 |
|
|
Introduction: The extent of rigging
in West Bengal is as extensive as in Bihar. The difference being that in
case of the latter, rigging is blatant and crude. In West Bengal too, it
is blatant, but is sophisticated, says Arabinda Ghose
The wild accusations by Mamata
Banerjee against the outgoing Chief Election Commissioner in the context
of rigging in the just-concluded State Assembly elections in West Bengal
are deplorable. However, in the context of the circumstantial evidence
of rigging and proxy voting in these elections, claimed by the Bengali
daily Bartaman in the days following the declaration of results on May
13, certain questions do arise about the responsibility of the Election
Commission in ensuring really free and fair elections.
Bartaman, it is worthwhile mentioning here, has been an unabashed supporter of Mamata Banerjee and had predicted, more or less, defeat of the Left Front in the Assembly polls. Nevertheless, from May 16 onwards, it has been publishing booth-wise number of votes polled by the CPI-M and the main opposition front led by the Trinamool Congress (TC), which go to show, granted that these figures are correct, that there has indeed been a massive rigging by CPI-M at least in certain polling stations in some constituencies. We reproduce in this article some of these samples published by Bartaman. These go to show, again granting that these figures are correct, that the extent of rigging in West Bengal is as extensive, or even more so, as in Bihar. The difference being that in case of the latter, rigging is blatant and crude. In West Bengal too, it is blatant, but is sophisticated. That is why there is no hue and cry in the media at large about this subversion of the electoral process.
However, what is more important is the admission by both the present Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Dr. M.S. Gill and his predecessor T . N. Seshan, that the Commission has no role to play in case 90 per cent or even 100 per cent polling is registered in certain booths or certain constituencies (Ananda Bazar Patrika, 17-5-2001). If all the people whose names figure in the electoral rolls do cast their votes, how can the Commission raise doubts about the fairness of the polls? they seem to ask. After all, those who are voters are expected to cast their votes. Besides, if one candidate garners all the votes in certain polling booths, how can the commission come to the conclusion that there has been proxy voting or rigging? The commission would ask. It is not incomprehensible that all voters polling in particular booths would vote for only one candidate since he or she may be extremely popular. It is only when the presiding officers make complaints to the States Chief Electoral Officer about malpractices in voting in his or her polling booth that the Commission comes into the picture.
The catch is that no presiding officer, unless he is prepared to lay down his life to “defend democracy”, would dare lodge any such complaint to the Chief Electoral Officer. It is common knowledge that the anti-socials, who indulge in rigging, point a gun at the presiding officer and orders him to comply with their ‘requests’. Thus there is a grey area in the election process, where rigging becomes ‘legitimate’. The less is said about the ‘observers’, the better it is. Because they too have families, and at least in West Bengal elections of May 10, there was no such conspicuous actions undertaken by these observers. Certain repollings were ordered, but the same farce was enacted in many of these polling booths, according to reports in Kolkata newspapers.
The Election Commission is empowered, according to Article 324 of the Constitution, to hold elections for Parliament, the State Legislatives, and the President and the Vice-President. It acts strictly in accordance with the Representation of People Act. However, it is not an investigating agency, authorised to inquire into allegation of rigging. Of course, a defeated nominee can always seek the intervention of the judiciary, but that can be done only through an election petition. The process of elections, once began, cannot be stopped through judicial intervention (Article 329) at any stage. So how do the Commission, the judiciary, or the Government can ensure free and fair poll?
The answer to this question gives rise to another question. Why are the electoral malpractices so rampant only in Bihar and West Bengal? No rigging was reported from Kerala and Tamil Nadu this time. There were no elections in Uttar Pradesh or Haryana this time. One cannot be so sure that polls in these two States are very fair. One cannot tag the Hindi speaking States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh with Bihar, Uttar Pradesh or Haryana in this respect. Rigging is more or less unknown in most other areas of the country, although there may be certain exceptions in respect of some of these States too.
Since there is no law that empowers the Election Commission to check the type of rigging that goes on in Bihar, West Bengal or Uttar Pradesh, the only way this scourge can be eliminated is to post armed guards carrying video cameras at every single polling booth in these States when elections are held. For this purpose, central forces have to be posted at these booths, the deployment being the responsibility of the Election Commission and not of the State Election Commission or the State Government.
The problem here is that since law and order is a State subject under the Constitution, the deployment of even the central forces is the responsibility of the State Governments. It has been seen in the past that often the central forces are made to cool their heels and State home guards, whose tenures depend upon the whims of the State Governments, are deployed instead.
Moreover, the State Electoral officers are not always that detatched as the law and traditions require them to be. They are blatantly partisan in certain cases, often being ideologically aligned with the ruling party of the day.
The proposal of the present CEC that elections to State Assemblies should be held under President’s Rule becomes relevant. However, political, parties are reluctant to accept this proposal. In these circumstances, it appears that the media alone can play a decisive role in preventing rigging. In making this suggestion, the writer is aware that the lives of mediapersons, particularly of the electronic media, can be in danger while undertaking this venture.
What appears feasible is that the poll process be staggered in the larger States, and every single booth be covered by television teams so that malpractices are recorded by cameras, which can help the defeated candidates in their election petitions. Public and media pressure be brought to bear on State Governments to ensure the safety of mediapersons covering the misdeeds of anti-socials, making them morally responsible for any harm being caused to journalists.
It is understandable that even all the media organisations together may not have sufficient number of personnel or cameras to be able to cover all polling booths. But their stringers can always be hired. Secondly, all camera teams need not remain static at one single booth. They can be mobile and can thus cover more than one polling booth. They can move to the next group of constituencies during the following rounds of polling. In any case, these are matters of detail.
The basic issue is that rigging that goes in elections in certain States can be stopped, or at least checked, by mediapersons belonging to the electronic media mainly. The media can take up this challenge if they are sincere (which they of course are) and well organised. Will journalists accept this challenge?
Some of the voting figures published in the Bartaman (May 19, 2001) are given below.
Raniganj Assembly Constituency: CPI-M candidate and a minister won the polls from here with a huge majority. But the CPI-M had not allowed any polling agents of the main opposition Trinamool Congress/ Congress to remain in the booths in this constituency. The consequence is shown in the columns below:
Booth No CPI-M Congress
6414314414816620063128229127138197195139140196114143107198/A
678662700502358962476556534776409659673740767533580301407581 26883241217171811121516151515291728
Obviously, the CPI-M cadres, after capturing these booths, have pressed the button a few times for the Congress nominee, so that the result would not appear to be that blatant. But in some booths, even this “minimum courtesy” has not been shown.
Let us take the Jamuria constituency-adjacent
to Raniganj- as an example
Jamuria Constituency:
Booth No. CPI-M TC
207 830 0
129 678 0
112 351 1
12 623 3
178 534 3
14 509 4
46 754 6
142 462 6
45 673 7
28 428 9
264 691 10
157 1004 11
54 888 12
97 983 13
181 436 15
73 199 15
70 360 17
In a few booths, however, the CPI-M has been somewhat ‘liberal’ and allowed people to vote for the TC candidate or themselves pressed the buttons in favour of the TC candidate. Let us sample these booths ‘in the same Jamuria constituency.
Booth No. CPI-M TC.
41 794 27
72 675 26
187 527 27
71 640 31
211 681 29
164 637 32
154 767 42
166 551 46
158 460 40
Similar figures emerge from the Durgapur (1) constituency too.
Durgapur(l) Constituency:
Booth No. CPI-M Congress
31 760 23
12 444 28
39 865 55
11 418 51
209 293 44
Kanksa Constituency:
Booth No. CPI-M Congress
31 185 15
109 322 18
108 383 22
116 353 26
29 697 71
30 664 76
34 337 46
35 486 52
161 477 54
Ukhra Constituency:
Booth No. CPI-M Congress
19 815 22
18 601 58
182 179 22
100 705 82
103 362 34
181 291 36
129 222 31
71 268 31
|
|
|