Bihar and Sri Lanka

Winston Churchill was never a great admirer of Indians or of the region generally. When the British left the sub-continent he predicted that the natives would soon be at each other's throats and the whole place would fall apart. The opposite has happened. Indeed, one wonders what the old imperialist would have said about practically the entire sub-continent having successfully adopted something the British thought was peculiarly their own""the Westminster model of government. Apart from other things, it requires free and fair elections, something the British themselves began to see only after the electoral reforms of 1832 and 1867. Before that, there wasn't much difference between Bihar and, say, Old Sarum, from where the Pitt family traditionally stood. But most countries of South Asia have seen elections that used to be, by and large, fair and free from the very start. If malpractice crept in, it was in the last quarter century or so when competition for political office became so fierce that there was first booth-capturing and voter intimidation, and then the nomination of criminals by parties, with predictable consequences. Today it is widely believed that the situation is only getting worse.

So it comes as a pleasant surprise that there has been practically no violence in the worst offending state of all""Bihar. In the elections that concluded yesterday, only two people died, one of them a victim of mistaken identity. In contrast, in the last round of the Assembly elections in February this year, 22 people died. Since 1977, 533 people have died in election violence. 1990 was the worst year of all, when 86 people died. Not just this. Fear has stalked Indian voters, and nowhere has this been greater than in Bihar. But not this time, because there has been virtually no report on booth capturing or voter intimidation. The credit for all this goes to a retired official of the Election Commission, K J Rao, who was appointed an advisor because for him free and fair elections are what it is all about. As he had the full backing of the Election Commission, which has been flexing its powers, he was able to succeed.

That said, it is a matter of concern that it takes so long to conduct elections and then to announce the results. In contrast, there is Sri Lanka, which recently completed its election in a day, with the results known 24 hours after that. Also, the turnout was a magnificent 75 per cent. It will be argued that Bihar has more voters, but Sri Lanka has been torn by civil war for the best part of two decades. Nor would it be right to argue that political competition there is less. It is as fierce as it is here. So in the end, as the current experience in Bihar shows, it all boils down to governance. If the local administration is allowed to do its job without let or hindrance from the political masters""as seems to have been the case in Bihar this time""the desired results follow. Perhaps the one lesson that might be worth debating and learning is whether""Buta Singh notwithstanding""it is better to impose President's rule between the time the House is dissolved and elections are completed. The even better long-term solution would be to restore governance to a level where it does not take heroism from the Election Commission and a hopelessly extended process to ensure free and fair elections.