In his address to the nation on the eve of Republic Day, the president of India, K.R. Narayanan, strongly criticized the Constitution review committee's suggestion regarding the introduction of indirect elections from the panchayat level to the Lok Sabha. Earlier, the committee had said that we should think seriously about this idea in the present context and evaluate its applicability in our electoral system. Unfortunately, the president reacted strongly to such a suggestion and observed that the adoption of such a system would bring India closer to the dictatorial regime of Ayub Khan. He reiterated that the framers of the Constitution had been wise in rejecting the system of indirect elections and restricted franchise, introduced by the British in the Government of India Act of 1935. He also warned that the revival of such a method could disrupt the fabric of our democracy. The Government of India Act of 1935 had introduced a system of restricted franchise by which only 14 per cent of the population had gained the right to vote. Such limited franchise had formed the basis of the formation of the constituent assembly. However, the founders refused to accept the existence of such a limited franchise as they had wanted to create a democratic system in which the ultimate authority rests in the people. The masses know best There had been dissidents in the constituent assembly who had vehemently opposed the introduction of universal suffrage. They felt that universal education should precede the right to vote and were apprehensive about the misuse of this right by politicians. The members of the constituent assembly had, however, been unconvinced by such an argument and had expressed their faith in the common sense and intelligence of the masses. According to critics and political observers, the folly of introducing adult franchise has been proved in many ways. First, the low turn-out in previous elections has been disappointing. Low turnouts reflect a disillusionment with the democratic system as well as low levels of literacy. Second, it was also discovered that an alarming number of voters had been unable to exercise this right properly. In the first general election in 1952, 50 per cent of the voters had cast their votes and as many as 16,35,000 ballot-papers had been invalidated. Even now, a large number of voters leave their ballot-papers on the floor instead of dropping them into the box. Third, factors like religion, caste, language and provincialism also contribute to electoral behaviour. The contest between two candidates can turn into one between rival caste or language groups. While much of this criticism is justified, there is another side to the issue. If education is to be the basis of such a franchise, then the term needs a clearer connotation. No standard of formal education can be a guide to the exercise of this right. Educating the voter A person who is educated but is politically immature may allow someone else to influence his choice while an illiterate voter with a strong political understanding and common sense may exercise his franchise judiciously. Further, it is the moral duty of the government to ensure the proper spread of education. In fact, the Indian electorate has more often than not, exercised this voting right with caution. Sometimes, they have preferred the personality of a leader to his party. At other times, they have rejected a candidate in protest against the policies of his party. For example, as a protest against the misrule of the Congress during the Emergency, the masses had ousted the then prime minister, Indira Gandhi, and transferred power to the Janata Party. On the whole, the voters have cast their votes cautiously and with definite purpose. They have exhibited great enthusiasm during the elections and have come out to vote in large numbers. However, the defects of the system have outweighed its merits. Cunning politicians have manipulated the voters and used them to promote their selfish ends. The idea of granting universal adult franchise may not have been as successful as the framers of the Constitution would have liked it to be. Getting rid of this system is not a solution though. The Constitution review committee can do its bit in re-evaluating the existing system and can suggest suitable changes.