Five takeaways from what Rahul Gandhi said and what the media missed

Since mainstream media have done such a poor job of reporting on Rahul Gandhi’s presentation on 18 September, it is important to take note of some of the points he raised and their implications, missed by and large by the media.

1. Contrary to several such takes by media professionals on TV channels, the Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition did not allege that 6,018 votes were deleted in Aland Assembly segment in 2023 before the Assembly election. He actually said requests were submitted online to delete these many voters on one ground or another, but the process was stopped in time after it was accidentally discovered by a BLO (booth-level officer) who knew both the applicant and the voter whose name was sought to be deleted.

Alert party workers and Congress candidate B.R. Patil complained to the ECI and produced the proof, demanding field inquiries and steps to ensure that the names were not deleted. Eventually only 24 voters’ names were deleted since they had moved out of the area.

2. The abortive attempt at deletion of voters' names in Aland furnished proof that sophisticated software was being used to remotely submit Form 7 for deletion of voters from the electoral roll. This suspicion is strengthened because only a computer software programme could have picked up the number one voter at the top of the voters’ list in each booth to submit the forms for deletion.

Another pointer is the speed with which the forms were uploaded and the OTP generated — 36 seconds to submit two forms and 14 minutes to submit 12. Such speed cannot be maintained manually.

Yet another telltale signal is that several forms were uploaded at 4.00 am. This was clearly the job of professionals adept at computer programming, who conducted operations from a centralised command centre.

3. The facts that this group of professionals used mobile phones active in states other than Karnataka, had access to booth-wise voters’ lists and also knew who among the voters were to be targeted, suggest it was an organised and well-planned operation. How else did they decide which names to delete in which booth? They clearly had access to information about booth-wise voting patterns in previous elections to be able to conduct the operation.

4. The operation is a crime punishable under the Representation of People Act with imprisonment of up to a year. This did not deter the syndicate that conducted the operation, possibly because they were convinced they enjoyed immunity from prosecution. It is also possible that the operation was conducted from a foreign country by professionals who knew they did not have to worry about Indian laws. The truth will be known only after the culprits are identified and caught.

5. Why is it taking so much time to catch the culprits of Aland? More than two years have passed since the Assembly election in Karnataka in 2023. The police investigation is apparently stuck because the Election Commission is not sharing the details stored in its servers. While most of us may not have a clue, the state CID has been asking for ‘destination IP’ and ‘destination port’ in order to identify the owners and users of the devices used to log in and receive OTPs. Why is the ECI not sharing the information?

However, wait. Has the Election Commission not claimed that it supplied all the information sought in 2023 itself? If so, why have the state CID and the Karnataka CEO both been sending reminders to the ECI? Is it possible that the ECI furnished the information which was already known to the complainant, B.R. Patil, and the police? Like the names of voters who ostensibly logged in and submitted the online forms? When it has been proved that they were not aware of the submission, how is that information even useful?

It is important to catch the culprits and the mastermind, who may even be foreign nationals interfering in Indian elections. India surely has the technical know-how and expertise to find the cyber criminals? The delay of two years may have allowed them sufficient time to wipe out their footprints and destroy the devices used, which would be crucial evidence. If so, it would be a tragedy and lost opportunity.

The Election Commission had once proposed around 2014-15 the use of a ‘Totaliser’ machine to mix vote counts of several polling booths before counting. This was meant to replicate the earlier practice of mixing the ballot papers of several booths to keep the voting pattern of each booth secret.

The Modi government had then turned it down on the ground that it was important to know booth-wise voting patterns in order to streamline the government’s welfare schemes. Is it time for the ECI to press once again for the use of the Totaliser?