Up in the air: Bihar voter rolls and GST 2.0

All India Professionals’ Congress president Praveen Chakravarty is looking for the truth — gleaning available data and simultaneously pushing the ECI to release more information in the wake of the ‘special intensive revision’ of voter rolls in Bihar.

Chakravarty had also worked closely with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when he was preparing the blueprint for GST. Herjinder engaged with him on the nuances of electoral data manipulation and the recently announced modifications to GST. Excerpts:

The Election Commission has released machine-readable data of the 65 lakh Bihar voters whose names were deleted. Do you notice a pattern in this data?

Initially, the Commission had flatly refused. After our challenge and the Supreme Court directive that the data be released, the Commission uploaded it, but in a fragmented manner — booth-wise. For any serious analysis, a consolidated database of all 65 lakh entries is essential.

Only then can patterns be clearly identified. Instead, they gave data split across 3,000 booths, which means 3,000 separate files. Each file must be analysed individually. We are working on it. From our preliminary analysis, a very striking pattern is emerging, though I cannot reveal details just yet.

Why is the Commission reluctant to share the complete data?

The Election Commission keeps contradicting itself. First they said lists had already been given to booth agents. When Rahul Gandhi raised this in Parliament, they repeated this claim, without clarifying that these were just printed bundles. As Rahulji showed in Karnataka, the so-called list was a seven-foot-high pile of papers for a single Assembly segment.

After our analysis and presentation, the Commission suddenly claimed “privacy issues”. This is public information — so what exactly are they hiding, and why are they refusing to share it?

In Maharashtra, you found a different pattern…

As Rahulji said in his press conference, a pattern has been visible since 2019. Before every election, some big drama would dominate the media — Pulwama, Pakistan, Ladki Bahin. Survey agencies would claim a huge pro-BJP wave. When the results came, they would match the projections perfectly! This cycle was consistent. At that time, many suspected EVMs. Personally, I never mentioned EVMs.

I began analysing whether the Ladki Bahin campaign alone could explain the outcome in Maharashtra. We had performed well in the Lok Sabha polls, and were on track for 157 Assembly seats. The alliance remained unchanged. Yet within five months, our tally collapsed to 50. That implied every voter who supported the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) had suddenly switched sides.

When we examined the data, we discovered our votes hadn’t dropped — rather, theirs had surged. On delving, we realised these were new voters — over 70 lakh new names had appeared on the rolls. That’s when I understood the game.

Even then, I wasn’t sure if this was the BJP’s ground operation or the Election Commission’s doing. After Gyanesh Kumar’s press conference (on 17 August), it became obvious that both are involved.

The Bihar case is currently in the Supreme Court. If it doesn’t move forward there, what options remain?

This has now grown into a full-fledged political movement. When I first raised the Maharashtra issue, many were sceptical. Some called it misleading. The media said it was due to the Congress’ weak organisation. Today, that view has shifted. With Rahulji’s ‘Voter Adhikar Yatra’ in Bihar, mobilisation is underway.

I just got back from making a two-hour presentation in Chennai, where people wanted the concept of ‘vote chori’ explained in Tamil! So yes, while the legal battle is on in the Supreme Court, this fight is larger. Even the BJP’s allies must reflect — if this continues, their own parties could vanish overnight. This is not a Congress versus BJP issue. It concerns the future of Indian democracy.

Rahul Gandhi has said ‘picture abhi baki hai (this is just the trailer)'. Should we expect another big exposé?

All I can say for now is: wait.

Let’s talk about GST. You worked with Manmohan Singh when it was first proposed. Did you ever imagine it would one day be called ‘Gabbar Singh Tax’?

During UPA-2, we wanted to introduce GST, but couldn’t because one state opposed it — Gujarat. Its then chief minister was strongly against GST. Later, when the Modi government implemented it, why did GST turn into a disaster? Because it was all about optics, not sound economics.

On 8 November 2016, Narendra Modi announced demonetisation. By December–January, it was evident the move would wreak economic havoc. To manage the fallout, they rushed GST. The decision was taken in February and the GST bills were moved in the Lok Sabha in March 2017.

Arvind Subramaniam, then chief economic advisor and chair of the GST panel had recommended just two tax rates plus a zero rate. This was ignored. The IT infrastructure wasn’t even ready. As a result, absurd problems cropped up — for instance, vada pav with butter attracted one GST rate, while vada pav without butter had another. No country in the world has ever introduced GST in such a chaotic way!

Had it been implemented under Manmohan Singh, what might have been different?

Let me explain with a technical concept — the Laffer Curve. Governments need tax revenue. The instinctive notion is that higher taxes bring higher revenue. The Laffer Curve argues the opposite: lower tax rates can actually yield more revenue, because lower prices increase consumption, boosting collections. That was Dr Singh’s economist wisdom.

The second point is that GST is an indirect tax, what economists call a ‘regressive tax’. Why regressive? Because whether you’re Mukesh Ambani, an MNREGA worker or an urban movie-goer, the tax charged is the same. Income tax, by contrast, is progressive. That’s why indirect tax rates should always be kept low. But this government did the exact opposite.

Now that GST rates are being reduced, will the impact be positive?

As of now, it’s only talk. When implemented, we will welcome it. This has always been the UPA’s approach. Rahulji has consistently advocated for a simplified GST. I was on the manifesto committee with Chidambaramji, and we clearly recommended keeping GST rates simple. If the government finally implements our manifesto, we will certainly support it.

Will such changes also reduce the ‘tax terrorism’ linked to GST?

There are two aspects — tax rates and tax compliance. The harassment, or what we call tax terrorism, arises from compliance. The more complicated GST becomes, the greater the scope for harassment. A simpler structure can definitely help reduce it.

And what about the proposed 40 per cent rate — what impact will it have?

Unless we know exactly which goods and services fall under that slab, it’s impossible to assess its effect.

Won’t reduced GST rates create new problems for the states?

The fundamental flaw in GST is that it strips states of their fiscal rights. After GST, India became the only federal democracy where elected state governments cannot levy their own taxes.

Let me give you an example. When M.G. Ramachandran first became chief minister of Tamil Nadu, he promised to introduce a universal mid-day meal scheme. Officials objected, saying it was unaffordable at a cost of Rs 200 crore. MGR insisted it must be done. To fund it, he raised taxes on cars, alcohol and luxury goods. The scheme was rolled out successfully, and years later, the UPA government expanded it across India.

That kind of innovation is no longer possible. GST takes away the states’ ability to design and finance schemes based on their own needs. In a country like India, with such wide inequality among states, they must have the freedom to levy taxes suited to their circumstances.

The Modi government had promised states that their revenues would not decline after GST. That guarantee lasted five years — it has now expired. Another assurance was that GST would boost GDP by two per cent. Eight years later, there’s been no such impact. States are now worried their revenues will fall sharply.

To make matters worse, the Centre has steadily expanded the use of cesses. In the last decade, these have gone up by as much as 10 per cent. Under GST rules, revenue is shared with states, but cess collections go entirely to the Central government.