“The latest statement by Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy, made during a condolence meeting for the late CPM leader Sitaram Yechury, who passed away last week, has sparked significant controversy., particularly due to his opposition to the ‘One Nation, One Poll’ concept proposed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.
Reddy, whose political history starkly contrasts with Congress ideology, now finds himself aligned with a party that, for decades, has symbolized dynastic politics and carried a problematic legacy.
His transformation from a fierce critic of Congress to becoming its youngest Chief Minister is an irony that many political observers cannot ignore.”
Reddy’s stance on the “One Nation, One Poll” initiative raises eyebrows, especially for those familiar with India’s electoral history. What is more intriguing is his apparent ignorance or deliberate evasion of the fact that India did, indeed, start with simultaneous state and parliamentary elections—commonly known as general elections—when the country first embraced democracy.
The system of holding state and national elections together was the norm until it was derailed, primarily by the actions of Congress’s very own Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India.
Nehru’s tenure saw India grappling with multiple challenges, but some of his decisions had long-term impacts, especially on the electoral landscape.
The simultaneous elections were disrupted in Nehru’s time, marking the beginning of a political journey that would later lead to the fractured election cycles we have today.
Revanth Reddy’s lack of acknowledgment of this historical fact is puzzling. Nehru, whose legacy is often seen as a mix of idealism and tragic missteps, began the practice of shifting electoral timelines for political expediency.
This shift became even more pronounced during the reign of his daughter, Indira Gandhi, whose political decisions further destabilized the synchronous election system.
Indira Gandhi was notorious for dismissing state governments at will, particularly those that did not align with her political agenda. The infamous Emergency era (1975-77) saw a direct assault on democracy when she altered the election schedule and suspended civil liberties. It was during this period that the culture of staggering elections for political gain took deep roots, resulting in the continuous decoupling of state and national elections that India still grapples with today.
Revanth Reddy’s political journey is another area of intrigue. Starting from the grassroots level as a member of the ABVP (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad), a right-wing student organization, he carved his political career in a party that was fundamentally opposed to the Congress ideology. His switch to Congress, particularly in the lead-up to the 2024 elections, can be seen as a pragmatic move aimed at career advancement rather than a genuine ideological shift. This political maneuvering is not new in Indian politics, but for someone like Reddy, who once vocally opposed Congress’s legacy, the irony is glaring.
His abrupt switch from an ideology that sought to expose Congress’s dynastic politics to one that embraces it wholeheartedly reflects a certain opportunism that does not go unnoticed.
Revanth Reddy’s opposition to the concept of “One Nation, One Poll” seems hypocritical at best. If anything, the simultaneous polls system harkens back to an era before Congress meddling disintegrated the process. Holding state and parliamentary elections together streamlines governance, reduces administrative costs, and ensures continuity in leadership, both at the national and state levels.
What is there to oppose, unless one is thinking purely from a political vantage, considering the fact that staggered elections give political parties multiple opportunities to test the waters, recalibrate strategies, and, in Congress’s case, play regional cards to regain lost ground?
Reddy’s newfound stance seems more like a bid to position himself as a central opposition figure against Narendra Modi, aligning with the Congress’s nationwide strategy of opposing almost every policy of the central government. His opposition lacks substance and appears more as a rhetorical attempt to build political capital among those who still hold Nehru and the Congress legacy in high regard. However, this position becomes untenable when scrutinized through the lens of historical facts.
It is important to revisit Nehru’s legacy, especially since Revanth Reddy now stands as a vocal advocate for Congress’s ideology. While Nehru was a towering figure who led India through its nascent years post-independence, his leadership was far from flawless. His handling of critical national issues—like the dismissal of the democratically elected Communist government in Kerala, the mismanagement of the Kashmir issue, and the disastrous handling of the 1962 Sino-Indian war—were clear indicators of his fallibility.
One of the most contentious decisions Nehru made was taking the Kashmir issue to the United Nations, at a time when India was on the verge of reclaiming almost all of Jammu and Kashmir militarily. This internationalization of a domestic issue has had far-reaching consequences, leading to decades of unrest and conflict in the region. Similarly, Nehru’s reluctance to firmly counter China in the 1962 war resulted in India losing thousands of square kilometers of land in what is now the Aksai Chin region. His casual dismissal of this loss by remarking that “not a blade of grass grows” in those areas reflects a detachment from the strategic importance of territorial integrity.
Another dark chapter in Nehru’s political legacy is his tampering with the Indian Constitution, particularly through the incorporation of Articles 370 and 35A, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. This was done despite opposition from key figures like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution. The decision was more about placating the Abdullah family and ensuring political control in the region than serving national interest.
Given these historical facts, Revanth Reddy’s critique of the “One Nation, One Poll” concept seems misguided. His failure to acknowledge the disruptive role that Congress, particularly under Nehru and Indira Gandhi, played in derailing India’s electoral system reflects either a lack of understanding or a willful ignorance of history. Moreover, his stance appears to be driven more by political expediency than a genuine concern for democratic principles.
In the end, Reddy’s opposition to simultaneous polls seems to be another example of the Congress party’s broader strategy of opposing every initiative of the Modi government, regardless of merit. Instead of taking a principled stand rooted in historical understanding, Reddy has chosen the path of political opportunism, aligning himself with a party that once stood for everything he claimed to oppose.
Thus far, Revanth Reddy’s political journey, from a grassroots ABVP activist to the youngest Congress Chief Minister, is a study in contradictions. His opposition to “One Nation, One Poll” is emblematic of the ideological confusion that defines his current political stance. History has shown that Congress was instrumental in dismantling the synchronous election system that once provided stability to Indian democracy, and Reddy’s selective amnesia about this fact only highlights the opportunistic nature of his politics.
