The Power of the Ballot: Travail and Triumph in the Elections

Introduction

Indians love elections. We are Homo ‘electionus’. The ECI, responsible for holding elections, has been a stable and impressive feature of the Indian political landscape. Over the post-Independence decades, elections have turned into a panorama of the democratic experience that everybody in some way tends to study, situate in their observation and render in their telling.

In any democratic country, a national election is a major and much-publicised event. It tends to highlight and dramatise the entire political process and, to a considerable extent, the underlying cultural and social milieu. It involves larger numbers of people in political activities than any other single national endeavour. For the time being, at least, it brings political leaders, and aspirants for political leadership, into more direct contact with the masses or the citizens than in any other way, and it gives the average citizen a short-lived sense of importance to bring their choice of political leaders through active participation in the political process. As Professor V.M. Sirsikar has observed, ‘The general election endows a temporary personality to the common voters. They are crowned as the sovereign voters.’ Elections are the only mechanism in a democracy, such as our country, where the voiceless, the disempowered and the poorest have the right to vote, equally with the mightiest, the richest and the most influential voters. Elections are all about the process described by Winston Churchill (in the House of Commons, 31 October 1944) as a ‘little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper—no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point’.

Elections in India have aspects of special interest and fascination. The spectacle of crores of ordinary Indians—at least one-fourth of whom are illiterate, isolated, both geographically and socially, and unaccustomed to democratic ways—participating in ‘the world’s largest democratic elections’ is a truly impressive demonstration of democracy in action in the largest non-communist developing nation. No other experience throws so much light on the nature of the Indian, and illustrates—indeed dramatises—the successes and failures, the prospects and the handicaps, of the uphill Indian effort to achieve ‘progress through democracy’.

Where over 90 crore 11 lakh people (in 2019 Lok Sabha elections)—though three-fourth of them are lettered now, but even the politically illiterates—set on choosing between phenomenally big parties and a clutter of many small and new ones, where words have come to be replaced by symbols, where a corps of workers recruited ad hoc from a thousand offices with little experience of applied democracy have to face an army of agents, both suspicious and persistent, the actual process of election can be exhaustive as well as interesting.

A global pandemic is not a regular affair but elections are perennial. The ECI took up the challenge in right earnest and has come out brilliantly by managing the elections successfully amidst the pandemic. The ECI continues to work stoically, indifferent to barbs and brickbats. Similarly, the electronic voting machine (EVM) has proved to be not only a robust machine but a sturdy punching bag as well—depends on how one is electorally placed. The media has a field day but it knows not a thing about the field. Most of the news reports conclude with an ambiguous ‘remains to be seen’, leaving loose ends in their copies. Along with the detailed story of meeting the gigantic challenge, here are other stories concerning elections in the country.

Mukulika Banerjee observed:

Research has revealed that while it was evident that elections [in India] were indeed dominated by money, violence and patronage, voters were nevertheless able to preserve a sense of citizenship in their individual act of casting a vote. When asked directly what the vote meant to them, voters focused on the actual experience of voting and explained that they considered the act of voting a rare and precious performance of a highly personal civic duty that allowed them to experience political equality and democratic values that were otherwise invisible in everyday life. Performed citizenship of this sort was as much an interior state as it was a public duty, and signified individual dignity and selfhood that was prior and foundational to any future claim making as citizens. It was for this reason that they considered elections as precious and sacrosanct events, despite their association with the venality of politicians, money and its practices. While they acknowledged that they usually had to vote for someone, their decision to vote at all was because the act of voting in itself held meaning.¹

Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana has recalled that in the seventeen general elections held so far, the people have changed the ruling party or combination of parties eight times, which accounts for nearly 50 per cent of the number of general elections. In spite of large-scale inequalities, illiteracy, backwardness, poverty and alleged ignorance, the people of independent India have proved themselves to be intelligent and up to the task. He was delivering the seventeenth P.D. Desai Memorial Lecture on 30 June 2021.

Abantika Ghosh, a veteran health journalist, observed:

If the pandemic was an election that could be won with words, promises and positive messaging (read: sharing only the good news and not the bad), many countries would have been able to get the better of it right at the start.²

However, come what may, elections—the lifeline of democracy—had to be held.

1

The Festival of Democracy over the Pandemic

Democracy has faced various challenges in the last seven decades in India—inter alia, from radicalism, ultra-left-wing activism, external threats and the vicissitudes of the polity or economy. But 2020 and 2021 brought in an unprecedented challenge in the form of an unseen, unknown and silent enemy that had to be fought in the course of upholding the democratic process of elections—the COVID-19 pandemic. In the wake of virus infections, democracies across the world needed to stay vigilant to ensure that universal franchise, transparency and legitimacy were not hampered, come what may.

One of the cascading effects of the pandemic was its impact on democracies. The caveat that required any COVID-19 election not to compromise the integrity or legitimacy of an election was a key consideration for whether an election should proceed or be postponed. The pandemic brought three major constraints to elections: restrictions on freedom of movement and assembly, health-related risks for voters and officials and operational complications and delays. As such, there were several challenges for the integrity of elections to be managed under the pandemic, including limitations on campaigning, restrictions on voter access, impediments to the transparency of the electoral process, risks to the legitimacy of the outcome of elections and added financial and administrative pressures.

Some countries propelled ahead with their elections as per the schedule while some preferred to postpone them. Health and safety concerns remained a dominant factor in deciding whether elections should be conducted during the pandemic or not. Of more than fifty countries that went ahead with elections during the pandemic, nine were in Asia. While these elections were not the same in scope, the threats the pandemic posed for the health and safety of vote, voters and election officials were alike.

India too braced for elections in Bihar in October–November 2020, though the risk of further acceleration of the spread of the virus loomed large. Elections in a populous state such as Bihar demanded vibrant—at times chaotic—political interaction and mass mobilisation on a large scale. Therefore, the pandemic made the situation immensely challenging. The task was staggering. The electorate numbered more than 710 lakh voters. At the same time, amid widespread means of communications, particularly social media, the pandemic itself had become a sort of political football with accusations and counter-accusations.

But before that, with the pandemic taking over the reins of life, and ‘lockdown’ and ‘social distancing’ becoming the ‘new normal’, there was a time when there were apprehensions in several quarters that Bihar assembly elections may have to be deferred or postponed. The term of the Bihar Legislative Assembly was to end on 27 November 2020, and supervising the poll process in 243 constituencies was looking almost like an impossible task amidst the pandemic. A constitutional expert forewarned, ‘The tenure of the legislative assembly cannot be extended without amending the Constitution. As soon as the current term ends, the assembly stands dissolved and President’s Rule will be imposed.’ However, the ECI ensured that there would not be any constitutional crisis, as it were.

Postponement was not the answer. What was the certainty that the pandemic would be over if the elections were deferred to a later date? Officials in the ECI had no illusion in this regard. They remained committed to holding elections, come what may. The drastic step of postponing an election would have denied people their hard-won constitutional rights and risked creating a power vacuum. There was the case of Indonesia where elections were initially postponed due to the rising cases of people testing positive, largely on the assumption that the severity of the pandemic would reduce considerably with the passage of time. But the hope was belied and the reverse happened. ‘Democracy is expensive, but should it cost citizens’ lives?’—this was the question that was paramount during the pandemic.

The spread of the COVID-19 virus was always something to guard against, given the instances of a resurgence in a number of countries. Consequently, election officials were supposed to identify and assess the feasibility of implementing any new requirements without compromising the integrity or legitimacy of an election. Therefore, any election, large or small, taking place during the pandemic was supposed to take preventive and mitigating measures to avoid further spread of the disease through the electoral process, which typically involved the interaction of hundreds or thousands of people in confined areas. These included measures to limit the number of voters in each polling station to a maximum of 1,000, hourly regulated voters’ attendance and a predetermined voting schedule. The sole purpose was to minimise physical interaction as much as possible during the election process.

Elections during COVID-19 challenged the quality of democracy in four areas: electoral participation, that is, voter turnout, of senior citizens and those who were vulnerable or sick; cleanliness of elections, particularly the administration and operation of political parties during the campaign period, that is, ban on rallies; and the legitimacy of the result if the voter turnout was low besides emergency situations.

Another challenge was to secure the services of local health officials to spread the message among voters that it was safe to vote. In other words, the ECI was committed to ensuring the safety of both ‘votes’ and ‘voters’. Thousands of voters who went to the polls to cast their votes were confronted by masked election officials. The precaution was taken not to frighten people away from the polling booths, but to throw an additional net of protection against the deadly disease around the voters.

The legitimacy of elections is most often measured through the level of voter turnout in a given election. This is the number of voters out of the total number of registered voters that come out to cast their votes. The lower the turnout, particularly if it is less than 50 per cent, the bigger is the question mark on the results. This has been one of the principal worries before the elections were held during the pandemic, given the physical distancing requirements and the lack of confidence of voters in leaving the safety of their homes to go to polling stations. Additional voting arrangements, such as postal voting and extended hours of polling, were made to maintain a pre-pandemic level of voter turnout.

Prophets of doom who had expressed apprehensions that holding the elections during the pandemic would result in the reduced turnout proved wrong. Significantly, in 2020, over 4 crore voters turned out to exercise their franchise in the Bihar assembly elections, accounting for 57.34 per cent of the total electorate and, thus, 0.54 per cent higher than the 56.80 per cent recorded in the last assembly elections in 2015. Once again, in keeping with the previous one in the state, elections were marked by the enthusiastic participation of women voters who outnumbered men at the polling booths. A total of 59.58 per cent of women voted compared to 54.6 per cent of men.

The exercise involved about 7.3 crore voters and over 1.06 lakh polling stations. The facility of postal ballots was extended to citizens above the age of 80 years and persons with disabilities.

Calling it a leap further for the ECI and not a leap in the dark, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sunil Arora said that ‘all this was made possible through the zeal, commitment and dedication of lakhs of officials, security personnel, civil society organisations and individuals and the support of all stakeholders, including political parties, and above all, the voters themselves’.¹

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the BJP, proposed a virtual campaign, prohibiting traditional campaign methods; but nine opposition parties joined against the proposal on the grounds that it would not be a level-playing field.

They argued that the campaign for the forthcoming assembly elections in Bihar cannot be ‘all digital’ and that it should fix a ‘limit’ for expenditure on the digital campaigns. They said that a digital campaign will imply the absence of two-third of the electorate in the process. While the opposition parties did not demand postponement of the elections, they asked the ECI to take steps to ‘satisfy the people that the entire poll exercise’ will not become a ‘super spreader event’. They asked the ECI to review the situation in consultation with public health experts and other stakeholders, keeping in mind the ‘rapidly worsening’ COVID-19 situation.

Leaders of the nine parties asked the ECI to create conditions for the usual campaign ensuring maximum voter participation, a level-playing field for all contestants and proactive intervention by the poll body to penalise those seeking communal and social polarisation during the campaign.

The virtual meeting in this regard with the ECI was attended by Congress’s Shakti Sinh Gohil, RJD’s Manoj Kumar Jha, RLSP’s Upendra Kushwaha and other leaders of the Mahagathbandhan (MGB)—such as former chief minister Jitan Ram Manjhi of HAM(S). CPI (M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury, his CPI counterpart, D. Raja, and Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) (CPI-ML) (Liberation) general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya—joined the meeting.

In the memorandum too, the parties asked:

How does the ECI plan to ensure physical distancing … People need explicit clarity so that wholesome participation of the majority of voters is not adversely impacted. People also expect the ECI to ensure and satisfy the people that the entire poll exercise does not become a super spreader event.

As for digital campaigning, the parties—without naming the BJP and JD (U)—said that the ruling parties had at a meeting, convened by the CEC, pushed their proposal ‘regarding virtual election campaigns through digital media and prohibiting traditional election campaign methods’.²

Regarding the digital campaigning, the opposition leaders, quoting TRAI figures, argued that only a little over half the population has a mobile phone and 34 per cent have a smartphone.

It will be a travesty of unpardonable proportion to officially legitimise a mode of the election campaign which is not only severely limited by its reach but exclusionary by its design. Almost two-thirds of the electorate will be left out of the process. Uncaring about this, the parties in power have kick-started their virtual blitzkrieg while the ECI is yet to fix the limit of expenditure of this virtual political campaign.³

The pandemic upended nearly every aspect of the election cycle with some of the rallies being held virtually. The tried-and-tested on-ground approach—where armies of volunteers go door-to-door hard-selling their candidates by extolling their virtues—was supposed to take a back seat. Social distancing along with wearing a mask was mandatory. Several of these restrictions were described as politically motivated. But, in reality, the precautionary measures were flouted with impunity in Bihar by political parties of all hues and shades.

In the case of Bihar, there was another challenge—that of flood—which made connectivity difficult during the same period when the ECI was trying to pave the way for elections under the coronavirus threat.

Due to the pandemic-related lockdown in order to avoid physical contact and, thereby, check the spread of the virus, schools and colleges were shut. Most offices were also closed and those open were working with depleted staff. It was an impediment since educational institutions were mostly used as polling stations and about 80 per cent of booth level officers (BLOs) were schoolteachers, and polling staff was drawn on deputation from government offices, schools and colleges.

Thus, to conduct elections amid the COVID-19 challenge, Bihar looked beyond traditional modes of communication with voters and integrated new-age media platforms such as digital media and social media platforms. While posters, audio and video campaigns were carried out in various dialects, first-timers and young voters were approached through social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. But Bihar is a state with only 37 per cent of the population having access to the internet and only 27 per cent owning smartphones. Therefore, the reach of virtual campaigning and political communication on social media platforms was restricted.

Election authorities collaborated with various organisations, departments, individuals, communities and influencers to spread awareness on the importance of voting rights and the electoral process. Massive community programmes were organised where women voters, in particular, were approached through door-to-door campaigns while special drives were held for migrant voters and people with disabilities.

The pandemic affected polls and politics both directly and indirectly. On the one hand, elaborate arrangements had to be made to ensure that voters could exercise their suffrage safely; while, on the other hand, the virus’ threat loomed large over leaders too and cast its shadow on their campaign trails.

The effect was writ large over all aspects of the election process in Bihar. In a state termed bimaru (sick), the main electoral issue was that of jobs and the economy. Bihar, for a long time, has been an economically backward state. According to the 2011 Census of India report, Bihar was the second-largest state for outmigration (migration of people to other states). The preferred destinations for those seeking jobs—skilled or unskilled—from Bihar were UP, Delhi, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Maharashtra. Due to the pandemic and resultant lockdown, thousands of migrant labourers were forced to return to their home states due to lack of work. Bihar was among the states worst affected by this humanitarian crisis.

A May 2020 report in The Hindu said, ‘Over 12 lakh migrants have so far returned to different districts of the State [Bihar] and another 27 lakh have registered with the government and are waiting for their turn.’⁴ The total figure of 39 lakh is almost five times the 8 lakh quoted in the Bihar Economic Survey 2019–20.

In a June 2020 article in the Economic and Political Weekly, Bihar was described at ‘one of the topmost states of origin for the migrants’. Recently, the Population Council Institute said, ‘Historically, Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar are the two highest out-migration states with a net migration rate of -1.9 to -1.’⁵

In the final estimate, 18 lakh migrant workers returned home during the lockdown, out of which 16 lakh were eligible to vote. Among them, 13 lakh migrants were already enrolled as voters while 2,30,812 were newly enrolled.

In order to adhere to health and hygiene protocols and ensure a limited number of voters per polling station, the ECI increased the number of polling booths. Thus, the requirement for officers, staff and political observers increased manifold.

Indeed, there were questions about whether the Bihar assembly election could be held on time. A decision to extend the ‘lockdown’ in Bihar till 6 September 2020 increased the uncertainty in this regard. Lockdown was imposed as a measure to contain the spread of the virus. Anticipating the challenges lying ahead in unprecedented and unpredictable times, the ECI began its preparations early. As early as the beginning of June 2020, the chief electoral officer (CEO) of Bihar had already directed district magistrates and superintendents of police in all districts of the state to complete the pre-poll process on time.

Training was imparted at the India International Institute of Democracy and Election Management (IIIDEM) in Delhi where state level master trainers (SLMTs) took part between 29 June and 8 July 2020 in different batches through videoconference. The institute also extended training to district-level officers.

The ECI runs the IIIDEM on a

mission to fully sensitise, motivate, prepare and mobilise the machinery as well as the stakeholders in elections and democracy, synergistically connecting them to the ideals and values and helping them overcome shortcomings and challenges and achieve their goals in these domains by getting properly oriented and amply inspired, energised, and equipped. The institute seeks to orient stakeholders of the democratic and electoral systems toward possibilities of better and more productive delivery therein and to explore and expand the horizons of intellectual know-how in these fields.⁶

Returning officers and other election officers were trained at the state level in different batches from 9 July to 17 July 2020. All district-level nodal officers of different cells were given training at the headquarters in separate batches from 20 July to 26 July 2020. During such state-level training, all safety protocols in the light of COVID-19 were observed. Districts were instructed to conduct training in small groups while observing all health and safety protocols.

The ECI issued strict codes for maintaining health and hygiene protocols and laid down strictures on candidates and poll campaigns. Masks, thermal screening, sanitisers and physical distancing were prescribed for officers and electorates in polling stations. Similar instructions were framed for candidates where the numbers of companions, vehicles, etc., were pruned. COVID-19 patients who were quarantined were allowed to cast their vote at the last hour of the polling process, in personal protective equipment (PPE), under the supervision of competent health authorities.

Alternatively, the arrangement of the postal ballot was also made for voters who were COVID-19 positive or even suspected to be so. This facility was also extended to persons with disabilities and for voters above the age of 80 years. In normal circumstances, it is used by electors employed in notified essential services.

To leave nothing to chance, the ECI consulted its counterparts in several countries and shared their experiences before deciding to overrule all objections and go ahead with the elections. It had already tested the ground with Rajya Sabha polls as well as legislative council elections in various states under COVID-19-specific guidelines.

Equipped with knowledge from other countries as well as its own experience, the ECI issued COVID-19 guidelines in August for the Bihar assembly polls. Besides the usual norms related to sanitising and social distancing, these guidelines included a reduction in the limit of electors per polling booth to 1,000, from the usual 1,200, in order to prevent overcrowding.

The consequent addition of nearly 40,000 extra polling stations meant as many additional EVMs. To avoid crowding at the counting centres, the counting tables were halved to 7 per hall from 14.

In the 2015 assembly elections, there were 65,367 polling stations, whereas in 2020, they numbered 1,06,515. Thus, there was an incredible increase of 62.94 per cent in the number of polling stations. This increase in number led to the required strength of personnel rising to 5,31,737.

Political parties and leaders went virtual to pursue the voters, along with physical campaigns, where the guidelines limited the number of people involved in rallies and public meetings. Polling time was increased by one hour (from 7 AM to 6 PM), except in districts affected by left-wing extremism like Jamui, Gaya, Aurangabad, Rohtas, Jehanabad, Arwal, Muzzafarpur, Banka and Nawada.

Arrangements were made for about 6.4 lakh units of 500 ml hand sanitisers, about 12 lakh units of 100 ml hand sanitisers, over 1 lakh infrared thermometers, 5.4 lakh pairs of single-use rubber gloves for polling and security personnel and 7.21 crore one-hand, single-use polythene gloves for voters to press the EVM and sign the register at the polling station, 70 lakh units of 3-ply face masks, 18 lakh face shields.

It was indeed a battle against the unknown in order to uphold democracy. But, despite all calls for precautionary measures, people just ignored the COVID-19 virus in various parts of Bihar. ‘The only people wearing masks were journalists,’ says Sweta Singh of Aaj Tak. ‘We used to follow COVID-19 protocol religiously. But soon we received a shocker. A colleague was surrounded by an aggressive mob who demanded that he take off his mask if he wanted to speak with them. Mask for them was a symbol of discrimination!’ shared senior journalist Jayanta Bhattacharya.

Forced by such incidents to reinvent safety protocols, some journalists covered their faces with a gamchha (a towel made of thin cotton)—instead of the prescribed mask—during on-ground reporting. The adaptation of gamchha—a piece of cloth that is ubiquitous in many parts of Bihar—proved useful for the reporters. According to Sweta Singh, it seemed like there were two groups of ‘corona rebels’ in Bihar: one, who insisted that the pandemic was only a figment of the imagination and, another, who proclaimed that ‘hamre jaati ko nahi hota hai Corona’ which means that their tribe can never be affected by Corona!

In fact, this is what The Hindu reported:

A senior Union Minister from Bihar remarked that there is widespread belief in the countryside that COVID-19 pandemic was over or at any rate was not an issue in rural areas. I was told that wearing a mask was akin to putting a ‘jaaby’ (nose bag with hay) around the neck of cattle, he said. Indeed, mask wearing is rarer in the countryside, and photos of rallies in rural areas show this quite clearly.⁷

Reports of violation of COVID-19 norms during the electioneering sent the ECI into a tizzy. It even issued an unprecedented and detailed advisory to all political parties, urging them to ensure compliance to COVID-19 norms during the political meetings. But the state seemed to be a stellar exception to the global rules that SARS-CoV2 was a virus that lurked around until it had an opportunity to infect. Bihar’s COVID-19 numbers remained resolutely low despite the crowds without masks, zero social distancing and poor hygiene standards; the virus seemed to have lost its edge in the state.⁸

While this was the on-ground situation in Bihar, the pandemic struck elsewhere. It was for the first time since Narendra Modi’s ascent to power that BJP master-strategist and Union Home Minister Amit Shah was not able to actively participate in a poll campaign. He was recuperating from the coronavirus infection at the time. His health condition forced him out of the Bihar poll process.

Ram Vilas Paswan, founder of the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) and a cabinet minister in Narendra Modi’s government, who died of cardiac complications on 8 October 2020, had earlier endorsed any step that his son Chirag would take in the future regarding an alliance in Bihar elections. He had posted his message on social media platforms just before being admitted to a hospital in Delhi.

Incidentally, the young Paswan’s campaign plan was also somewhat affected by the pandemic and resultant lockdown. Despite an early start, Chirag Paswan had to cut short a campaign he began before the virus had cast its long shadow on it. He kickstarted the campaign later once again and, for the most part, relied on social media or television interviews, says Sweta Singh.

In this election, Chirag Paswan ran a persistent poll campaign on social media. Most visuals sought to depict huge gatherings at his rallies. Similarly, Opposition leaders—complaining of a blackout of their campaign by major media houses—took to the virtual media to prove their mass base and following. Journalists covering the elections rued the fact that, in their zeal to show crowds, organisers threw all health and hygiene norms to