A Democracy Is Tested by How It Answers Its Critics
EDITORIAL: For three weeks the streets of Delhi have carried one demand: that the Chief Election Commissioner step down. The Election Commission denies wrongdoing, and the government has dismissed the demand as a non-starter. Neither the protest nor the denial settles anything. The facts about the voter-roll revision are still to be established, and that is exactly the problem.
The numbers alone justify scrutiny. More than 130 million names have reportedly been removed from electoral rolls. The Commission says it is purging the dead, the duplicated and the fraudulent. Critics say eligible citizens, Muslims in particular, have been struck off. Both claims can be tested, and an independent audit, such as the retired-judge committee the opposition has asked the Supreme Court to appoint, would test them. A commission confident in its work should welcome one.
The Indian Express report raises the stakes. Two election commissioners reportedly objected at least 14 times in ten months, mostly over the voter-list process. A constitutional body cannot be an institution of public trust if its members are left uninformed about changes to the roll. Refusing to explain does not make the question go away.
None of this proves the opposition’s charge of manipulation, and it does not prove that Mr Kumar should resign. Resignation is a demand, not a finding. Opposition parties that have spent years alleging “vote theft” must also accept that evidence, not slogans, will decide this. But the burden of transparency lies with the institution that holds the register of the world’s largest electorate.
The state’s response to dissent is the second test, and the record is troubling. Thousands have been detained, among them journalists, lawyers and a sitting MP who alleges he was dragged and assaulted. Metro stations were shut and a protest site was de-notified. Peaceful assembly is a right, not a favour. Police who cannot tell a protester from a threat damage the government’s case far more than any placard.
Credit is due to the courts, which have acted promptly. A Sunday sitting, notice to the Commission and the release of detained advocates show that institutions can still check one another. The Supreme Court should now hear the case quickly, examine the decision-making behind the revision, and rule firmly on the detentions.
Is Indian democracy dying? That is too sweeping a verdict. Elections are held, courts rule, and the press reports even on the crackdown on itself. But democracies rarely fail in one blow. They erode when referees lose credibility and criticism is met with force. Both are in play now. The way out is plain. Open the records, audit the rolls, guarantee peaceful protest and let the Court decide. A government sure of its mandate loses nothing by doing so.
