Rahul's 1,300-km Bihar march set to begin today
Rahul Gandhi
will on Sunday launch the 16-day "Voter Adhikar Yatra" from Sasaram in Rohtas district, aimed at highlighting the alleged assault on people's voting rights under the special intensive revision (SIR) process and transforming the battle against what he calls "vote theft" into a mass movement.
The yatra, covering over 1,300km and touching more than 20 districts, will culminate with a show of strength at Gandhi Maidan in Patna on Sept 1. Gandhi will be joined by leaders of the INDIA bloc, including Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, CPI(ML) general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya, Karakat MP Raja Ram, CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali and representatives from the CPI, in a display of opposition unity ahead of the elections.
The starting point, Sasaram, lies within the parliamentary constituency of Congress MP Manoj Kumar and is seen both as a party stronghold and a geographically strategic location in south Bihar.
In a post on X on Saturday, Gandhi wrote, "Sixteen days, 20 plus districts, 1,300 plus kilometres. We are coming among the people with the yatra. This is the fight to protect the most fundamental democratic right – 'one person, one vote'.
Join us in Bihar to save the Constitution."
Former Bihar Congress president Akhilesh Prasad Singh, now a Rajya Sabha MP, said all arrangements have been made for the yatra, including official permissions. "The yatra will build a tempo in favour of the INDIA bloc ahead of the assembly polls. Rahul will remain in the state until the yatra concludes with three scheduled breaks on Aug 20, Aug 25 and Aug 31," he told reporters in Patna.
Singh added that the Congress had no choice but to take to the streets after its pleas for a parliamentary discussion on the SIR were ignored. "The behaviour of the Election Commission reminds us of Babasaheb Ambedkar's warning that the Constitution faces the greatest threat from those who are either 'murkh' (stupid) or 'dhurt' (cunning)." He also questioned why only the BJP and JD(U) had remained silent on the issue, asserting that "the people of Bihar are fed up with the current regime and want change".
At a press conference at AICC headquarters earlier in the day, Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera accused the BJP of seeking to disenfranchise lakhs of voters from Dalit, Adivasi, minority and economically weaker communities through the SIR process. He credited activists, ordinary citizens, and INDIA bloc workers for forcing a "course correction" by the Election Commission, following intervention by the Supreme Court.
Khera said the yatra's purpose was to "ensure awareness and alertness among the people so that the Modi government does not continue with its conspiracy to deny voting rights to the people of Bihar".
The campaign has already sparked sharp political exchanges. Earlier this week, Gandhi alleged that he had "tea with some dead voters" from Bihar, a jibe at the EC's alleged errors. "There have been many interesting experiences in life, but I never got the chance to have tea with dead people.
For this unique experience, thank you Election Commission!" he posted in Hindi on X, along with a video of his meeting with seven voters who claimed they had been wrongly declared deceased.
"These seven represent only a fraction of unjustly deleted voters in two or three polling booths in the constituency. This is not a clerical error – it is political disenfranchisement in plain sight," the Congress alleged.
On the ground, preparations are in full swing.
"We have made massive arrangements for the yatra in our areas. We have put up several stalls to welcome and shower flower petals. The entire area has been decorated with large numbers of welcome arches, posters and banners," said PCC delegate Rajnish Kumar Jhunna from Gaya district.
The RJD has released a two-and-a-half-minute campaign song portraying Tejashwi Yadav alongside Gandhi, describing him as a vigilant leader committed to ensuring "nobody's right to vote is snatched and the spirit of freedom is never lost". In his own post on X, Yadav wrote: "Kisi ka bhi adhikar chhute nahin… kisi ka vote kate nahin," declaring the yatra's launch from Sasaram.
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Happy Krishna Janmashtami Wishes
,,
messages
, and
quotes
!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
11 minutes ago
- The Wire
When the Referee Fails, Democracy Loses the Game
Democracy, at its best, is a vast cooperative enterprise. Rival parties agree to contest fiercely, but also to respect the result. Voters, in turn, agree to accept the outcome, even when their side loses. This works not because humans are naturally selfless, but because we believe the playing field is level. Game Theory is the branch of Economics/Social Science that studies strategic interactions (referred to as games), where the return to an agent is not just a function of what she/he does but also what others in the game are doing. How game theory offers a clear analogy Game theory offers a clear analogy in this issue. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, perhaps the most cited game, two actors face the choice to cooperate or defect. If both cooperate, both benefit. If one defects while the other cooperates, the defector gains more – and the cooperator loses badly. Fearing exploitation, both often defect, producing the worst possible outcome for each. Although the game is said to have been first developed by Albert Tucker, the mathematical structure of the game predates Tucker and it was two mathematicians – Merill Flood and Melvin Dresher – at the Rand Corporation who came up with the same. Tucker certainly invented the story illustrating the mathematics. While the story is of course interesting, Prisoner's Dilemma became so popular because it captures many real world interactions where there are gains to cooperation but there is a powerful incentive to free ride. Several of our social interactions, for example, citizens voting in a democracy resembles a Prisoner's Dilemma. In these interactions while there are gains from cooperation (all of us participating in these democratic practices), strict private preferences might be to stay away and not participate. Large elections, like the ones we have in a democracy such as India, are mostly never won or lost by a single vote. We can think of several other examples too. With countries deliberating on reducing emissions, while everyone curbing emissions might be the desirable outcome, it might be the case that any single country might found it in their benefit to deviate and emit more given that the others are cutting their emissions. The outcome in this case would make everyone worse off. The discussion here is very similar to what is also referred to as the Tragedy of Commons, where commonly owned resources would be over-used and exploited as the private returns of usage exceed the social returns. Research has shown how communities around the globe have avoided this trap with the help of social norms that help in building trust and drive desirable behaviour, often supported by reliable, impartial institutions that clearly define and enforce the rules of the game. Losing trust in the rules of the game In India's electoral game, the Election Commission is that institution. It is meant to guarantee fairness, to make defection – in the form of fraud or manipulation – both risky and rare. But the Prisoner's Dilemma has a cruel twist: In the original game, in the absence of these institutions, it is perfectly rational to cheat irrespective of what others are doing. The 'inferior equilibrium' sets in – both sides defect, both sides lose, and the rules become meaningless. Lok Sabha leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi's charge that the Election Commission is tolerating fake voters and quietly abetting the BJP is certainly worrying. There are several arguments from the press conference and the presentation that merits attention and an unbiased inquiry. But the significance of this extends beyond the immediate political skirmish. If left unaddressed, it gnaws at the single most important asset in a democracy – trust in the rules of the game. This is why the Election Commission's silence matters so much. If the referee in a football match is suspected of favouring one team and does nothing to prove otherwise, the match soon stops being a game and becomes a brawl. In politics, the equivalent is parties abandoning restraint, fighting fire with fire, and treating every election as a do-or-die struggle where the end justifies any means. India has already seen worrying signs: deepening partisan polarisation, declining voter confidence, and a growing belief that institutions no longer stand above politics. Questions have been raised in the recent past on the appointment of Election Commissioners, storage of CCTV footage from polling booths, sample size issues with the VVPATs and so on. The Commission's job is not only to ensure fairness, but to demonstrate fairness – with transparency, verifiable audits, and a willingness to confront allegations head-on. A healthy democracy cannot survive on technical compliance alone; it requires visible legitimacy. Even if the Commission is entirely blameless, its unwillingness to actively clear the air risks the same outcome as actual bias. In the eyes of the public, doubt unchallenged becomes fact. The Election Commission cannot afford to be silent The stakes are enormous. When public trust in elections collapses, civic cooperation disintegrates. Voters disengage, assuming their ballot no longer matters. Parties escalate tactics, convinced that the other side will cheat if they do not. The result is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more the system is seen as rigged, the more rigged it becomes. Rahul Gandhi's accusation may be politically charged, but the response required from the Election Commission is not a matter of politics – it is a matter of institutional survival. Rahul Gandhi certainly has the right to have a press conference and raise allegations, those in the government/BJP also has a right to similarly not hold a press conference or respond to these allegations. In our democracy, they are supposed to face the people and will be held accountable then. But one party who cannot afford to be silent, is the Election Commission. And the minimal response till now, have been in the public eye certainly not convincing. This is the moment to open the books, not to close ranks. Silence now will be remembered as complicity later. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, once trust is gone, the cycle of defection is hard to break. In a democracy, that cycle ends with institutions hollowed out, elections reduced to rituals, and citizens trapped in a permanent state of mutual suspicion. India's democracy is one of the world's great cooperative ventures. The Election Commission is its referee. If that referee cannot be seen as fair, the game itself will not be worth playing.
Scroll.in
11 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Setting deadlines for president, governors can cause ‘constitutional disorder': Centre tells SC
Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by state Assemblies would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, PTI quoted the Centre as telling the Supreme Court. Such a move could lead to 'constitutional disorder', it added. The Centre's submission was in response to a notice issued by the Supreme Court on July 22 to the Centre and all state governments on a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu about the court's April 8 ruling that set deadlines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills. A constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar is hearing the matter. In a written reply on August 12, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the judiciary does not hold answers to all problems in a democracy. 'The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. He added: 'If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another…the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by the framers [of the Constitution].' The April 8 ruling came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. The court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both provisions outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgment had also introduced the concept of 'deemed assent' in cases of prolonged inaction, allowing pending bills to be considered approved. In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling. Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the court on matters of legal and public importance. In his note, Mehta argued that the positions of governor and president are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through judicial interventions, he added. Challenging the April 8 ruling, Mehta said that Articles 200 and 201 deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. 'Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit.' 'To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution,' Mehta added.
Hans India
11 minutes ago
- Hans India
Deadline for Prez, Guv will tilt power balance: Centre
New Delhi: Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution and lead to a "constitutional disorder", the Centre has told the Supreme Court. The Centre has said this in the written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly. "The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers," it has note filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has argued that the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law. "The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head," the note says. The positions of the Governor and Oresident are "politically plenary" and represent "high ideals of democratic governance". Any perceived lapses, the note says, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through "judicial" interventions. The perceived issues, if any, deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial, Mehta has submitted. Challenging the decision of the apex court, Mehta has contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governors' and president's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. "When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution," Mehta has said.
