ECI’s Silence And Bias Are Devastating To Democracy

The creation of the Anantnag-Rajouri constituency, connected by the fair-weather Mughal Road, was a botched job because it glossed over the concerns raised by several stakeholders about the impracticality of wedding two geographically and culturally incongruous regions that are disconnected for practically five months. The Delimitation Commission discarded the reservations expressed by political parties and other stakeholders. It not only clubbed Anantnag with Rajouri-Poonch but also sliced out the Shopian district (that connects the two sides) and added it to the Srinagar constituency. The shoddy exercise made the hurriedly drawn Radcliffe line look respectable and a thoughtful cartographic experiment. In short, the existence of this constituency is a blunder and will continue to be.

The BJP, however, commended the Delimitation Commission for this classic case of gerrymandering. Today, the same party has taken the lead in compelling the Election Commission to defer the elections in this constituency, just a week before the polls, ironically, on grounds of erratic connectivity. But as Friedrich Nietzche wrote, “Blessed are forgetful, for they get the better even of their blunders,” the BJP has employed the narrative of connectivity to both support the decision to carve this constituency and cry about the impracticality of election campaigning to serve their petty ambition of give advantage to their proxies.

“The Anantnag-Rajouri constituency does not only symbolise how the ruling party – the BJP- discards memory at the threshold of convenience but also how autonomous institutions, expected to act responsibly, pragmatically, and without bias, turn into caged parrots to suit those in power.”

The Anantnag-Rajouri constituency does not only symbolise how the ruling party – the BJP- discards memory at the threshold of convenience but also how autonomous institutions, expected to act responsibly, pragmatically, and without bias, turn into caged parrots to suit those in power.

But that appears to be the flavour of the season – from Anantnag to Surat, from Indore to Tripura – where serious questions about the transparency of the election process and accountability of the Election Commission have been raised.

The polling percentages in the first (April 19) and second phases (April 26) of the elections across the country were finally released by the Election Commission of India (ECI) on April 30, mysteriously recording a jump of 6% from the approximate figures officially shared on the polling days. On April 19 and 26, at 7 PM, well past the polling time, the ECI declared the estimated polling at 60% and 60.96%. This is now recorded at 66.14% and 66.71%.

The slight deviation from the estimated polling figures doled out on the day of the polling is commonplace and results from the lack of accurate information and collation of full data. The exact polling percentage, however, is put in the public domain the day following the polling. A massive spike, after 10 days of polling, thus raises eyebrows.

This appears even more fishy because this is the first time that the voter turnout data has been uploaded in percentages in defiance of the principle of transparency and accuracy. Voter turnout data was earlier given in numbers.

If Surat and Indore are mired in the controversy of en masse withdrawals of candidates at the last hour giving BJP a clear edge, Tripura is bogged by the mystery of polling crossing 100 percent in some polling stations.

The explanation provided by the Election officials to the complaints of electoral malpractices in Tripura – that the election officials used their Election Duty Certificate (EDC) to poll in these booths – does not add up. Congress MLA, Sandeep Roy Burman, while dissecting the data on the booth-wise polling has raised valid questions.

He quotes instances of one polling station where 545 voters – 277 males and 268 females- are registered. The total polling registered shows 320 males cast their votes, revealing an increase of 43 voters. In another, the total number of registered male voters was 373 but 435 male voters cast their votes, showing an increase of 62 votes. In yet another, there was an increase of 159 votes cast from the registered 364 male voters. In one booth where the total number of registered voters is 662, 937 votes were polled.

In polling booths, where the size of the electorate is as small as a couple of hundred, why would the number of election officials be so disproportionately large? Would a polling booth with 662 voters have 275 officials on duty? While the EDC norm, allowing election duty staffers to poll in any constituency defies the basic principles of representative democracy, the Tripura case shows that it is also open to abuse, paving the way for probable malpractices that need more reflection than a summary dismissal.

Electoral malpractices are not a novelty in India but the brazenness that is on display this season with the ECI looking the other way is shocking and weakens public trust in a democratic exercise. This adds to the troubling skepticism about EVMs, which the Supreme Court has not satisfactorily addressed, and the ECI’s clear bias in responding to complaints against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s hate rhetoric and pack of lies churned out in a slew of election rallies across the country.

The ECI’s kid-glove treatment of Modi’s blatant anti-Muslim rhetoric has enabled the latter further to amplify his false assertions and use of religious rhetoric to garner votes. It has now become a staple at all his rallies. A spark neglected burns the house. The ECI’s role goes beyond neglect. Its silence has fanned the fires and allowed hate rhetoric, coming from no less than the Prime Minister, to become the norm.

Similarly, another pattern seems to be emerging. What started in Surat, has now traveled in slight variation to Indore. What happened in Tripura and Anantnag-Rajouri are parts of the same pattern in different forms. The overall pattern is designed to give an advantage to BJP or its allies. Neglected and overlooked, it is growing in size.

No instance of electoral malpractice or fraud can be treated as an aberration, lest it runs the risk of becoming a widespread pattern, eroding public trust. The absolute opposite is happening. Never since the former Chief Election Commissioner, T.N. Seshan, introduced a set of reforms to clean up the electoral system in the country, has the institution of ECI been so badly wrangled in a crisis of credibility.

The Indian constitution mandates the Election Commission to conduct free and fair elections. This ability to ensure free and fair polls lays the foundations of a stable democracy. By overlooking the electoral malpractices, and by failing to provide transparency, the ECI has not only damaged its credibility, it has also struck a devastating blow to Indian democracy.

—–