The Congress-led INDIA bloc’s sustained challenge to the Election Commission raises an uncomfortable question: if it has lost faith in the electoral system, will it have the courage to stay away from the next big electoral test, or is the boycott talk merely another political weapon?
MS Shanker
An intriguing debate is gaining traction in political circles: if the Congress-led INDIA bloc has lost faith in the Election Commission of India (ECI), particularly under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, should its constituents contest the forthcoming Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections? After all, repeatedly questioning the credibility of an institution while continuing to participate in the very process it supervises presents an interesting political contradiction. Or does it?
The Congress has been relentlessly pushing its ‘vote chori’ narrative for over a year, accusing the Election Commission of failing to ensure a level playing field and questioning the integrity of electoral rolls. Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders have repeatedly targeted Gyanesh Kumar, demanding accountability and even his resignation. The INDIA bloc has also taken its campaign to the streets, with protests and demands for changes in the electoral roll revision process. The Election Commission, meanwhile, has rejected several of the allegations and sought documentary evidence to substantiate them.
But here comes the million-dollar question. If the Congress genuinely believes that the electoral machinery is compromised, will it translate that accusation into an electoral boycott? Or will the same party, which questions the referee’s neutrality, happily walk onto the playing field when the next match begins?
The Uttar Pradesh elections, expected in February-March 2027, could provide an interesting test of this political dilemma. The Samajwadi Party, led by Akhilesh Yadav, has already begun preparing for the electoral battle, hoping to build on its performance in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Would Akhilesh readily abandon that opportunity merely because the Congress questions the Election Commission? That is asking a regional party with its own political ambitions to sacrifice its electoral future at the altar of another party’s campaign.
The Congress may raise the question of institutional credibility, but its allies have their own political compulsions. The Trinamool Congress, RJD, Samajwadi Party and other constituents of the INDIA bloc are not likely to surrender their electoral space without a serious discussion. After all, political alliances are built on shared interests, not necessarily shared convictions on every issue.
There is another dimension to this debate. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has consistently sought to turn Opposition criticism into an opportunity to sharpen the BJP’s political messaging. His recent references to ‘dimagi naxals’, following his Independence Day remarks about the ideological remnants of armed extremism, have added another dimension to the political confrontation. At a subsequent address, he returned to the expression, arguing that the reaction to it had exposed those he was criticising. The Opposition, however, has countered that such labels risk branding dissent as disloyalty.
Whether one agrees with the Prime Minister’s terminology or not, the political messaging is unmistakable. The BJP is attempting to frame the debate around nationalism, constitutional institutions and the distinction between legitimate dissent and political disruption. The Opposition, on the other hand, insists that questioning institutions is itself a democratic responsibility. Both sides are competing to define the political narrative, with voters ultimately entitled to judge the arguments.
Interestingly, some television commentators, particularly those perceived to be sympathetic to the Congress, have been advising Opposition leaders to consider more aggressive forms of protest, including the possibility of boycotting elections. But political commentary is one thing; persuading parties to abandon their electoral constituencies is quite another. It is rather easy to recommend a boycott from a television studio. Explaining to party workers why they should surrender their constituencies, candidates and political relevance is a considerably harder assignment.
Indeed, an INDIA bloc boycott of the UP elections would create an unusual political situation. It could leave the BJP and its NDA allies facing a significantly weakened electoral challenge. Could the ruling alliance then find alternative political arrangements, including encouraging friendly contests among its partners, to avoid the impression of an election without a meaningful Opposition? Such a possibility is speculative, but it illustrates the complications of an outright boycott.
More importantly, who would benefit from such a decision? The BJP could claim that its opponents had voluntarily vacated the electoral battlefield. The Samajwadi Party would risk losing the political momentum it has been attempting to build, while the Congress could find itself increasingly isolated among its own allies. A boycott intended to delegitimise an electoral process could, paradoxically, weaken the very parties seeking to defend democratic representation.
That does not mean the Opposition should abandon its complaints. Electoral transparency is not a favour extended by the Election Commission; it is a democratic necessity. Allegations concerning voter deletions, electoral roll revisions and procedural irregularities deserve examination, clear answers and, wherever necessary, independent scrutiny. Equally, political parties must substantiate serious allegations with verifiable evidence rather than allow slogans to substitute for investigation. The Commission, for its part, must recognise that public confidence is built through transparency and responsiveness, not merely through official rebuttals.
The Congress and its allies have several options: pursue legal remedies, demand parliamentary scrutiny, seek institutional accountability, mobilise voters and contest elections while continuing to challenge procedures they consider unfair. A boycott is also a democratic option, but it carries consequences that no television debate can adequately calculate.
Ultimately, the question is not whether the Opposition should contest elections under Gyanesh Kumar. It is whether it can persuade voters that its allegations are backed by evidence while remaining confident enough to seek their mandate. Democracy does not require political parties to agree with the referee. But it does require them to respect the voters’ right to choose.
And if the Opposition believes that the ballot is no longer trustworthy, it must explain why it still wants to be on the ballot paper. That is a question neither a slogan nor a prime-time shouting match can answer.
