How Long Can India’s Institutions Ignore Its People's Anger?
How Long Can India’s Institutions
Ignore Its People's Anger?
On October 9, Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders met
President Draupadi Murmu and presented their concerns about alleged election
manipulation and the functioning of the Election Commission under Gyanesh
Kumar. According to Rahul Gandhi, the President asked for evidence and did not
dispute their allegations. That is his account of the meeting; it should not be
mistaken for a presidential finding against the government. But the meeting
itself shows how serious this confrontation has become.
In my view, refusing to hear the opposition at such a moment
would have further damaged public confidence. With protests growing and a major
demonstration planned in Delhi, the President needed to hear what these leaders
had to say. However, receiving a memorandum is only the beginning. People want
to know whether their complaints will lead to an independent examination or
simply become another document buried in the system.
The same question now stands before the Supreme Court. Will
it examine the evidence promptly and require clear answers from those accused,
or will the matter drag on while public suspicion grows? The opposition must
substantiate its allegations against Gyanesh Kumar, Modi, and Shah. The
institutions responsible for examining those allegations must demonstrate that
political power cannot determine whose evidence gets heard.
Meanwhile, the government’s response risks deepening the
crisis. Authorities announced cancellations of Delhi-bound trains, the closure
of 57 Metro stations, and the deployment of thousands of security personnel
ahead of the protest. These measures affect ordinary people as well as
demonstrators. A government cannot expect public anger to disappear because
reaching a protest has become more difficult.
The Supreme Court has already questioned the scale of these
restrictions and reminded authorities about proportionality. That intervention
matters. But the larger test remains: will constitutional protections produce
meaningful relief when people need them, or will citizens encounter
restrictions first and explanations later?
In my view, trying to contain this movement through transport
restrictions and overwhelming police deployment is politically foolish. It adds
fuel to the very anger the government wants to control. People who believe
their voices have been ignored will see such measures as further evidence that
those in power fear public scrutiny.
This confrontation also reaches beyond one political party.
The youth-led CJP movement has joined demands for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation,
bringing another source of pressure into an already widening dispute. My
concern is that anger directed at the government is becoming distrust of the
entire system: the Election Commission, the police, sections of the media, and
the courts.
Those whom people call “Godi media” must answer for their
reporting and their willingness to question power. Police officers must answer
for how they treat peaceful citizens. But accountability cannot mean beating
reporters or attacking officers. Such violence harms people and gives the
government an opportunity to shift attention away from the questions it needs
to answer.
The judiciary cannot assume that public confidence will
survive every controversy without explanation. The discovery of burnt currency
at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence, followed by inquiries, raised
serious questions. Courts must address such concerns transparently. Respect for
the judiciary grows when people see accountability within it, alongside fair
treatment outside it.
The deletion of approximately 130 million names from
electoral rolls demands equally careful scrutiny. The Election Commission’s
figures include people recorded as dead, relocated, or untraceable; the
opposition alleges that eligible voters and minority communities have been
unfairly affected. The BJP and the Commission deny manipulation. These
competing claims require evidence and independent examination. Every eligible
citizen wrongly excluded must have an effective opportunity to recover their
vote.
Removal from an electoral roll does not itself remove
citizenship. Nevertheless, wrongly denying a citizen the vote strikes at their
ability to influence the government that rules them. Rural communities need
clear information about checking their registration and challenging wrongful
exclusion. No citizen should discover that their political voice has
disappeared only when they arrive to vote.
As a hypothetical comparison expressing public anger: some
people in America may see continued loyalty to Trump as endorsing treason after
his remarks about an enemy “taking out” Los Angeles and San Diego, while some
people in India may see continued loyalty to Modi and Shah as endorsing the
division of India because of allegations of election manipulation, wrongful
voter exclusions, and policies that deepen religious divisions.
If wrongdoing is established, every person responsible must
face consequences, regardless of position or political connections. Any future
government must pursue that accountability through independent investigations
and fair trials. Punishment must follow proven wrongdoing, and powerful people
must receive no special protection. India’s institutions still have an
opportunity to restore public confidence, but they must act while citizens can
still believe that the system will hear them.
Comments
Post a Comment