Some public displays are welcome

Sir — No defecation in public, and toilets in every house by 2012 — these cannot be more than a dream. After three months of motorcycling on Indian roads, typically with early morning starts, I have been far too close to untold public displays of defecation. This seems to be a part of Indian culture. The public loo is also a place for social gatherings. Judging by the recent outcry over public displays of affection and none over urinating or defecating in public, things seem back to front. It is ludicrous that Indians find a couple necking — a PDA — more offensive than a PDD!

Yours faithfully,
Ian Wallis, Canberra, Australia

Voting right

Sir — Any right includes the right not to use the right. My right to marry includes my right to remain a bachelor lifelong. Or, archaic Victorian laws notwithstanding, my right to live includes my right to decide not to live. Our members of parliament are paid taxpayers’ money to attend parliament, but prefer to play truant. And on the few occasions that they do, they only come up with bizarre ideas (“Vote or go to prison”, May 9). If a large section of Indians do not vote, the sole possible reason is that they do not get people worth voting for. To be forced to select from a gallery of thugs, human traffickers, petty criminals and land mafia is to ask citizens to be complicit in the candidates’ crimes.

Yours faithfully,
Tapan Pal, Batanagar

Sir — The idea of coercing people to vote, given the Indian electoral scenario, is at best laughable, and at worst, yet another example of muscle-wielding by the law-makers. While a high voter turnout is definitely a better indicator of what kind of government the people desire than a poor turnout, it makes no sense if the voter cannot exercise a negative vote. The Indian electoral system does not give this choice — in the form of the option, ‘none of the above’, in ballot papers and electronic voting machines — to the voters. Asked to choose from a religious fundamentalist party, an opportunist Left, a party intent on propagating dynastic rule, and a host of independents backed by one or other of these, the voter may decide that all of them are worthless. Then there is booth capturing, violence, threats by parties, and rigging, which make a mockery of the title, “world’s largest democracy”. Making comparisons with Peru, Australia and Germany are pointless: how many non-voters are sent to prison there? The fact that India has shown a low voter turnout is itself sufficient electoral indictment of India’s political parties. It is, therefore, time that Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, is clarified publicly. Provisions should also be made to enable voters to record negative votes in EVMs and ballot papers.

Yours faithfully,
Amit Banerjee, Calcutta

Sir — The mention of Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 — under which a citizen can decide not to record his vote, or record a negative vote (in case he doesn’t find a worthy candidate) — begs a few clarifications. First, do the ballot papers and EVMs have provision for recording a negative vote? For I do not recollect having seen any in the last few polls. The Election Commission should ensure that every ballot paper and EVM has something like ‘none of the above’ as an option. The second question is, if the majority of votes is cast in favour of ‘none of the above’ (that is, the majority vote is negative), what happens next? In the event of all the candidates being rejected by the majority of the electorate, do the Rules suggest a procedure to be followed? Would there be a repoll with a new set of candidates? If so, how many times?

Yours faithfully,
Rupnarayan Bose, Calcutta