What Rahul Gandhi doesn't get about elections: Listen to voters, not your coterie

Indian Express

a day ago

Fantasies are fair. But only so long as one doesn't start to believe that it's the national duty of institutions, people and opponents to make them come true. The Congress, and the scion of the party's first family, who now happens to be the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, has always believed that he is the 'rightful heir to the throne'. Away from the world of fantasies, in the real democratic setup in India, elections are won by delivering on promises, having a credible ideological roadmap, building organisational strength and discipline, and above all else — winning the trust of the people.
Rahul Gandhi's article ('Match-fixing Maharashtra', IE, June 7) is born out of the frustration of staying out of power, and goes on to cast baseless doubts on the Maharashtra Assembly election's integrity, alleging fake voters, bogus voting, and opacity.
The first aspersion is on the decision to place a Cabinet minister instead of the Chief Justice on the selection committee. A little knowledge of parliamentary powers would have come in handy for the LoP. Parliament is empowered to create a rule for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner. The committee had the CJI as a member as a temporary provision, until a rule was formed. Under the new laws, a committee headed by the law minister and senior bureaucrats finalises a shortlist, which is discussed by a committee comprising the PM, the LoP, and a Union minister (in this case, the home minister).
Rahul Gandhi's memory seems to have failed him: He does not seem to realise that he was a member of the committee, and that the provision itself is in stark contrast to the way the Congress-led UPA government appointed the CEC: The Opposition was not even consulted. Under the new process, the LoP is duly consulted and his feedback is recorded.
In 2012, veteran BJP leader L K Advani sought a collegium to appoint the CEC and the CAG. The Congress-led UPA went ahead and appointed Veeravalli Sundaram Sampath as the CEC. Sampath was no aberration. Having used the CEC's office to decide political outcomes, Congress offered CECs plum post-retirement postings. It would also serve the LoP well to find out who in the Congress party took the final call on the appointments, despite not enjoying any official position in the government.
As facts stand, this is the first time that the CEC appointment process has been formalised. No matter which party wins the elections, the process would stay. No matter who sits in the Opposition, he or she will have a say in the appointment.
The next big claim is that the voter registration for the Maharashtra elections was inflated with fake voters, giving an advantage to the BJP. The Election Commission had on April 23, 2025, clarified that the voter rolls for the November 2024 Vidhan Sabha elections were prepared transparently under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The total electorate stood at 9.78 crore, and out of the 3,901 claims and objections received during the roll preparation, only 89 appeals were filed, with just one that escalated to the Chief Electoral Officer, indicating minimal contestation.
But the LoP's coterie has withheld an important point from him. All political parties, including the Congress, had access to the lists. As many as 97,000 booth-level officers and 1.03 lakh booth-level agents, including 27,099 appointed by the Congress, oversaw the process. Why were no objections raised then? Instead of writing an opinion article, he should have met his booth-level workers and asked how the list 'passed their smell test'.
The article goes on to claim 'certain booths' showed unusual turnouts and tries to question the result. The Maha Vikas Aghadi won 53 seats. Mumbra-Kalwa (NCP-SCP), with a winning margin of 96,228, Bhiwandi East (Samajwadi Party) with 52,015, Khed Alandi (SHSUBT) 51,743; and Nagpur North (Congress) with a margin of 28,467, are seats where the Opposition won by over 50,000 votes. On all seats, voter numbers saw a significant increase. So, the allegation that only the BJP won on seats where voters increased is a deliberate lie. The Kamthi seat has been won by a margin of around 50 per cent in the four previous elections. In fact, in 2014, it was won by over 54 per cent. Attributing the convincing victory to voter addition is as far from the truth as Rahul Gandhi is from the electoral ground.
The ECI, in its April 23 rebuttal, directly addressed the claim of an unusual turnout increase. It stated that the increase from 58.22 per cent at 5 pm to 66.05 per cent in the final tally is within normal voting trends. The LoP calls this 7.83 percentage points rise unprecedented. In reality, the 7.83 percentage points adjustment is mirrored in the 2024 Lok Sabha phase-wise data, where the post-5 pm jump averages 8.5 percentage points.
The ECI calculated that with an average voting rate of 58 lakh votes per hour, up to 1.16 crore votes could have been cast in the final two hours, but only 65 lakh votes were recorded. Aligning with expected patterns, in fact, the ECI claimed that the same was actually below the average. The ECI called the LoP's claim — that such an increase was 'physically impossible' — completely absurd and unsubstantiated, emphasising that the voting process was monitored by party agents, including the 27,099 Congress-appointed agents, across 1 lakh polling stations. The ECI further noted that no formal objections were raised during the scrutiny of Form 17A (voter turnout records) on polling day or the day after, reinforcing the legitimacy of the figures. Again, the Congress not only failed to prepare well for the elections, but also failed in analysing why it lost. The LoP, I am sure, has till date not asked his party's foot soldiers why they failed to raise any objections to Form 17A.
Rahul Gandhi's claim that many names were deleted from the electoral roll is also based on falsehood. The EC confirmed that there were no unusual or bulk deletions across the state. The average deletion rate was around 2,779 electors per AC, and these deletions were primarily due to voter deaths, relocation, or duplicate entries. The process followed was transparent and included participation from INC representatives.
Rahul Gandhi's assertion that the amendment to Section 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, was a deliberate move to 'hide evidence' of electoral malpractice is entirely speculative. The amendment, which clarifies access to CCTV footage and electronic records, was introduced to streamline the electoral process, protect voter privacy, and prevent misuse of sensitive data. It was made to ensure that sensitive electoral data, such as CCTV footage, is not misused for purposes like voter intimidation or manipulation. Secrecy of the ballot is a cornerstone of free and fair elections. The ECI, in consultation with the government, introduced this change to align with the best practices followed globally. The ECI has also stated that identical EPIC numbers in older voter lists were due to manual mechanisms in the past and do not indicate duplicate or fake voters.
It is important for the LoP to know that the involvement of all party representatives is top priority when it comes to deleting or adding voters. After the list is prepared, it is shared with representatives of all political parties of every booth for verification, and objections can be raised if any. The preparation of the voter list is done months ahead of the election date, which gives both parties and the public time to voice concerns. That did not happen at the time of the Maharashtra assembly elections. A representative of every party is present in every booth to verify the voters and voter turnout. After the voting process, the same information with respect to EVMs, voter turnout, etc, is shared with every party and accredited by the representative.
The counting of votes is widely covered, and party representatives have a chance to challenge the result at any time, which was, again, not done by the Congress party. What Rahul Gandhi does not know is that elections are not won by conducting 'smell tests' in party offices or the comfort of one's home. One has to wake up and smell the coffee brewing on the ground. Just because a section of the media and an inner coterie say you are going to win, people do not simply vote for you. People vote for you when they trust you.
The writer is Union Cabinet Minister for Environment, Forest & Climate Change