In democracy, constitutional institutions like Election Commission do not only conduct elections, but they are also a bridge of faith between political parties and voters. When the credibility of these institutions is attacked, it affects the entire democratic structure. The Congress questioned the Election Commission on the basis of the wrong statistics issued by CSDS. If seen, this incident was not only a “data error”, but its political and institutional implications are serious. The Election Commission of India is the guards of the world’s largest democratic process. If he is repeated attacks, then the message goes to the voters that elections are not completely fair. This is a factor weakening faith in democracy.
As far as the whole incident is concerned, let us tell you that on August 18, Congress spokesperson Pawan Kheda posted a graphic on X (X) and questioned the functioning of the Election Commission (ECI). According to him, there was an unusual decline and increase in the number of voters in some constituencies in a period of just six months between the Lok Sabha and Maharashtra assembly elections of 2024. He claimed that about 40% of the voters were removed in Ramtek and Devali, while the number of voters in Nashik West and Hingna increased by 45%. Satire, he wrote – “Now next time he will say 2+2 = 420.”
Also read this: The father of rigging of opinions and the craze of their altruism
These figures were given by Lokniti-CSDS professor Sanjay Kumar. But in just 48 hours, this entire claim was destroyed and Sanjay Kumar had to ask for public apology. Let us tell you that on August 17, Sanjay Kumar gave examples of Nashik West and Hingna and said that the assembly voter number has increased unexpectedly than the Lok Sabha. He described the growth in Nashik West as 47%. He described the growth in Hingna as 43%. These numbers were immediately used by Congress leaders and supporters to question the credibility of the Election Commission.
But on August 19, Sanjay Kumar deleted his post and apologized. He admitted that his “data team read the wrong lines” and that is why numbers were exaggerated. He said that his purpose was not to spread wrong information. Let us tell you that according to official data, the increase of voters in reality was between 3 and 6%, while it was being spread by 45%.
The controversy gave the BJP a chance to attack both Congress and CSDS. BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya said that CSDS has been working not only as a research institution, but a tool of a narrative setting for years. He questioned foreign funding, DFID UK, Norad, Hewlett Foundation etc. and alleged that its purpose is to weaken India’s social unity. He also said that the CSDS shows Hindu society castely divided into its surveys, while Muslim society is shown uniform. According to Amit Malviya, it was not an innocent mistake like “Rose Egypt” but a planned attempt which turned back.
In addition, since CSDs get funding from the Indian Council of Social Sciences Research (ICSSR), ICSSR also took cognizance of the incident. The ICSSR said that this grant is a violation of the rules and an attempt to weaken the credibility of the constitutional institution like the Election Commission. The ICSSR has announced the issuance of show-cose notices to CSDS. If seen, this entire episode gives us many important lessons. One lesson is that the data related to the election are extremely sensitive. A serious analyst should be checked several times before publishing them. Second- As soon as Sanjay Kumar posted, the Congress leaders attacked the Election Commission, there is doubt whether the Congress already knew what Sanjay Kumar was going to post. In addition, even the small mistake of the research institutes can make them a part of the political agenda and reduces trust in such institutions among the public. An institution like CSDS, if the figures make public without investigation, then its credibility is affected, as well as a question mark on the fairness of the entire research community. This makes the perception that research institutes are also becoming a tool of politics.
However, the dispute, which started with the statements of Pawan Kheda and Sanjay Kumar, was not limited to the wrong interpretation of data, but it has brought all three to the center – the credibility of the Election Commission, the credibility of the Election Commission and the strategy of the political parties. This makes it clear that even a little negligence in data-based politics can also become a weapon of major ereted war.