The Election Commission of India has issued a sharp response to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's recent allegations about Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), turning the tables by questioning why none of his party's polling agents raised objections during the actual vote counting process.
The Commission's Counter-Question
In a pointed rebuttal, the Election Commission highlighted a crucial detail that seems to undermine Gandhi's claims. Not a single Congress-appointed polling agent filed any formal complaint or raised objections during the critical vote counting procedures across various constituencies.
Rahul Gandhi's 'H-Bomb' Allegation
The controversy erupted when Rahul Gandhi, during a political rally, made dramatic claims comparing EVM manipulations to an 'H-Bomb' - suggesting massive-scale electoral fraud. The Congress leader alleged that the voting machines could be tampered with, potentially affecting election outcomes on a large scale.
EC's Defense of Electoral Integrity
The Election Commission firmly defended the credibility of India's electoral process, stating that multiple layers of security and transparency measures are built into the EVM system. The commission emphasized that political parties have ample opportunity to verify and challenge the process at every stage through their designated agents.
Transparency Measures in Place
- Political parties can appoint polling agents for every counting station
- Agents have the right to raise immediate objections during counting
- Multiple verification rounds are conducted with party representatives present
- Paper trail audit provides additional verification layer
The Missing Objections
What makes the Election Commission's response particularly compelling is the absence of formal complaints from Congress representatives on the ground. If the alleged manipulations were indeed occurring, why did none of the thousands of Congress polling agents notice or report them in real-time?
The commission's questions put the Congress party in an awkward position, forcing them to explain the discrepancy between their public allegations and the silence of their own field representatives during the actual electoral process.
