The editorial “Mr Quraishi’s wisdom” (June 2) hit the nail right on the head. Mr Quraishi’s recommendation on having a realistic ceiling on electoral expenses, and then plugging all the loopholes is much easier said than done. Why have controls when controls don’t work? Consider the facts. In the recent Tamil Nadu elections for 234 Assembly seats, there were 2,324 contesting candidates, in fact 10 on average per seat. Where does the country have the resources to audit the expenses for all these candidates? And how much time is that going to take? And at the end of this exercise, in a country where invoices and challans can be forged at will, what is the accuracy of the audit? I thought readers of your paper had wholeheartedly booted out state controls and the licence-raj mindset.
Many may argue that without a limit on electoral expenses, the rich man stands to gain. I have not seen any data on this in India, but I would argue that that is not entirely true. No one will believe that in these elections, the DMK in any shape or form spent less than the AIADMK. If at all, they would have spent substantially more. The simplest way to address election funding is to make it open, transparent and without controls.
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, on email
Readers should write to:
The Editor, Business Standard,
Nehru House,
4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002,
Fax: (011) 23720201;
letters@bsmail.in