Prime Minister Narendra Modi has, more than once, advocated a return to the system that existed till 1967 which allowed Lok Sabha and state elections to be held simultaneously. Under the present system, the work of governance and public policymaking is indeed ‘interrupted’ during and leading up to each poll. Every political leader -- including the prime minister, chief ministers, ministers, members of Parliament , and members of legislative assemblies -- becomes engaged in campaigning whether it be a central or state election. As politicians, this is indeed their job. However, rather paradoxically, this comes at the cost of governance.Political theorist Harold Laski, in Parliamentary Government in England, stated that the main purpose of holding elections for the British House of Commons is that voters elect a party that can form a government because it has a majority support, and also an ‘Opposition’ which can hold government-in-office accountable. In other words, voters elect a government for it to devote its full time and energy to the tasks of governance in a democracy.But how can a party/parties in government devote their uninterrupted attention to the basic tasks of governance if its leaders are near-perpetually engaged in holding public meetings for prospective voters? The system of frequent and separate elections for Parliament and the state assemblies does not exist in other established federal democracies such as the US, Canada or Australia.The US has a federal presidential democracy where every four years presidential elections are held, and the governors of the states can devote their full attention to the tasks of governance. The US President does not campaign for state assembly elections. This is left to the governors, the chief executives of states, to manage.It was only in 1971-72 that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi decided to ‘de-link’ the Lok Sabha elections from state assemblies. Simultaneous elections were held in 1952, 1957 and 1967, and the Election Commission saw to it that these ‘simultaneous’ elections were held quite efficiently. There was no popular demand for the separation of Lok Sabha and state assembly elections that saw the ‘rupture’. After winning the 1971 Lok Sabha election, Indira Gandhi announced separate elections for the state assemblies in 1972. Her argument was that parliamentary elections are contested on ‘national’ issues and state polls on ‘local’ ones. Holding them together, to her mind, would blur that distinction apparently pushing ‘national issues’ into the background as voters cast their ballots on ‘local’ issues.Also, the Constitution empowers the central government to ‘dissolve’ the state assembly and declare President’s rule in case of any perceived breakdown of the constitutional system in a state. How can there be a fixed election calendar, went the argument, if the state assembly can be ‘dismissed’ without completing its full term for which it has been elected? Which brings one to the necessity of creating a national consensus on the matter of simultaneous elections by involving all stakeholders, including every regional and sub-regional political party and group. On the basis of such a ‘dialogue’ initiated by the Prime Minister, a pre-1972 electoral situation can be restored that would be beneficial and practical for all. The task for Prime Minister Modi is to build such a consensus and appropriately amend the provisions of theConstitution. Only after this exercise can his very worthy agenda of restoring ‘simultaneous’ elections be implemented. Otherwise, all it will remain is wishful thinking and a chapter in a civics textbook.( The writer is former dean, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)