BJP's uncontested victory, depriving citizens of voting rights, echoes critics' warnings

As political pundits and opposition political parties often say, another term in power for the BJP could mean that citizens' right to elect their government may be taken away from them, ensuring the monopoly of only one party.

Exemplifying these concerns, incidents have also happened in Gujarat’s Surat, and albeit not identical, in Madhya Pradesh’s Indore also witnessed similar drama; in both cases, candidates for the ongoing Lok Sabha elections withdrew from the fray, paving the way for the BJP candidate to be declared elected uncontested.

The circumstances that led Lok Sabha Election candidates to withdraw from the fray have raised questions of coercion, intimidation, and attempts to manipulate the electoral process, thereby snatching the constitutional right of casting votes from lakhs of citizens.

In Surat, the rejection of nominations associated with the Congress party paved the way for independent candidates to withdraw from the race, ultimately leading to Mukesh Dalal being declared elected unopposed. Similarly, in Indore, the Congress candidate withdrew and joined the BJP, allegedly under pressure.

However, the situation in Indore took a more sinister turn as Ajit Singh Panwar, representing the Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist), and his associates reported being subjected to pressure tactics allegedly orchestrated by government officials and individuals claiming affiliation with the BJP, according to The Wire.

Panwar revealed receiving hundreds of calls from known and unknown numbers, indicating a systematic effort to influence the electoral process.

Panwar recounted instances where he was approached by individuals claiming to be associated with the BJP, including a former MLA and a police official, who purportedly sought his withdrawal from the race. Moreover, a BJP corporator reportedly attempted to coerce a proposer of Panwar's nomination into denying their support, highlighting the extent of pressure exerted on candidates and their supporters.

The alleged intimidation tactics extended beyond direct contact with Panwar, as efforts were made to coerce independent candidates into withdrawing their nominations. Panwar's refusal to yield to these pressures thwarted the BJP's alleged attempts to secure an uncontested victory in Indore.

The Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist) has condemned these actions and intends to file a complaint with the Election Commission, denouncing the use of pressure tactics to influence the electoral process.

Sunil Gopal, a member of the party's state committee secretariat, emphasized the importance of maintaining a level-playing field in elections and vowed to contest the seat despite the challenges posed by intimidation tactics.

The events in Surat and Indore bear a striking resemblance, raising concerns about the erosion of democratic values and the integrity of the electoral process. Analysts speculate that the motive behind these actions may not solely be to secure electoral victories but also to assert dominance and demoralize opposition parties.

In light of these developments, the importance of upholding the Model Code of Conduct, which emphasizes fair play and non-interference in the electoral process, cannot be overstated. The allegations of coercion and intimidation underscore the need for strict enforcement of electoral laws to safeguard the integrity of democratic elections.

As the elections in Surat and Indore unfold, the eyes of the nation will be on the Election Commission of India to ensure a free and fair electoral process.

The Model Code of Conduct, clause I(7) reads:

“Political parties and candidates shall ensure that their supporters do not create obstructions in or break up meetings and processions organized by other parties. Workers or sympathisers of one political party shall not create disturbances at public meetings organized by another political party by putting questions orally or in writing or by distributing leaflets of their own party. Processions shall not be taken out by one party along places at which meetings are held by another party. Posters issued by one party shall not be removed by workers of another party.”