Bihar polls: ECI silent on rise in voters between 6 and 11 Nov
ECI harped on record polling, ‘zero complaints’ and ‘zero repolls’. But its own press notes show a rise in voters between two phases of polling
Counting of votes began in Bihar at 8.00 am on Friday, 14 November but the Election Commission of India (ECI) found itself in the middle of another brewing storm, with its press releases indicating that the number of voters in Bihar miraculously increased between the first and the second phase of polling, in the intervening four days between 6 and 11 November.
The ECI has come up with no clarification, and in keeping with its current ‘keep quiet’ policy, no clarification is expected anytime soon. Here is a recap of some of the issues on which the ECI must clear the air:
1. The electoral roll in Bihar carried the names of 7.89 crore voters in January after the special revision. After the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls between June and August, 7.42 crore voters were left. However, the number went up to 7.43 crore (7,43,55,976) voters in the first phase of polling on 6 November. And wonder of wonders, it went up further on 11 November, the day of the second and final phase of polling, to 7.45 crore (7,45,26,858).
Both figures were shared by the ECI in its press notes. If there was a mistake or ‘typing error’, the ECI is still to acknowledge it, having issued the second press note on 12 November, a day after the second phase. The ECI may well be able to explain the increase between September and November; however, what can possibly explain the increase between 6 and 11 November, between the two rounds of polling?
2. The conduct of the election in Bihar left several uncomfortable questions in its wake. The Commission is still to explain how several BJP office-bearers, ordinarily residents of Delhi, Bengaluru, Haryana and Uttarakhand, cast their votes in Bihar. Seven such cases were forwarded to the ECI by Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of fact-checking agency AltNews, with EPIC numbers and photographs that the office bearers had themselves posted.
Rajya Sabha BJP MP Prof. Rakesh Sinha, who continues to teach in Delhi University, admitted to having cast his vote in Delhi in February before casting his vote in Bihar in November.
These cases came to light because these people were active on social media and posted their selfies after voting each time. Some of them deleted their posts after they were exposed. Although by rules cited by the ECI itself, they were not eligible to vote in Bihar, they apparently did; and though possessing two EPIC cards is an offence, the ECI has not thought it fit to respond, let alone express any intent to take action.
3. The ECI is also yet to explain or seek an explanation from the BJP on the train-load of seeming BJP voters flagged off from Ambala by BJP office-bearers. Once again, the party made no secret of it and boasted on camera that it had paid for tickets, persuaded employers of the Bihari migrants to grant them four days of paid leave, and covered the expenses of their journey — all for them to cast their votes. With the Representation of Peoples Act forbidding political parties from even offering a cup of tea, which amounts to corrupt practice, the ECI’s continued silence is damning.
4. The ECI has also claimed in its press note that it used Jeevika Didis — members of women’s self-help groups — in election duty, some 1.80 lakh of them, on both days of polling. Since the ECI had already deployed 4.5 lakh ‘staff’ on poll-duty at 90,000 polling stations, why it needed the service of Jeevika Didis has not been clarified yet.
The ECI first allowed the government to transfer a one-time cash dole of Rs 10,000 to the members of the self-help groups during the election, a controversial decision deemed to be a violation of the Model Code of Conduct, and then went ahead to deploy them on election duty.
5. The ECI does not seem to have paid any heed to allegations that Union and state ministers campaigning for the ruling coalition were freely meeting bureaucrats engaged in the conduct of the election. Union home minister Amit Shah was accused by the Opposition to have summoned officials for meetings at various places, including a hotel in Patna.
Such conduct during the campaign can be construed as corrupt practice. After all, late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election was set aside because her polling agent Yashpal Kapoor had resigned from the government but the resignation was yet to be accepted when he got engaged in campaigning.