Why Create a Controversy? To Relaunch Rahul Gandhi?
Total Views |
Rahul Gandhi has turned the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls into something much bigger than a dispute over voter lists. What began as a question about electoral-roll verification has now been elevated into an alleged conspiracy involving the Election Commission, the government, the BJP and even the legitimacy of Parliament and its laws.
These are extraordinarily serious allegations. They therefore demand extraordinarily strong evidence. Instead, Congress has increasingly converted SIR into a political battlefield. Jairam Ramesh has gone to the extent of rechristening SIR as “Shah Instigated Removal” and calling it an assault on the Constitution. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has described SIR as a “Frankenstein Monster.”
But there is an inconvenient problem for this narrative. It comes from Congress itself.
On May 4, after Congress and the UDF won Kerala, senior Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala said SIR had helped Congress because bogus and deceased voters had been removed from the rolls. On September 25, when confronted with Rahul Gandhi's sweeping contention that SIR amounts to vote theft, Chennithala qualified his position: Kerala was different because political parties were vigilant at the grassroots level. He nevertheless said that SIR in Kerala was “alright.” This is not a trivial contradiction.
If SIR is inherently “vote theft,” as Rahul Gandhi's rhetoric increasingly suggests, how did the same process help Congress in Kerala? If removing bogus or deceased voters is legitimate in Kerala, why should the basic principle suddenly become an assault on democracy elsewhere?
Shashi Tharoor had earlier made a similarly important observation. He said he suspected SIR may have helped Congress in Kerala and said he had no objection to the removal of spurious, deceased, absent or migrated voters. Mathew Kuzhalnadan also publicly linked the removal of fake voters through SIR to the UDF's Kerala victory.
Congress therefore has a problem that cannot be wished away through slogans.
The party is not merely confronting the Election Commission. It is confronting statements made by its own leaders.
The picture becomes still more complicated when Congress-ruled states are brought into the discussion. In Telangana, Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy has alleged that SIR could be used to delete Congress-supporting voters. In Karnataka and Jharkhand, Congress has raised concerns over deletions and possible exclusions. Jairam Ramesh himself has published state-wise figures for Telangana, Jharkhand and Karnataka, while noting that lists of voters facing possible deletion have been made available in these states.
Those concerns deserve scrutiny. A genuine voter wrongly excluded from an electoral roll is a serious matter. Every deletion must be verifiable, and every eligible citizen must have an effective opportunity to establish eligibility and appeal where necessary.
But that legitimate concern is fundamentally different from declaring the entire electoral exercise “vote theft.” The distinction matters.
Is this really about protecting every genuine voter? If so, why not concentrate on specific cases of wrongful deletion, demand transparent verification, strengthen the appeal mechanism and work with the Election Commission to correct errors? Or is SIR becoming a political vehicle through which Rahul Gandhi can once again place himself at the centre of national politics?
That question cannot simply be dismissed as a political attack. Rahul Gandhi has progressively transformed the language of the controversy from questions about electoral rolls to “vote theft,” then “law theft” and “institutional theft.” He has questioned the legitimacy of laws passed by Parliament on the premise that the electoral mandate itself was stolen. That is a gigantic escalation.
And escalation has a political consequence: it puts Rahul Gandhi at the centre of the opposition's national campaign against the Election Commission. The irony is difficult to miss. Congress's own leaders in Kerala acknowledged that electoral-roll revision could remove bogus and deceased voters and could benefit the party. But the national Congress leadership is now presenting SIR in language suggesting an existential assault on democracy. The issue, therefore, is no longer merely SIR. It is credibility.
If Congress has evidence of systematic wrongful deletion, it should put that evidence before the country and pursue the constitutional and legal remedies available. If the Election Commission has made errors, those errors should be exposed and corrected. But electoral reform cannot become a licence for political rhetoric without evidence.
And Rahul Gandhi cannot simultaneously rely on the electoral system when it produces a favourable result and portray the same system as fundamentally illegitimate when its functioning becomes politically inconvenient. That leaves one unavoidable question hanging over the entire controversy:
Is Congress fighting for the integrity of India's electoral rolls or is SIR being used as the latest vehicle for the political relaunch of Rahul Gandhi? The answer will have to come from Congress itself. This keeps the “relaunch Rahul” angle sharp while grounding the attack in the Congress leaders' own statements rather than claiming an unproven motive.
On September 24, Rahul Gandhi went much further than merely questioning deletions. He spoke of “vote chori, kanoon chori, sanstha chori” and argued that if votes were stolen, even the legitimacy of laws passed by elected MPs could be questioned. He also accused the Prime Minister, Amit Shah and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat of being conspirators in an alleged effort to steal elections.
But there is an inconvenient problem for this narrative. It comes from Congress itself.
On May 4, after Congress and the UDF won Kerala, senior Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala said SIR had helped Congress because bogus and deceased voters had been removed from the rolls. On September 25, when confronted with Rahul Gandhi's sweeping contention that SIR amounts to vote theft, Chennithala qualified his position: Kerala was different because political parties were vigilant at the grassroots level. He nevertheless said that SIR in Kerala was “alright.” This is not a trivial contradiction.
ALSO READ: “Hinton’s One-Year Warning: Are We Ready for the AI Age?”
Shashi Tharoor had earlier made a similarly important observation. He said he suspected SIR may have helped Congress in Kerala and said he had no objection to the removal of spurious, deceased, absent or migrated voters. Mathew Kuzhalnadan also publicly linked the removal of fake voters through SIR to the UDF's Kerala victory.
Congress therefore has a problem that cannot be wished away through slogans.
The party is not merely confronting the Election Commission. It is confronting statements made by its own leaders.
The picture becomes still more complicated when Congress-ruled states are brought into the discussion. In Telangana, Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy has alleged that SIR could be used to delete Congress-supporting voters. In Karnataka and Jharkhand, Congress has raised concerns over deletions and possible exclusions. Jairam Ramesh himself has published state-wise figures for Telangana, Jharkhand and Karnataka, while noting that lists of voters facing possible deletion have been made available in these states.
Those concerns deserve scrutiny. A genuine voter wrongly excluded from an electoral roll is a serious matter. Every deletion must be verifiable, and every eligible citizen must have an effective opportunity to establish eligibility and appeal where necessary.
But that legitimate concern is fundamentally different from declaring the entire electoral exercise “vote theft.” The distinction matters.
An electoral roll is not a sacred document frozen for eternity. Dead voters die. People migrate. Duplicate registrations occur. Addresses change. Ineligible names can enter rolls. Genuine voters can also be wrongly deleted. A credible electoral system therefore requires continuous verification as well as safeguards against wrongful exclusion. Congress's own Kerala experience demonstrates precisely this complexity.
So why has Rahul Gandhi chosen to turn SIR into a national confrontation of such extraordinary proportions? That is the question Congress has not convincingly answered.Is this really about protecting every genuine voter? If so, why not concentrate on specific cases of wrongful deletion, demand transparent verification, strengthen the appeal mechanism and work with the Election Commission to correct errors? Or is SIR becoming a political vehicle through which Rahul Gandhi can once again place himself at the centre of national politics?
ALSO READ: NIA Court Sentences Four PFI Members to Life Imprisonment in Sasikumar Murder Case
And escalation has a political consequence: it puts Rahul Gandhi at the centre of the opposition's national campaign against the Election Commission. The irony is difficult to miss. Congress's own leaders in Kerala acknowledged that electoral-roll revision could remove bogus and deceased voters and could benefit the party. But the national Congress leadership is now presenting SIR in language suggesting an existential assault on democracy. The issue, therefore, is no longer merely SIR. It is credibility.
If Congress has evidence of systematic wrongful deletion, it should put that evidence before the country and pursue the constitutional and legal remedies available. If the Election Commission has made errors, those errors should be exposed and corrected. But electoral reform cannot become a licence for political rhetoric without evidence.
And Rahul Gandhi cannot simultaneously rely on the electoral system when it produces a favourable result and portray the same system as fundamentally illegitimate when its functioning becomes politically inconvenient. That leaves one unavoidable question hanging over the entire controversy:
Is Congress fighting for the integrity of India's electoral rolls or is SIR being used as the latest vehicle for the political relaunch of Rahul Gandhi? The answer will have to come from Congress itself. This keeps the “relaunch Rahul” angle sharp while grounding the attack in the Congress leaders' own statements rather than claiming an unproven motive.