowing every voice to be heard. By fostering an environment of consultation, consensus, and participation, the Election Commission also helped build a sense of ownership and responsibility amongst the stakeholders towards the democratic process. By bringing together diverse groups and opinions, the Commission strengthens the democratic fabric of the nation and reinforces the belief that, with consultation and consensus, a common ground can be found.

Whether it was consultation with political parties on remote voting for domestic migrants, its decision on freebies issues within the statutory limitations, or promoting transparency in political financing and accounting, the Commission has displayed that it is not merely an election administrative body but a facilitator of inclusive decision-making. Even after the disqualification of a prominent Member of Parliament, the Commission demonstrated a cautious and judicious approach, affording the MP the opportunity to explore all due legal remedies.

Conclusion

The diversity of Assam’s social fabric and conflicting demands and opinions have posed a significant challenge for the Commission. But through adept handling of the situation through constructive dialogue and healthy debates, the Commission has displayed its sincerity to strike a balance that respects the essence of democracy while paving the way for meaningful reforms.

The exemplary efforts in embracing diversity and consultation stand as a testament to the strength and vitality of India’s democratic foundations. By fostering an environment where conflicting viewpoints and interests converge, the ECI is setting a precedent for future electoral reforms in the country.