A Tight Slap in Congress’s Face

The latest bypoll results have delivered a political message that the Congress and its INDIA bloc partners would ignore at their own peril. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), an ally of the Congress in Tamil Nadu, won both Assembly seats, while the BJP registered victories in two West Bengal Assembly constituencies. These results may not settle the larger electoral battle, but they certainly provide fresh ammunition in the political war over credibility, leadership and public trust.

For me, the bigger question is this: can the Congress continue to accuse constitutional institutions of wrongdoing without producing convincing evidence, while demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar?

The Opposition’s latest confrontation reached the Rashtrapati Bhavan, where a delegation led by Rahul Gandhi submitted a memorandum seeking action against the CEC. According to Gandhi’s account of the meeting, President Droupadi Murmu asked the delegation to provide evidence supporting its allegations. Gandhi subsequently said the Opposition would furnish the evidence.

That is precisely the point. If the Congress claims that votes have been stolen, the natural question is: where is the verifiable evidence establishing electoral manipulation, who was responsible, and what remedy is being sought? Political slogans may energise supporters, but they cannot substitute for proof.

I believe this is where the Opposition’s campaign risks losing credibility. Calling something “vote chori” repeatedly does not automatically establish that it occurred. Equally, the Election Commission cannot expect every question about voter-list revisions or procedural changes to disappear merely by issuing a denial. The institution must answer legitimate questions transparently, and the Opposition must substantiate its allegations with evidence.

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the controversy surrounding Form 6 and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls makes it particularly important not to prejudge the outcome. Questions have been raised about changes to the form and the decision-making process within the Commission. The Court’s examination must be allowed to establish the facts. Neither political accusations nor institutional explanations should be treated as conclusive before the relevant records have been examined.

There is, however, an important distinction that the Congress seems reluctant to acknowledge. Electoral rolls require periodic cleaning. Names of deceased persons, duplicate entries and voters who have permanently shifted may need to be removed or updated, subject to the prescribed procedures and safeguards. Such corrections are not inherently evidence of vote theft. But deletions must be transparent, properly documented and open to challenge, particularly where eligible voters risk being excluded.

My objection is to selective outrage. Political parties that have previously acknowledged problems involving duplicate or outdated voter entries cannot credibly portray every deletion as sinister without examining the reasons behind it. The same standard must apply to every party and every government. If the Congress has evidence of wrongful deletions, let it produce that evidence. If the Election Commission has followed the law, it should demonstrate that through records and due process.

The Congress also faces uncomfortable questions about its own standards of accountability. Jawaharlal Nehru University has dismissed Congress MP and professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam following an internal inquiry into complaints of sexual harassment by female students. The university’s action is a serious development, and the matter must be discussed on the basis of the inquiry’s findings and applicable procedures. It is not a licence for political opponents to pronounce guilt beyond the established record. Nevertheless, the Congress must explain its position and demonstrate that accountability is not a principle it invokes only against its rivals.

The party’s political difficulties extend beyond this controversy. In Uttar Pradesh, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav has emphasised the importance of selecting candidates capable of winning all 403 Assembly constituencies. The message is unmistakable: alliance partners will pursue their own political interests, and the Congress cannot assume that its demands will automatically be accommodated. Its bargaining power depends on its electoral strength, not merely on its national profile or Rahul Gandhi’s prominence.

Punjab presents another test. The Aam Aadmi Party government faces the familiar challenge of incumbency, while the Congress will have to convince voters that it offers a credible alternative. It cannot simply expect dissatisfaction with the ruling party to translate into votes for itself.

For me, the larger lesson is that democratic politics demands consistency. The Congress is entitled to question the Election Commission, seek judicial scrutiny and challenge any irregularity. But it must also accept that allegations carry a burden of proof. Constitutional institutions, for their part, must answer legitimate concerns with facts rather than expect unquestioning acceptance.

The BJP may find political advantage in the Opposition’s difficulties, but electoral victories alone do not settle every institutional dispute. The decisive test is whether the facts withstand scrutiny.

The Congress’s real problem is not that it questions the CEC. It is that its campaign risks appearing politically motivated if its accusations are not backed by compelling evidence. Until that evidence is placed before the appropriate authority and tested, demands for resignations may generate headlines without establishing wrongdoing.

In politics, credibility is an asset that cannot be manufactured through slogans. The Congress would do well to remember an old maxim: those who demand accountability from others must be prepared to face the same standard themselves.