Decoding India's 'One Nation, One Election' plan

India, the world's largest democracy, is almost always in election mode.

With 28 states, eight union territories and nearly a billion eligible voters, polls are a constant feature of the nation's political landscape.

For years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has championed the idea of "One Nation, One Election" - a proposal to hold state and federal elections simultaneously every five years.

On Tuesday, the Indian law minister introduced a bill to implement this system in the parliament sparking a debate over power dynamics.

Supporters argue this approach would slash campaign costs, ease the strain on administrative resources and streamline governance.

Former President Ram Nath Kovind, who led a nine-member committee that recommended holding elections at the same time last year, called it a "game changer", citing economists who say it could boost India's GDP by up to 1.5%.

Critics, however, warn it could erode India's federal structure, concentrating power in the center and weakening states' autonomy.

India's democracy operates on multiple levels, each with its own election cycle.

There are general elections to choose parliament members, state elections to pick legislators, while rural and urban councils hold separate votes for local governance. By-elections fill vacancies caused by resignation, death or disqualification of representatives.

These elections happen every five years, but at different times. The government now wants to sync them.

In March, a panel led by Kovind proposed holding state and general elections together in its extensive 18,626-page report. It also recommended local body elections within 100 days.

The committee suggested that if a government loses an election, fresh polls would be held, but its tenure would last only until the next synchronised election.

While this may sound intense, simultaneous polls aren't new to India. They were the norm from the first election in 1951 until 1967, when political upheavals and early dissolutions of state assemblies led to staggered polls.

Efforts to revive the system have been debated for decades, with proposals from the Election Commission in 1983, the Law Commission in 1999 and Niti Aayog, a government think-tank, in 2017.

The biggest argument for holding simultaneous elections is cutting election costs.

According to the Delhi-based non-profit Centre for Media Studies, India spent more than 600bn rupees ($7.07bn; £5.54bn) on 2019 general elections, making it the world's most expensive at the time.

However, critics argue that the same goal - reducing costs - could backfire.

With 900 million eligible voters, ensuring enough electronic voting machines, security forces and election officials would require extensive planning and resources.

According to a 2015 parliamentary committee report by the law and justice Department, India already spends 45bn rupees on general and state elections.

The report mentioned if simultaneous elections were held then a total 92.84bn rupees would be needed to procure new voting and voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) machines, which dispenses a slip of paper with the symbol of the party the voter selected. These machines would also need to be replaced every 15 years.

Former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi has raised concerns about the high costs. He said they should have been addressed in the Kovind committee report, especially since reducing election expenses was a key reason behind the proposal.

Implementing simultaneous elections requires making formal changes or revisions to specific provisions (or articles) of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the country. Some of these changes would need ratification by at least half of India's 28 state assemblies.

While the BJP-led alliance has a simple majority in parliament, it lacks the two-thirds majority needed for such amendments.

The Kovind committee studied models from countries like South Africa, Sweden and Indonesia, suggesting their best practices for India.

In September, the cabinet approved the proposal to hold simultaneous elections and backed two bills pushing for the system on Thursday.

Federal Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal has introduced the bills in the parliament.

One bill proposes a constitutional amendment to enable joint federal and state elections, while another aims to align assembly polls in Delhi, Puducherry and Jammu & Kashmir with the general election schedule.

The government has said it is open to referring the bills to a parliamentary committee and consult political parties to build consensus.

The Kovind committee contacted all Indian parties for feedback, with 47 responding - 32 supported simultaneous elections, while 15 opposed them.

Most supporters were BJP allies or friendly parties, citing time, cost and resource savings.

The BJP argued that the model code of conduct cost India "800 days of governance" in the past five years by delaying welfare schemes.

Prime Minister Modi has supported simultaneous elections.

"Frequent elections are obstructing the nation's advancement," he said in August. "With elections occurring every three to six months, every scheme is linked to polls."

Opposition parties, led by the Congress, have called simultaneous polls "undemocratic" and argued that they undermine the country's parliamentary system of government. They say such a setup will give an unfair advantage to national parties over regional ones.

The parties also recommended enhancing transparency in the funding process as a better solution to addressing concerns about election costs.

Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.