The spirit of a vibrant democracy, like India, is not limited to voting only. It expands to the grace with which the outcomes of elections are accepted. A concerning pattern has emerged in the political landscape of India, especially since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under Prime Minister Narendra Modi started its journey of electoral victories in 2014.
In the wake of the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024, several opposition parties, including that of Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Samajwadi Party (SP) and Communist Party of India (CPI), among others, have repeatedly levelled accusations of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) tampering. Sadly, their knee-jerk reaction lacks substantial proof in all the cases. In a sense, it is nothing but a blunt refusal to accept the electoral defeat. Such intentional denial of the voters’ sentiments signifies a deeper issue among the losing parties, which is a disrespect of the democratic choice of the electorate.
The narrative is that EVM hacking or VVPAT hacking has a problematic foundation. First things first, there is no credible evidence presented by those who raise suspicion. These allegations not only question the integrity of the electoral process of the world’s largest democracy but also insinuate that the choice that voters have made is somehow invalid or manipulated. The narrative is slowly creating a sense of erosion of the trust in democratic institutions that have worked tirelessly to ensure the elections run smoothly in the country.
Figures like Prashant Bhushan, Manmohan Mishra, Rahul Mehta, Pragya Mishra, and Abhisar Sharma provide a foundation for political leaders to raise suspicion over the authenticity of the EVM machines.
Take the example of Prashant Bhushan. He first shared a video of Rahul Mehta, who happens to be the founder of the “Right to Recall Party”, where Mehta was seen raising questions on VVPAT. In the video, Mehta claimed the black glass on VVPAT machines gives the BJP a chance to siphon off the votes from opposition parties in their favour.
Mehta insinuated that the light in VVPAT machines is on for a few seconds and does not record the actual vote but shows a dummy vote as the paper does not fall in front of the eyes of the voter. He did it using a mock or fake VVPAT machine that he had created himself. Interestingly, when we look at the videos explaining the process given by the Elections Commission, it is clear that the voters can see the slip coming out and falling irrespective of the light being on or off.
His claims were on the lines of one of the bizarre showcases of “engineering skills” and fear-mongering by AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj, who claimed EVMs could be tampered with in the Delhi Assembly. He used a mock EVM machine to demonstrate his “theory”, only to become a laughing stock.
Recently, Congress leader Digvijay Singh also raised questions over the working of EVM machines and VVPATs. He quoted a video of controversial YouTuber Mummohan Mishra, known for creating anti-BJP and anti-Modi videos, and thanked him for raising the questions on EVM. Not to forget, Mishra was arrested by UP Police in 2021 for using derogatory language against the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath.
It is funny that these activists and political leaders who claim EVM tempering change their notion when the BJP loses in any state. For example, in the recent assembly elections, the BJP stood victorious in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh. However, the party lost elections in Telangana. The activists claimed that the BJP tempered EVM machines in the three states where they won but did not temper the EVM machines in the state where they lost to “ensure trust is maintained over the credibility of the machines”.
The selective scepticism casts doubt on the credibility of their assertions and suggests that they follow a pattern of scapegoating rather than being a substantive critique of the electoral process. Their idea appears to be less about safeguarding democracy and more a face-saving tactic after losing the elections. It is highly problematic to insult the intelligence and choice of the voters. Going by the results of the elections in the last couple of years, it is evident that voters do not care about the allegations of EVM tempering, and they come out to use their democratic right to choose the candidate of their choice.
The leaders of the losing parties need to understand that democracy is fundamentally about respect – respect for the process, the institutions and most importantly, the choice of the electorate. When they refuse to accept their defeat gracefully, the leaders are not only failing themselves but the spirit of the democratic process of India. It is consistently weakening the very foundation of the democratic process, making voters more upset with the losing candidates.
Such attempts to whitewash the defeat with baseless allegations may result in long-term detrimental effects on the political landscape. It creates a risk of a cynical electorate, disillusioned with the political process and sceptical of every election result. It may become the antithesis of democratic engagement, leading to apathy, a dangerous trend in any democracy.
The political leaders need to realise, too quickly, that the strength of a democracy is measured not only by the enthusiasm of the campaigning or the promises they have made but by the humility and grace with which they acknowledge the electoral defeats. Since BJP started its victorious journey, none of its leaders disrespected the electorate’s choice the way other parties have. The grace missing in acknowledging defeat is laying down the foundation of defeat after defeat for the opposition parties in future elections.
It is high time that political leaders across the spectrum commit to upholding the dignity of the electoral process, respect the mandate and work constructively in the role of a responsible opposition when called upon to do so.
One of the best examples is Union Minister Smriti Irani. She did not abandon the constituency when she lost the Lok Sabha election from Amethi in 2014. Irani consistently stood for the people of Amethi and worked hard to get projects for the region, and when she fought the elections again in 2019 against Rahul Gandhi, the unimaginable happened. The people of Amethi chose Smriti Irani over Gandhi. The “family constituency” of the Gandhi family slipped out of their hands only because Smriti Irani gracefully accepted defeat and continued to work for the constituency.
The health of a democracy is contingent on the behaviour of the leaders. Respect the mandate is about accepting the defeat and reaffirming faith in the democratic process. It is about honouring the electorate’s choice and maintaining the sanctity of the institutions based on democratic values. For the sake of the democratic future of Bharat, it is of utmost importance that leaders learn this lesson in respect.
