You Don’t Speak For All of India: Democracy on Banner, Politics on the Agenda

The opposition has every right to challenge Election Commission. Citizens have an equal right to challenge Opposition’s conclusions

SHIVANG SATYA GUPTA

India belongs equally to those who join a protest and those who question its demands. No political party, coalition, activist organisation or digital commentator can claim exclusive ownership of the public conscience.

That is the starting point for examining the protests in the national capital against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The Cockroach Janta Party’s 10 October demonstration, associated with figures including Abhijeet Dipke and Dhruv Rathee, centred on demanding the CEC’s removal. Today, the mobilisation widened into an INDIA-bloc march and a Supreme Court challenge to the revision exercise. These are connected developments, but they should not be inaccurately presented as one event organised identically by every opposition party.

The opposition has every right to challenge the Election Commission. Citizens have an equal right to challenge the opposition’s conclusions.

Supporting fair elections does not require supporting this campaign. Disagreeing with its demands does not make anyone an opponent of democracy.

The central question is whether the campaign’s political conclusions are supported by evidence strong enough to sustain them.

A voter-roll discrepancy, a wrongful deletion, a procedural violation and a coordinated attempt to manipulate an election are different propositions. Each deserves scrutiny. Establishing one does not automatically establish all the others.

A large number of deletions demands explanation. It does not, by itself, reveal how many eligible citizens were wrongly excluded, how many entries concerned deceased people or duplicates, or whether any irregularities were deliberately directed towards a partisan outcome.

Equally, an official label describing someone as absent or shifted should not be treated as infallible. The classification itself may need checking.

The proper test is therefore specific: whose entry was affected, on what grounds, through which procedure, and with what opportunity for correction? Where a broader pattern is alleged, the supporting data and method must also be open to examination.

This standard should apply to Congress, the Samajwadi Party, the RJD, the Trinamool Congress, the Left and every other party supporting the campaign. A coalition cannot establish an allegation merely by repeating it through more microphones.

There is also a significant official document against which both the opposition’s claims and the Election Commission’s performance should be tested.

In its 1 October 2026 instruction to Chief Electoral Officers, the Commission directed officials to compare current rolls with pre-revision rolls, identify people whose names were missing, undertake house-to-house visits and facilitate enrolment through Form 6 wherever the person was eligible. It also directed that relevant lists be shared with recognised parties’ booth-level agents and provided for enrolment camps, including for homeless and marginalised people.
That instruction does not prove that every earlier deletion was justified or that implementation is satisfactory. It does, however, provide a concrete mechanism whose performance can be measured.

Every participating opposition party should publish its own account: how many affected citizens it identified, how many cases it helped submit, how many were resolved, and where officials refused or failed to act.

The Commission, in turn, should publish clear progress figures and explain unresolved cases. An eligible citizen should not have to bear an unreasonable burden because an administrative process went wrong.

The strongest campaign for voting rights is one that can demonstrate whose voting rights it restored.

The opposition’s resort to the Supreme Court deserves a similarly precise response. Its petition reportedly seeks records, decision-making material and digital access logs concerning the disputed exercise. Those are substantive requests that deserve examination through the judicial process. Their inclusion should be acknowledged rather than dismissed as mere slogan-making. But filing a petition does not establish the truth of every allegation within it.

Nor should the Chief Justice’s refusal to receive a political delegation be misrepresented as a decision on the merits. The reported explanation concerned pending proceedings and the distinction between an administrative meeting and judicial consideration. The Court’s procedural position neither vindicates the Commission nor proves the opposition’s case.

For the same reason, demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation cannot substitute for establishing responsibility. If records demonstrate serious wrongdoing, accountability must follow. If disputed decisions have a lawful and adequately documented explanation, that explanation must receive a fair hearing.

Public anger can demand an investigation. It cannot determine its findings in advance.

Dhruv Rathee and other prominent commentators face the same obligation. A large audience gives an argument reach; its accuracy still depends on evidence. Viewers should be shown the underlying documents, the official response and the limits of what those documents establish.

The opposition must also answer a practical question: what precise remedy does it propose?

Where a procedure is unlawful or systematically excludes eligible citizens, suspension or redesign may be warranted. Where particular entries are wrong, correction and accountability are necessary. A blanket political demand should explain why a narrower, effective remedy would be insufficient.

An electoral roll must protect eligible citizens while accurately addressing invalid entries. A credible reform proposal must explain how it will achieve both objectives.

There is an equally necessary standard for the government. Opposing this campaign does not require endorsing every police action taken against it. Reports of detentions and allegations of excessive force deserve independent scrutiny. A person can reject the protesters’ electoral allegations while defending their ability to demonstrate peacefully.

Police conduct and electoral integrity are separate questions. Evidence of wrongdoing in one cannot automatically settle the other.

For The Earth News, the position is straightforward: protect every eligible voter, investigate documented irregularities, require transparent answers from the Election Commission, and subject opposition allegations to the same scrutiny applied to government claims.

The banner of democracy does not place a political campaign beyond criticism.

Congress and its allies may speak for their supporters. CJP may speak for those who accept its programme. Commentators may persuade their audiences. None acquires the authority to speak for every Indian. You have the right to protest. We have the right to question your case. You don’t speak for all of India.