 |
|
Abhishek Singhvi, a Congress Working Committee member and a fourth-term MP, has launched a scathing critique of the Election Commission of India (ECI), accusing it of “shooting the messenger and ignoring the message” in response to allegations of electoral malpractice raised by Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Singhvi's remarks, articulated in an interview with The Hindu, center around the ECI's demand that Gandhi substantiate his claims of electoral irregularities under oath, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, and the broader plans of the Opposition in the face of what they perceive as systemic manipulation. The crux of Singhvi's argument is that the ECI, instead of addressing the serious and detailed allegations presented by Gandhi, has resorted to procedural maneuvers and threats of criminal prosecution, effectively shielding those responsible for the alleged malpractices. He contends that the ECI's actions undermine the integrity of the electoral process, a cornerstone of Indian democracy, and raise profound questions about the impartiality and independence of the constitutional body. Singhvi's forceful articulation of these concerns reflects a growing sense of unease within the Congress party and the broader Opposition regarding the fairness and transparency of the electoral system, particularly in the context of recent elections and the perceived bias of certain institutions towards the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The interview sheds light on the deep-seated tensions between the Opposition and the ECI, highlighting the challenges faced by the Congress in holding the government accountable and ensuring a level playing field for all political parties.
Singhvi's critique extends beyond the immediate response to Gandhi's allegations, encompassing the ECI's handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. He raises serious questions about the rationale behind the SIR's focus on citizenship determination, arguing that it deviates from the normal exercise of roll revision, which is typically based on checking physical residence, births, and deaths. Singhvi points out that the ECI's decision to disregard Aadhaar and Voter ID cards as valid forms of identification further fuels suspicion that the SIR is being used to disenfranchise legitimate voters, particularly those from marginalized communities. He challenges the ECI's authority to determine citizenship, asserting that this jurisdiction belongs to the Foreigners' Tribunals and the Citizenship Act. Singhvi also questions the timing of the SIR, noting that it was initiated just a few months before the elections, potentially precluding legal recourse and legitimate appellate remedies for aggrieved persons. The Congress party views the SIR as a deliberate attempt to manipulate the electoral rolls in favor of the BJP, a charge that the ECI vehemently denies. However, Singhvi's detailed analysis of the SIR's procedures and objectives provides compelling evidence to support the Congress's claims, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the electoral process in Bihar. The controversy surrounding the SIR has further eroded trust in the ECI and heightened tensions between the Opposition and the government.
The possibility of boycotting the Bihar polls is another significant issue raised in the interview. While the united Opposition has not definitively ruled out a boycott, Singhvi acknowledges that it remains a serious consideration. He explains that the Congress is hesitant to concede a walkover victory to the BJP in a state where they believe they have a strong chance of winning. However, the concerns about voter fraud and the perceived bias of the ECI have led some within the Opposition, including Tejashwi Yadav, to advocate for a boycott as a form of protest. Singhvi emphasizes that any decision on a boycott would be made collectively by the united Opposition, taking into account the potential consequences for the electoral landscape in Bihar. He argues that the BJP, as the alleged perpetrator of voter fraud, is hardly in a position to suggest that the Opposition should boycott the elections and hand them a one-sided victory. The debate over a potential boycott reflects the deep-seated frustration and disillusionment within the Opposition regarding the fairness of the electoral process. While a boycott would be a drastic step, it underscores the seriousness of the concerns raised by the Congress and the broader Opposition about the integrity of the electoral system.
Singhvi defends the Congress's decision to launch a mass campaign on alleged vote theft, arguing that it is essential to educate voters about the illegalities and irregularities occurring in the name of electoral roll revision. He asserts that this campaign is vital to exhort voters to be vigilant against undemocratic disenfranchisement. Singhvi believes that the Karnataka sample, which revealed significant discrepancies in the electoral rolls, is just the tip of the iceberg. He suggests that the number of wrongful deletions could be exponentially higher if a more comprehensive investigation is conducted. The Congress's mass campaign is aimed at raising awareness about these potential irregularities and mobilizing voters to protect their right to vote. Singhvi argues that this campaign is directly related to the Bihar election and is essential for ensuring a free and fair election. The Congress is confident that by exposing the alleged voter fraud, they can galvanize public support and increase their chances of winning the election. Singhvi's defense of the mass campaign underscores the Congress's commitment to fighting for electoral integrity and holding the government accountable for any attempts to manipulate the electoral process.
Furthermore, Singhvi addresses the BJP's accusation that Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party are repeatedly attacking a Constitutional body. He counters that when Constitutional custodians abdicate their responsibilities, it is the duty of the Opposition to act as a vibrant check, exposing their abdication and irresponsibility. Singhvi poses the rhetorical question: “Who will guard the guardians if not the Opposition?” He argues that the ruling dispensation, as the chief beneficiary of the ECI's perceived laxity, cannot be expected to take corrective action. Singhvi's response highlights the critical role of the Opposition in a democracy, which is to hold the government accountable and to ensure that constitutional bodies are fulfilling their duties impartially. He rejects the notion that the Opposition should remain silent in the face of perceived wrongdoing, arguing that such silence would be a betrayal of their responsibility to the people. Singhvi's defense of the Congress's criticism of the ECI is a forceful assertion of the Opposition's right to challenge the actions of constitutional bodies and to demand accountability from those in power.
The interview with Abhishek Singhvi provides a comprehensive overview of the Congress party's concerns about the integrity of the electoral process in India. His accusations against the ECI are serious and far-reaching, raising questions about the impartiality and independence of the constitutional body. Singhvi's critique of the SIR in Bihar, his discussion of a potential election boycott, and his defense of the Congress's mass campaign on alleged vote theft all underscore the deep-seated tensions between the Opposition and the government. The interview also highlights the challenges faced by the Congress in holding the government accountable and ensuring a level playing field for all political parties. Singhvi's forceful articulation of these concerns reflects a growing sense of unease within the Congress party and the broader Opposition regarding the fairness and transparency of the electoral system. The interview serves as a reminder of the importance of vigilance and accountability in safeguarding the integrity of democracy.
Source: ECI is shooting the messenger and ignoring the message, says Congress’s Abhishek Singhvi