Transparency must not be mere claim

The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) states that India’s electoral system is among the most transparent in the world. Addressing a meeting of Booth Level Officers, Gyanesh Kumar highlighted the merits of the Indian electoral process. There may be no Indian who does not wish if all of it were true.  However, his assertion comes at a time when data has emerged revealing that millions of eligible citizens have been denied the right to vote. It is those who experience it,  not the administrators, who should attest to transparency. Shortcomings remain unaddressed across all stages—from the voters' list and polling to the counting of votes. Long-standing grievances regarding systems such as voting machines and Form 17C remain unresolved. There are instances where information cannot be obtained even under the Right to Information Act. Several factors cast a shadow of doubt over elections in India. Throughout the history of independent India, despite successive changes in government, the integrity of the electoral process had remained untarnished. Unlike in the past, the Election Commission is now appointed by the Union Government; consequently, there is a suspicion of the Commission's loyalty.   It is not enough to merely claim that elections are transparent and fair; that fairness must be evident to everyone. Under the current Commission, aspects such as the Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls (SIR), voting machines, and grievance redressal mechanisms have all come under a cloud of suspicion.

There are allegations that electoral malpractice—at both the constituency and state levels—has subverted the popular will. The widespread drive to disenfranchise voters under the guise of SIR is making India a laughingstock before the world. Denying the right of even a single voter is culpable;  yet here, millions are being excluded from the electoral roll. The third draft roll has been released after removing 13.37 crore voters. Striking off 14.1 per cent of the electorate is an act capable of subverting elections. 'Purging' the electoral roll means including genuine voters, not excluding them; while it is indeed necessary to remove the names of the deceased, those who have relocated, and duplicate entries, this must not result in the exclusion of legitimate voters. However, in this instance, widespread pruning of the list is taking place based on trivial grounds, such as spelling errors. There are also allegations that those opposed to the ruling faction have been excluded on a large scale. Genuine voters—including many prominent figures—are being subjected to harassment, and many are denied the opportunity to offer an explanation.  So much about the list.  Other aspects of the election too have been the subject of numerous complaints;  the Commission, for its part, has adopted an approach that is opaque, unilateral, and unfair. The 'transparency'  claimed by Gyanesh Kumar is not genuine. For it to be real, there must be sincere self-examination rather than a blind dismissal of allegations. Comprehensive voter data must be made available for public scrutiny. There needs to be transparency regarding the details in ‘Form 17C’.

The practice of deleting CCTV footage must stop.   It is not enough to allow only limited access to ‘VVPAT’ records for verification.  Numerous grievances remain unresolved—ranging from discrepancies between recorded and counted votes to errors in polling percentage figures. Apart from a few instances where the courts intervened, there has been no resolution—or often, not even an explanation. It is shameful to call it "transparency" when machine-readable documents are converted into non-searchable PDF formats. "Transparency" that withholds CCTV footage from scrutiny also raises suspicions. There must be transparency regarding the income and expenditure of political parties. It took court intervention to put a stop to the corruption associated with electoral bonds. Before making "world-class" claims about transparency, the CEC ought to have opened both eyes and mind. Studying the practices of other countries would have been a wise move. There is much to learn from other nations regarding voter lists (Canada, Germany), the voting process (Norway and Switzerland ensure transparency through paper ballots), election monitoring (the US allows independent agencies to intervene, unlike the Commission-led monitoring in India), campaign finance (Sweden’s transparent system), post-election review (Finland ensures transparency through comprehensive post-election audits), and grievance redressal (the independent mechanism within the European Union). In India, it is not just political parties but also former Election Commissioners and judges who question the transparency and integrity of the Election Commission's methods. Transparency must be demonstrated through action, not merely through words.