 |
|
This article serves as a robust rebuttal to Rahul Gandhi's assertions regarding the integrity of the Maharashtra Assembly elections. Written by a Union Cabinet Minister, it systematically dismantles Gandhi's claims of electoral malpractice, fake voters, and opacity in the election process. The core argument is that Gandhi's criticisms stem from the Congress party's frustration of being out of power and a disconnect from the realities of Indian democratic processes. The author contends that elections are won through delivering on promises, presenting a credible ideological roadmap, building organizational strength and discipline, and, most importantly, gaining the trust of the people – elements the author believes are currently lacking in the Congress party's approach. The article begins by framing Rahul Gandhi's perspective as a 'fantasy' detached from the hard work and ground-level engagement required for electoral success. It directly addresses Gandhi's article, 'Match-fixing Maharashtra,' published in the Indian Express, characterizing it as born out of frustration and filled with baseless doubts. The response then meticulously tackles each of Gandhi's specific allegations. A significant portion of the article focuses on the process of appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). Gandhi's criticism of placing a Cabinet minister on the selection committee instead of the Chief Justice is countered with an explanation of parliamentary powers and the evolution of the appointment process. The author points out that Parliament is empowered to create rules for CEC appointments, and the inclusion of the CJI was a temporary provision. Under the new laws, a committee headed by the law minister and senior bureaucrats creates a shortlist, which is then discussed by a committee including the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition (LoP), and a Union minister. A key point is that Rahul Gandhi himself was a member of this committee, highlighting the consultation with the opposition, a stark contrast to the Congress-led UPA government's appointment of CECs without opposition consultation. The article references BJP leader L.K. Advani's past call for a collegium to appoint the CEC and CAG, noting that the UPA government proceeded to appoint Veeravalli Sundaram Sampath as CEC without such a collegium. Further, it suggests that the Congress has historically used the CEC's office to influence political outcomes and offered plum post-retirement postings to CECs. The author emphasizes that the current formalized process is a significant improvement, ensuring the opposition's voice is heard regardless of which party is in power. The article then addresses the allegation of inflated voter registration with fake voters in Maharashtra. The author cites the Election Commission's (ECI) clarification on April 23, 2025, which stated that voter rolls for the November 2024 Vidhan Sabha elections were prepared transparently under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The ECI reported a total electorate of 9.78 crore and a minimal number of contested claims and objections during the roll preparation. The author highlights that all political parties, including the Congress, had access to the voter lists and that a substantial number of booth-level officers and agents, including those appointed by the Congress, oversaw the process. The question is posed: why were no objections raised then? The author suggests that Gandhi should consult his party's booth-level workers to understand why the list 'passed their smell test.' The response further challenges Gandhi's claim of unusual turnouts in 'certain booths,' which he used to question the election result. The author provides examples of Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) victories with significant margins, demonstrating that the opposition also won seats with increased voter numbers. The example of the Kamthi seat, consistently won by a large margin in previous elections, is used to refute the claim that voter addition solely benefited the BJP. The ECI's direct rebuttal of the claim of an unusual turnout increase is also highlighted. The ECI stated that the increase from 58.22 percent at 5 pm to 66.05 percent in the final tally is within normal voting trends, mirroring similar patterns observed in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The author points out that the ECI estimated a potential casting of up to 1.16 crore votes in the final two hours, while only 65 lakh votes were recorded, indicating that the turnout was actually below the average. The ECI's description of Gandhi's claim as 'completely absurd and unsubstantiated' is emphasized, along with the fact that the voting process was monitored by party agents, including Congress-appointed agents, across a vast number of polling stations. The author reiterates that no formal objections were raised during the scrutiny of voter turnout records, suggesting a failure of the Congress party to adequately prepare for and analyze the election results. Gandhi's claim of deleted names from the electoral roll is also refuted, with the EC confirming that there were no unusual or bulk deletions. The average deletion rate was attributed to voter deaths, relocation, or duplicate entries, following a transparent process with INC representatives' participation. The article also addresses 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. The author argues that the amendment was introduced to streamline the electoral process, protect voter privacy, and prevent the misuse of sensitive data, aligning with global best practices. The author underscores the importance of involving all party representatives in the process of adding or deleting voters. Voter lists are shared with representatives of all political parties for verification, allowing for objections to be raised. The preparation of the voter list months ahead of the election date allows ample time for parties and the public to voice concerns. The article reiterates that this process was followed during the Maharashtra assembly elections and that party representatives are present in every booth to verify voters and voter turnout. Finally, the author emphasizes that elections are not won through superficial assessments or the comfort of one's home. Instead, they require a deep understanding of the ground realities and a connection with the voters. The author concludes by stating that people vote for those they trust, a trust that must be earned through genuine engagement and credible leadership. The article's overall tone is assertive and critical of Rahul Gandhi's approach to understanding electoral processes. It presents a detailed counter-narrative to Gandhi's allegations, supported by factual information and the ECI's statements. The author's position as a Union Cabinet Minister lends credibility to the rebuttal, positioning it as an authoritative response to the opposition's criticisms. The article ultimately argues that the Congress party's electoral failures are due to a disconnect from the ground realities and a lack of trust among the electorate, rather than systemic electoral malpractice.
Source: What Rahul Gandhi doesn’t get about elections: Listen to voters, not your coterie