 |
|
Devendra Fadnavis, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, has launched a scathing attack on Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, accusing him of dismissing the mandate of the people after the Congress party's defeat in the 2024 state assembly elections. Fadnavis's rebuttal comes in response to Gandhi's allegations of electoral irregularities and claims that the Maharashtra elections served as a 'blueprint for rigging democracy.' Gandhi had asserted that the electoral process was manipulated through the inclusion of fake voters, inflated voter turnout figures, and the facilitation of bogus voting, with subsequent concealment of evidence. The Election Commission has vehemently rejected these charges, deeming them absurd and accusing Gandhi of defaming the poll panel after an unfavorable verdict. Fadnavis, in his response published in the Indian Express and Marathi daily Loksatta, accuses Gandhi of consistently insulting the democratic process and the people's mandate. He suggests that Gandhi is preparing excuses for future defeats in upcoming assembly elections, including those in Bihar. Fadnavis emphasized that Gandhi's rejection of the people's mandate is a direct consequence of the people rejecting him. He advised Gandhi to introspect on the reasons for his disconnect with the electorate and to address the shortcomings within his party. Fadnavis highlighted the victory of the Mahayuti alliance, comprising the BJP, Shiv Sena, and NCP, in the 2024 Maharashtra polls, which secured a thumping majority against the Maha Vikas Aghadi, which includes the Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT), and NCP (SP). He further stated that the election was not solely a contest between these two alliances but also involved the 'Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan,' which he claims was creating misconceptions among the public against constitutional institutions, inciting them to fight against the nation itself, including the judiciary and the Election Commission. Fadnavis also addressed the historical context of the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner, stating that from 1950 until a new law was enacted, the Congress governments directly appointed the Chief Election Commissioner. He noted that out of 26 commissioners to date, 25 were directly appointed by the central government. He praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for establishing a committee that includes the leader of the opposition or the leader of the largest political party in the opposition, marking a significant departure from the previous practice. Addressing Gandhi's concerns about the increase in the number of electors in the 2024 Maharashtra polls, whom he referred to as 'bogus voters,' Fadnavis presented data on the consistent increase in young voters over the years. He pointed out that between 2014 and 2019, 63 lakh new voters were added; from 2009 to 2014, 75 lakh new voters were added; and from 2004 to 2009, 1 crore new voters were added. This data suggests that the increase in 2024 was not extraordinary or indicative of foul play. Fadnavis further emphasized that the voting percentage in the assembly elections has consistently been higher than in the Lok Sabha polls. He cited figures from 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019, and 2024 to demonstrate that the higher voting percentage in the 2024 assembly elections was not an anomaly. He questioned Gandhi's awareness of the fact that polling hours extend until 6 pm and that everyone present in the queue at the booth by 6 pm is allowed to cast their vote. He cited the example of the second phase of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, where the voter turnout figure increased significantly between 5 pm and the final count the next day, highlighting the importance of considering the late evening voting hours when interpreting voter turnout data. Fadnavis criticized Gandhi's claim that the NDA won where the voter percentage increased at the last moment as 'laughable.' He countered Gandhi's example of Kamthi by providing examples of constituencies where the opposition won despite significant increases in voter turnout. He mentioned Madha, where the Sharad Pawar group's candidate won with an 18 per cent increase; Wani, where the Uddhav Thackeray group's candidate won with a 13 per cent increase; and Shrirampur, where the Congress won with a 12 per cent increase. These examples demonstrate that the increase in voter turnout was not necessarily correlated with victories for the NDA. Fadnavis reiterated his accusation that Gandhi has been consistently insulting the democratic process and the people's mandate. He warned that Gandhi's actions would only push the Congress party further into decline. He urged Gandhi to introspect on the reasons why his own party's MLAs struggle to secure appointments with him and to be mindful of the direction he is taking the country and the poison he is spreading by constantly raising doubts about the democratic process and constitutional institutions. Fadnavis concluded by stating that the defeat in Maharashtra has hurt Gandhi and his allies. He warned that if Gandhi continues to insult the mandate of Maharashtra's farmers, Ladki Bahin (beloved sisters), common people, and all its citizens in this manner, the people of Maharashtra will never forgive him.
The core of Fadnavis's argument rests on the premise that Rahul Gandhi's allegations are baseless and stem from a refusal to accept the outcome of a fair democratic process. He systematically dismantles Gandhi's claims by presenting statistical data and historical context, demonstrating that the trends observed in the 2024 elections are consistent with past electoral patterns. By highlighting the increasing number of young voters and the consistently higher voter turnout in assembly elections compared to Lok Sabha polls, Fadnavis aims to dispel the notion that the 2024 elections were somehow manipulated or rigged. He challenges Gandhi's interpretation of voter turnout data, emphasizing the importance of considering late evening voting hours and providing examples of constituencies where the opposition won despite significant increases in voter turnout. Furthermore, Fadnavis accuses Gandhi of undermining the integrity of constitutional institutions, including the Election Commission and the judiciary, by spreading misinformation and inciting public distrust. He highlights the historical context of the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner to counter Gandhi's implicit criticism of the current process. By contrasting the previous practice of direct appointment by the central government with the current system that includes the leader of the opposition in the selection committee, Fadnavis suggests that the current system is more transparent and democratic. Fadnavis's response is not merely a defense of the integrity of the electoral process; it is also a broader critique of Rahul Gandhi's leadership and political strategy. He accuses Gandhi of being disconnected from the electorate and of prioritizing the spreading of misinformation over constructive engagement with the issues facing the country. By highlighting the difficulties faced by Congress MLAs in securing appointments with Gandhi, Fadnavis paints a picture of a leader who is out of touch with the concerns of his own party members. The overall tone of Fadnavis's response is one of exasperation and disappointment. He expresses concern that Gandhi's actions are not only damaging to the Congress party but also harmful to the broader democratic fabric of the country. He implores Gandhi to introspect on his leadership and to refrain from making baseless allegations that undermine public trust in the electoral process. In conclusion, Fadnavis's response to Gandhi's allegations is a comprehensive and detailed rebuttal that relies on statistical data, historical context, and a broader critique of Gandhi's leadership. It serves as a strong defense of the integrity of the electoral process and a call for responsible political discourse.
The political ramifications of this exchange extend beyond the immediate context of the Maharashtra elections. Rahul Gandhi's allegations, while rejected by the Election Commission and countered by Fadnavis, resonate with a segment of the population that harbors concerns about the fairness and transparency of the electoral process. The debate over electronic voting machines (EVMs) and voter verifiable paper audit trails (VVPATs) continues to fuel skepticism and distrust in some quarters. By raising questions about electoral irregularities, Gandhi is tapping into these pre-existing anxieties and attempting to mobilize support by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral outcome. However, his strategy carries significant risks. By making unsubstantiated allegations, Gandhi risks alienating voters who value stability and trust in democratic institutions. He also provides ammunition to his political opponents, who can portray him as a sore loser who is unwilling to accept the verdict of the people. Furthermore, his allegations could undermine the credibility of future elections and erode public confidence in the democratic process. Fadnavis's response, on the other hand, aims to reassure the public that the electoral process is robust and transparent. By presenting data and historical context, he seeks to dispel the notion that the 2024 elections were somehow rigged or manipulated. He also attempts to delegitimize Gandhi's allegations by portraying them as the product of a frustrated and disconnected leader. The political battle between Gandhi and Fadnavis is not just about the outcome of the Maharashtra elections; it is about the broader narrative surrounding the health and integrity of Indian democracy. Both leaders are vying to shape public opinion and to influence the future direction of the country. The outcome of this battle will depend on which leader is able to effectively communicate his message and to resonate with the concerns and aspirations of the Indian people. The broader context also involves the upcoming assembly elections in Bihar and other states. Fadnavis's criticism of Gandhi is likely aimed at preempting similar allegations of electoral irregularities in these upcoming elections. By discrediting Gandhi's claims in Maharashtra, Fadnavis hopes to prevent them from gaining traction in other states. The outcome of these upcoming elections will be a crucial test of the political landscape in India and will determine whether the BJP-led NDA can maintain its dominance or whether the opposition can mount a credible challenge. In conclusion, the exchange between Rahul Gandhi and Devendra Fadnavis highlights the ongoing tensions and challenges facing Indian democracy. The debate over electoral integrity, the role of constitutional institutions, and the nature of political leadership are all central to this discussion. The way in which these issues are addressed will have a profound impact on the future of Indian politics and society.
Source: Rahul Gandhi dismissing mandate of people as they rejected him: Fadnavis