Is Gyanesh Kumar’s Life in Danger? Have the Other Election Commissioners Been Put at Risk Too?
Is Gyanesh Kumar’s Life in Danger?
Have the Other Election Commissioners Been Put at Risk Too?
Does Gyanesh Kumar realize that
he may now be caught in a web where no direction is safe for him? And have the
other two Election Commissioners also been placed in a dangerous position
because of what they may know? This is what worries me most. My concern comes
from a simple question: what happens when people who have worked close to
powerful political leaders suddenly possess information capable of damaging
those leaders? At that point, they are no longer merely useful people inside
the system. They may become witnesses to how that system actually worked. That
is why I believe the safety of Gyanesh Kumar and the other Election
Commissioners should now become a matter of public concern.
India has already seen
controversies involving people connected with politically sensitive cases. The
death of Judge B. H. Loya generated allegations and demands for an independent
investigation because he had been hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case, in which
Amit Shah had earlier been an accused. The Supreme Court later rejected
petitions seeking an independent investigation, accepting the documentary
record indicating that Judge Loya died of natural causes. Those allegations,
therefore, should not be presented as established facts. But the question I am
raising is broader: what happens when someone inside an important institution
possesses information that could threaten extremely powerful people?
Recent reports of differences
inside the Election Commission make that question even more important.
According to reports, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek
Joshi raised written objections over decisions connected with the Special Intensive
Revision of electoral rolls. The Election Commission has disputed suggestions
of a serious internal rupture and maintained that its decisions were unanimous.
But if disagreements existed and records of those disagreements exist, then
preserving those records becomes extremely important.
Rahul Gandhi has now publicly
asked Gyanesh Kumar to “turn approver.” He has also alleged that information
has been leaking from inside the system. These are Rahul Gandhi’s allegations,
not established findings, but they raise an obvious question: who inside the
system is talking, what information exists, and what might eventually come out?
Perhaps people inside these institutions are beginning to understand that
governments change, but documents, computer records, emails, instructions,
electoral data, and witnesses remain.
If evidence were eventually to
establish serious electoral wrongdoing, the consequences would go far beyond
politics. Investigators would have to determine who gave the instructions, who
carried them out, who knew about them, and who benefited. That could place
Gyanesh Kumar in an extraordinary position. If he possesses important
information and remains silent, questions about his own responsibility may
follow. If he speaks, his testimony could potentially implicate people more
powerful than himself. And if he tries to protect both himself and others, he
may eventually discover that neither side trusts him. That is the web I am
talking about.
That is why Gyanesh Kumar’s
future may depend upon the complete truth coming out. If he possesses evidence
of wrongdoing, the safest place for that evidence is not inside his head or
hidden somewhere where it could disappear. It should be formally recorded
before an independent authority, protected according to law, and securely preserved.
The same principle should apply to the other Election Commissioners and to any
Election Commission official possessing relevant evidence.
India should not wait for
something to happen before protecting the evidence and the people who may
possess it. There should be an independent investigation into credible
allegations concerning the Election Commission’s conduct. Relevant electronic
records, communications, electoral data, instructions, and other evidence
should be preserved immediately so that the factual record can be independently
examined. Gyanesh Kumar and the other Commissioners should be questioned under
conditions where neither the government nor the opposition can interfere with
the investigation.
If investigators find evidence
that Gyanesh Kumar himself committed criminal acts, he should face the same
legal process as anyone else. But prosecution and protection are two different
questions. If he committed a crime, investigate him. If he possesses evidence
against others, protect him. And if he is both a participant and a witness,
India needs the complete story from him. Removal from office, arrest, or
prosecution should follow evidence and due process, not political demands
alone.
The objective should not simply
be to put Gyanesh Kumar in jail. The objective should be to discover whether
wrongdoing occurred and, if it did, who was behind it. India needs to know who
gave the instructions, who executed them, who knew about them, who benefited,
and how far the chain of command went. If Gyanesh Kumar knows those answers,
then protecting his life, preserving the evidence, and securing his testimony
could be more important than immediately putting him behind prison walls.
The same protection should extend
to the other Election Commissioners and to any officials willing to provide
evidence. This is no longer only about Gyanesh Kumar. It is about protecting
witnesses, preserving evidence, and finding the truth. If something were to
happen to anyone holding crucial information before that information is
independently recorded, India could lose far more than a witness; it could lose
the truth itself.
Comments
Post a Comment