 |
|
The author, writing as Chairman of Prasar Bharati and a seasoned civil servant with over 36 years of experience, including extensive involvement in election administration, expresses his dismay at the Leader of the Opposition’s (LoP) accusations against the Election Commission of India (ECI). The LoP’s claims, suggesting manipulation and impropriety in the electoral process, are deemed inaccurate and unfounded based on the author’s direct experience and intimate knowledge of the ECI’s functioning. The author meticulously dismantles the LoP’s arguments, citing specific examples and procedural safeguards to demonstrate the robustness and integrity of the electoral system. He argues that blaming the system has become a convenient excuse for political parties facing electoral setbacks, highlighting the fact that opposition parties have also achieved electoral victories in several states, which directly contradicts the notion of widespread manipulation. He points out the irony of the Congress party, which previously benefited from appointments made by the central government, now challenging the appointment process of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), particularly given the established procedures that are now in place. The author stresses the multi-layered, transparent, and accountable nature of the electoral roll updating process, emphasizing the involvement of various officials at the booth, tehsil, sub-divisional, and district levels. He clarifies that all updates are publicly displayed, providing ample opportunity for political parties to raise objections and seek corrections. He attributes the LoP's claims to a possible disconnect between the party’s leadership and its grassroots workers, suggesting that the party lacks the necessary cadre to effectively monitor and participate in the electoral process at the local level. The author further elaborates on the process of voter turnout calculation, explaining the time lag between estimated and actual figures due to logistical challenges, particularly in remote areas. He underscores the impossibility of manipulating the figures, given the multiple layers of administration involved and the right of candidates to challenge the process. He suggests that the Congress party and its advisors have lost touch with both the system and the public, lamenting the disconnect with their grassroots cadres. He also points out that the ECI is often consulted by foreign governments due to its reputation for conducting free and fair elections. The author draws upon his personal experience to highlight the historical challenges associated with paper ballots and the improvements brought about by the introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). He recounts an incident where a private company claimed to be able to manipulate EVMs but failed to demonstrate this capability when challenged. He concludes by urging the LoP to reconsider his stance and recognize the reality of the Indian electoral system, arguing that his criticism of Operation Sindoor is misplaced and that his overall criticism of the ECI is unwarranted.
The author's defense of the Election Commission stems from a deep-seated belief in the integrity and robustness of the institution. He presents himself as an objective observer, drawing upon his extensive experience in various government positions, including roles that required close collaboration with different political parties. This neutrality lends credibility to his counter-arguments against the LoP's accusations. He meticulously addresses each point raised by the LoP, providing detailed explanations of the processes involved and highlighting the safeguards in place to prevent manipulation. This systematic approach demonstrates a commitment to transparency and accountability, reinforcing the author's position that the electoral system is designed to be fair and impartial. Furthermore, the author emphasizes the importance of grassroots engagement and the role of political parties in ensuring the integrity of the electoral process. He suggests that the LoP's claims may stem from a lack of awareness or understanding of the processes involved, attributing this to a disconnect between the party leadership and its ground-level workers. By highlighting the importance of grassroots participation, the author implicitly criticizes the LoP's party for failing to engage effectively with the electoral system at the local level. The author also leverages his personal experience to bolster his arguments. He recounts his experiences working with different political parties and officiating numerous elections as a district election officer and election observer. These anecdotes serve to illustrate the impartiality and professionalism of the electoral administration, reinforcing his claim that the system is designed to be fair and equitable for all participants. By sharing his personal experiences, the author also establishes a personal connection with the reader, making his arguments more relatable and persuasive.
The article serves not only as a rebuttal to the LoP's criticism but also as a defense of the Indian electoral system as a whole. The author paints a picture of a well-structured and meticulously managed system, designed to ensure free and fair elections. He emphasizes the multiple layers of oversight and the opportunities for scrutiny and challenge at every stage of the process. This portrayal of the electoral system as a robust and resilient institution serves to reassure the public and bolster confidence in the democratic process. The author's tone throughout the article is measured and respectful, even while directly challenging the LoP's claims. He avoids resorting to personal attacks or inflammatory language, instead focusing on presenting factual information and reasoned arguments. This approach enhances the credibility of his message and underscores his commitment to a civil and productive dialogue on important issues. The article also raises broader questions about the role of political parties in a democracy and the importance of responsible criticism. The author suggests that the LoP's accusations are not only inaccurate but also potentially damaging to public trust in the electoral system. He implies that political leaders have a responsibility to engage with the system constructively and to avoid making unsubstantiated claims that could undermine democratic institutions. In conclusion, the article presents a comprehensive and well-reasoned defense of the Election Commission of India and the Indian electoral system. The author effectively dismantles the LoP's accusations, providing detailed explanations of the processes involved and highlighting the safeguards in place to prevent manipulation. By drawing upon his extensive experience and presenting his arguments in a measured and respectful tone, the author successfully conveys his message that the Indian electoral system is a robust and resilient institution worthy of public trust.
Source: Congress’s criticism of EC does disrespect to its layered processes