Will the exit of Chief Election Commissioner of India Gyanesh Kumar be enough to correct an electoral process that, over the years, has come to be seen as increasingly compromised in favour of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government at the Centre and in several States? With protests now growing across the country, he may eventually be forced out, just as Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan was forced to step down following sustained public pressure. But even then, he could simply be replaced by another, perhaps worse, “yes man”. Mr. Kumar’s exit may therefore be a starting point, but much more will need to be done to restore the credibility of the electoral process in the “mother of democracy”.
Under a cloud
The present controversy is not merely about one Election Commissioner. It is about the credibility of the institution. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has already resulted in over 13 crore names being excluded from draft rolls. This has raised grave concerns about the fate of millions of genuine voters and their basic right to vote — concerns that cannot be dismissed so arbitrarily. There are also apprehensions about the integrity and transparency of electronic voting machines (EVMs), including the security of electoral technology, the custody of machines and the auditing process.
Today, all institutions meant to act as checks and balances, including the media, judiciary and executive, are increasingly seen as influenced by a particular ideology, with their independence compromised. The Anna Hazare movement became so powerful largely because the media then did its job with honesty, neutrality and without fear or favour. It questioned those in power relentlessly and brought the concerns of ordinary citizens into every living room. That kind of fearless and independent media scrutiny is nowhere to be seen today.
Editorial | Rights and wrongs: On the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and protest
Then there is the judiciary, which is supposed to oversee the functioning of the executive and intervene whenever constitutional rights are threatened. Where required, it can take suo motu cognisance and provide the last line of institutional protection to citizens whose rights have been violated. Yet, during the SIR controversy, serious allegations of wrongful deletions, including cases in which living voters were shown as dead and physically produced before the courts, have not resulted in any tangible action.
In West Bengal, the then Mamata Banerjee government also approached the judiciary over the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s handling of the SIR process. The response, however, has been deeply disappointing, to say the least. The possible disenfranchisement of genuine voters deserved the most rigorous scrutiny, yet the process appears to have been gradually normalised. When institutions meant to safeguard citizens’ rights and hold the executive accountable appear compromised, the government acquires enormous power without having to fear the consequences.
It is not just the SIR or the EVMs. It is also the raids and investigations involving Opposition leaders around election time, followed by media narratives that often criminalise individuals before a court has established their guilt. We have seen this over the last decade in the manner in which central investigative agencies have been weaponised not only against political opponents but also against individuals who dare to question the government. Sitting Chief Ministers, Members of Parliament, Ministers and political leaders have faced arrests and investigations over allegations that have yet to be established at trial. The repeated selective targeting of individuals, combined with the amplification of such accusations by sections of the media, has proved beyond doubt the nexus between the present regime and a system it is alleged to have corrupted to the hilt.
The great weakening of democratic checks
When the executive acts, the media amplifies its actions, and the judiciary appears reluctant to intervene, all three pillars of democracy can appear to be working in tandem against the public interest. Anyone who dares to speak up risks being pushed out of the system.
We have seen this within the ECI itself. Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa openly dissented from decisions giving clean chits to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah over alleged violations of the Model Code of Conduct during the 2019 Lok Sabha campaign. He subsequently left the ECI before the end of his tenure to take up a position in a lead bank.
Today, one cannot help but ask what fate awaits Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who have reportedly recorded objections to several decisions of the ECI under Mr. Kumar, thereby exposing the rot within the system.
Anti-CEC protest | LIVE updates
This is why the ongoing protests by political parties, civil society groups, non-governmental organisations, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and others cannot remain isolated demonstrations. They must evolve into a sustained democratic movement, perhaps closer in spirit to Gandhiji’s Satyagraha, to reclaim what has been lost or weakened over the last decade.
Reclaiming the India we knew
The most difficult task, awakening public consciousness, may already have begun. The challenge now is to turn that awakening into a people’s movement powerful enough to reclaim the India we once knew — an India where the judiciary could hold even a sitting Prime Minister, such as Indira Gandhi, accountable; where a robust media could question a Prime Minister without fear; and where an Election Commissioner such as T.N. Seshan could exercise his constitutional authority without fear or favour. The beginning has to be a genuinely free and fair electoral process. Removing Gyanesh Kumar may therefore be a necessary starting point, but it is certainly not the end. A democracy survives on public trust. Today, that trust has been severely eroded.
To expect a fully credible election without first rebuilding confidence in the institutions that conduct, monitor and adjudicate elections is like asking for water in the Sahara. What India needs is not merely a change of one Election Commissioner, but an independent system capable of organising elections whose fairness is beyond suspicion. Is the present BJP government willing to do that?
Much more than Gyanesh Kumar has to go if India is to restore the credibility of its electoral system and become a fully fledged democracy. The entire ecosystem that is eating away at the vitals of India’s democracy has to go.
Mehbooba Mufti is President, Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party