For years now, a section of India’s Opposition has perfected a peculiar political habit. Win an election, and the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) is hailed as a triumph of democracy. Lose one, and the very same machine suddenly becomes the villain. This convenient “vote chori” narrative has become less about safeguarding democracy and more about finding an alibi for electoral rejection. The latest development from Indonesia should serve as a fitting reality check—and indeed, a tight slap to those who have relentlessly sought to undermine India’s electoral institutions for short-term political gains. Even as certain political parties continue to peddle conspiracy theories over EVMs without producing credible technical evidence, Bharat’s election management system is increasingly becoming a global benchmark. Indonesia, the world’s third-largest democracy with nearly 288 million people, is now looking towards Bjarat for election technology, institutional support and electoral best practices. Reports indicate that New Delhi and Jakarta are working towards an MoU covering election management, customised Indian EVMs, capacity building and technology cooperation. The irony could not be starker. While Bharat’s Opposition questions the integrity of EVMs before television cameras, other democracies are studying the very same technology to strengthen their own electoral systems. That speaks volumes—not about the machines, but about the credibility they command internationally. Indonesia is hardly the first nation to express confidence in Indian election technology. Bhutan adopted customised Indian EVMs with technical assistance from India. Nepal has also received customised machines for pilot use. Namibia became the first country to commercially deploy Bharat-made EVMs and later embraced the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system as well. These are sovereign democracies. They have no stake in Bharat’s domestic political battles. Their interest is driven by one consideration alone—confidence in a proven electoral technology backed by one of the world’s most complex and transparent election management systems.
Bharat’s EVM journey itself spans over three decades. Introduced experimentally in the late 1980s and deployed nationwide since the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, these machines have successfully conducted elections involving hundreds of millions of voters under the supervision of the independent Election Commission of India (Bharat). Over the years, the system has been further strengthened through VVPAT verification, judicial scrutiny, and repeated technical evaluations. Yet, facts rarely seem to matter to those who find political convenience in casting aspersions. Perhaps the most glaring contradiction is that the very parties alleging “vote theft” through EVMs never hesitate to celebrate victories secured through those very machines. The Congress and several of its allies have formed governments in various states after winning elections conducted using identical EVMs. Their MPs and MLAs have entered legislatures through the same electoral process they later question whenever results go against them. Such selective outrage exposes the hollowness of the argument. If EVMs are genuinely compromised, then consistency demands that every victory secured through them should also be rejected. One cannot logically accept victories as the people’s mandate while dismissing defeats as machine manipulation. Democracy cannot function on such political double standards. Even more damaging is the long-term consequence of this rhetoric. Repeatedly alleging electoral fraud without substantiated evidence chips away at public confidence in democratic institutions. It encourages citizens to doubt the electoral process itself rather than engage in honest introspection over political failures, leadership deficits or governance shortcomings. Democracy is strengthened by evidence-based criticism, not by narratives built on suspicion alone. Indonesia’s Election Commissioner Idham Holik, after observing Bharat’s electoral process during the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, described the experience as “very inspiring,” adding that the elections were “free and fair” and calling Bharat “truly a land of democracy.” Such endorsements from independent international observers carry far greater weight than politically motivated accusations made in the heat of electoral defeat. No electoral system is beyond scrutiny, and every democracy must continuously improve transparency and accountability. Constructive criticism backed by evidence is not only legitimate but essential. However, endlessly recycling allegations of “vote chori” without proof merely because the electorate has delivered an unfavourable verdict does a grave disservice to democratic discourse. The message from the international community is becoming increasingly clear. While some within Bharat continue to discredit EVMs for political expediency, the world is recognising them as a model worth adopting. Perhaps it is time for those crying “vote chori” after every defeat to stop blaming the machine, respect the mandate of the voter, and introspect why the people chose otherwise. In a democracy, the electorate—not the EVM—delivers the final verdict.
