Why was West Bengal singled out?

Interview with Prakash Karat, CPI(M) general secretary.

The CPI(M)'s critique of the Election Commission is something of a paradox. Having secured an overwhelming victory for the ruling Left Front in West Bengal in the Assembly elections, the CPI(M), it was believed, had only reasons to congratulate the E.C. on holding the elections in such a manner that the process carried absolute credibility even among its adversaries. However, the CPI(M) has chosen not to let its own victory cloud its assessment of the E.C.'s role in the Assembly elections. In this interview CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat explains the significance of the document. Excerpts:

The Note begins with an allegation that the E.C. asserted after the Bihar Assembly elections that the defeat of a certain party was proof of free and fair elections and that this implied subjectivism with strong political overtones. The E.C. denies this saying it is concerned only with the process of elections and not its outcome.

Again and again they briefed the media. They can make it non-attributable. But we know. You see the press reports of that time. Bihar was to be shown as an example of a State where free and fair polls would not take place, and the E.C. intervened to set right Bihar. The same standards the E.C. applied to West Bengal.

We know very well that E.C. officials had briefed the press that there were two States - Bihar and West Bengal - which never had free and fair elections, and that the E.C. was going to set it right and that they are going to ensure a level playing field for the Opposition. So, the E.C. went out of its way to entertain every wild and absurd allegation of the Opposition to prove that it was ensuring free and fair elections. After the Bihar elections, it became clear that West Bengal would be given the same treatment.

On the deletion of genuine voters' names from the voters' lists, what exactly is the party's grievance? Is the E.C. not correct in seeking the deletion of names of voters who are not ordinarily resident in a constituency?

The issue is nine lakh voters' names were deleted after the publication of the final voters' lists - an overwhelming number of them were genuine voters. When we told the E.C. that we would supply the lists of such voters, they said they would consider and include them. We met the full Election Commission and told them at that time. We knew the answer would be finally that they did not have the infrastructure to include them then. Even when we validated that they were genuine voters. This is exactly what happened.

If you deleted names on a large scale at the last stage, this is what is going to happen. We had all the lists of such genuine voters so removed from the lists. We went through the process, approached the District Electoral Officer and then the Election Commission in New Delhi. But those genuine voters were kept out of voting.

In plain paper, the Trinamul Congress would present lists of names, alleging that they were Bangladeshis, illegal migrants, and without any verification they were struck off.

There cannot be arbitrary usage of who is an ordinarily resident. What we have given are lists of people who are ordinarily resident there, not people who are living outside West Bengal. Most of the people whom they deleted and claimed were not ordinarily residents would be eligible for voting whatever definition of ordinary residence you may adopt.

What is your explanation about the voter-population ratio in West Bengal. Why is it always hovering around 52 per cent, while the national average, according to an internal study by the E.C., is 67 per cent?

The Election Commission should answer this. They are in charge. They are responsible for enrolling voters. One possible reason could be - this is the first time I am hearing this - that there are a large number of migrants coming in for seasonal work from Orissa, Bihar and Assam, and they are not enrolled as voters. There may be small pockets where there may be legal Bangladeshi migrants. Such migrant labourers may be reflected in the Census figures, but not in electoral rolls. But that is not the issue. In fact, this must have reduced the number of voters. By deleting nine lakh voters who were eligible they further reduced this ratio!

The E.C. claims it decided to go in for complete coverage of polling stations by the Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMF) in order to ensure complaint-free elections. Is it not a fair objective?

Does the E.C. go by standard norms, verifiable norms, or by what the so-called Opposition alleges? Why don't they listen to the Opposition everywhere? All over West Bengal, the E.C. decided to deploy exclusively CPMF and keep out the State police from polling stations. Why is it that West Bengal was singled out? Does Article 324 - entrusting the E.C. with the responsibility to supervise and conduct elections - give the power to the E.C. to change the federal structure of the country? Can the State government be completely shut out? Can constitutional arrangements be changed?

The E.C.'s reasoning is that only in West Bengal the entire Opposition alleged that the State police was partial.

State after State there have been cases. The entire Opposition doubted the role of the police in Gujarat. Why didn't the E.C. then say that the Gujarat Police would not be deployed in the Assembly elections, especially after the carnage when 2,000 and more people were killed and the police stood by. That is not the issue. The issue is: Can the E.C. take the decision to exclude the State administration and the State police from doing their duties in the poll process? Is law and order not a State subject under the Constitution?

The E.C.'s decision to hold the elections in five phases in West Bengal seems to have been the outcome of the State government's huge requirement of CPMF - nearly 2,700 companies - if the elections were to be held in four phases. With the final deployment of 600 companies of CPMF, a five-phase poll appears to have become inevitable, considering the limitations of mobilising such a huge number of companies.

The E.C. decided on a five-phase poll in West Bengal because only then they could ensure complete coverage of polling stations by CPMF. The State government was never asked for its view on the number of phases. Never had there been more than two phases for polls in West Bengal. Why should the State government suddenly ask for a three-phase or four-phase poll?

The decision to hold the poll in five phases was that of the E.C. In Kerala, why did the E.C. hold the polls in three phases? Tamil Nadu has a larger number of constituencies, but it had a one-day poll. Did the State government in Kerala ask for a three-phase poll? We were the Opposition in Kerala. Did the E.C. consult the Opposition in Kerala? They did not. Why only the Opposition in West Bengal is privileged in all these matters?

The Note claims the E.C. excluded State government personnel from functioning as Presiding Officers in polling stations. But it appears that is not the fact. The majority of the Presiding Officers were drawn from State government personnel.

They did not want to take State government personnel. But they could not avoid them. In 2004, the E.C. sent out a circular saying they wanted 50 per cent of the polling personnel from outside the State. The E.C. did it to some extent. But they could not get the full strength.

This time also they wanted to have, as far as possible, presiding officers from among Central government officers. The E.C.'s attitude to State government employees was that they were suspect. Politically suspect. Because we give them trade union rights. But we consider that perfectly valid.

The E.C. tried to put on polling duty employees of lower categories in public sector organisations [under the Central government] who could not discharge their responsibilities. They complained that they could not handle this job. The E.C.'s intention was different, it wanted to utilise others.

It raises a wider question. The final aim seems to be that during elections suspect the role and jurisdiction of the State government. This is a form of President's Rule. De facto. The approach in West Bengal was how to restrict voters. That is not the approach in other States. The E.C. had a biased approach towards West Bengal. What is the accountability of the E.C.? What is its transparency? There must be some mechanism found. This is how constitutional reform takes place.