sir-answer-to-rahul-s-question-that-he-opposes-in-bihar

Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Thursday sought to suggest that there was enormous “voter fraud” taking place in the country and the elections, according to him, were “stolen”. He gave a powerpoint presentation about, what he alleged, “voter fraud” in one of the Assembly segments, Mahadevapura, falling under the Bangalore Central Lok Sabha constituency. The constituency was carved out during the 2008 delimitation. The Bharatiya Janata Party has won this constituency consecutively since then, with its MP PC Mohan returning to Parliament every time since 2009.

 

Gandhi and the Congress party appeared to choose the Parliamentary constituency as a “case study”, since the BJP’s repeated victories from here appear to defy its (Congress’) logic. The demographics of the constituency, ideally do not favour the BJP. More than half of its voters belong to the Tamil, the minority community, Muslims and the Christian community. Of around 19.31 lakh votes, about 5.5 lakhs are Tamils, 4.5 lakh Muslims and about 2 lakh Christians. The Congress apparently does not expect members of these communities to vote for the BJP.

 

Despite such demographics, the BJP has never lost this constituency since it was carved out in 2008. However, this time the margin of victory was relatively less at 32,707 votes. In fact, it has been progressively coming down with each election.

 

In Karnataka, every Parliamentary constituency consists of eight Assembly segments. The number of Assembly segments in a Parliamentary constituency is different in different states. Of the eight Assembly segments, in the 2023 elections, while the Congress won five, the BJP won three Assembly segments falling in the Parliamentary constituency.

 

The Congress, according to Rahul, was counting on about 16 seats in Karnataka, but won only nine. It lost seven seats against its expectations, which he said were based on surveys. Bangalore Central was also among the constituencies Congress thought it was winning. There was a reason for that. One, the party was holding five of the eight Assembly segments, there was the Congress government in the state and the demographics, it thought, were in its favour.

 

However, in the Parliamentary elections, again the Congress led from five and the BJP led from three seats. But it was not exactly the same seats they had led from in the Assembly elections. The two parties swapped two seats in the Lok Sabha elections.

 

Gandhi did not choose any of these, but only the Mahadevapura, where the BJP took an unusually astronomical lead of 1,14,046 votes that enabled its candidate PC Mohan to retain the constituency for the fourth consecutive term. If the Mahadevapura lead was not so substantial, Mohan might well have lost. The lead in this segment, according to Rahul, was quite unusual.

 

That way Rahul’s suspicions have a reason. He claims that after thorough and extensive study, the party found that there were 1,00,250 “bogus” votes for which he provided “evidence” as well. This included a bulk number of voters with the same address, duplicate voters and first-time voters. Since the BJP got a substantial lead from this Assembly segment, he believes that the party managed to get all the bogus votes cast in its favour.

 

Also read: Set your house in order; suspend hostilities for a while

 

Till this argument Rahul sounds fair. The BJP’s cadres and supporters may have got fake and bogus votes prepared. This is a normal practice, although illegal and unacceptable. Active and prospective candidates of all political parties do get votes prepared. The easiest thing in India to do is to get a vote prepared because the procedure is not difficult. The votes are prepared by the local administration.

 

While the voter cards are no doubt issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI), the votes are prepared and made by the local administration, which is under the direct control of the local deputy commissioner, who is also the ex-officio returning officer. Obviously, the local administration is under the complete control of the state government. Deputy commissioners are the chosen ones of the state government, the chief minister in particular.

 

The ECI does not directly control the preparation of votes. The ECI does not have any dedicated staff. The electoral staff is under the direct control only during election time when the election code of conduct comes into effect.

 

Since May 2023, Karnataka has Congress government. The local administration is, as already mentioned, under the direct control of the state government. If fraudulent names were added to the electoral rolls, the onus lies on the local administration and by extension on the local government. The ECI cannot be held accountable for the preparation of bogus votes. It is answerable only after the matter is brought to its notice. Blaming the ECI for the preparation of fraudulent voter lists is like blaming the Director General of Police of a state for the fault of an SHO. While the SHO is still directly under the control of the DGP, the ECI has no such direct authority over the people performing election-related duties like preparation of voter lists.

 

While Rahul has a genuine and legitimate complaint and suspicion about the unusually high number of suspect voters, the blame in this case does not lie on the ECI. The ECI may be guilty of some other errors of omissions and commissions, but in this case it cannot be blamed, as preparation of the votes is the job of local/ grassroots level officials who are not under the control of the ECI, but the local government.

 

It is the party in power in the state, than the Centre, which exercises control and authority over the preparation of votes. Rahul will also need to look within as to whether there has been any negligence on part of the state government, which allowed the “bogus” votes to be made. Technically it is deemed to be done by the ECI, but actually it is done by the local officials under the direct command and control of the local government.

 

It is good that Rahul pointed out errors. These may not be of such “magnitude” as Rahul sought to project. The ECI must order revision of the electoral rolls across the country. But, again, that is not acceptable to the Opposition, particularly the Congress. The complaint Rahul has is the inclusion of bogus voters. That is precisely the purpose of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar, which Rahul is opposing. On this he will need to clarify his position. He cannot object to the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar and complain about the same thing in Karnataka. The ECI has been maintaining that the purpose of the SIR is to identify bogus and duplicate voters, which, Rahul revealed, is the problem in Karnataka and needs to be addressed.

 

Paradoxically the answer to Rahul’s questions and suspicion lies in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), that he is so stringently opposed to in Bihar.