The research paper titled “Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy” by Sabyasachi Das, assistant professor of economics at Ashoka University, was published on July 25 on the Social Science Research Network. Das argued that the BJP won a disproportionate share of closely contested parliamentary seats in 2019 Lok Sabha polls, especially in states where it was the ruling party at the time.

The paper states that, “The density of the incumbent party’s win margin variable exhibits a discontinuous jump at the threshold value of zero”. This implies that the BJP won disproportionately more in constituencies where it was the incumbent party and which were closely contested. “Moreover, the BJP’s disproportionate win of closely contested constituencies is primarily concentrated in States ruled by the party at the time of election,” it says.

The author of the paper that has generated much comment on social media, Sabyasachi Das says that he did not find similar “discontinuities” in the previous general elections for either BJP or INC (Indian National Congress), the other major national party, as well as for State Assembly elections held simultaneously with the 2019 general election and those held subsequently.

However, the author also points out that this alone does not necessarily imply that electoral manipulation has taken place in the election. The author considers two leading explanations for the above-mentioned patterns. It is possible that the BJP knew what elections are going to be close and worked harder there, resulting in disproportionate wins of close races. The second possibility is ‘Electoral Manipulation’ wherein the party manipulates voter rolls and votes polled.

The author has also claimed that this alleged electoral manipulation by the BJP also appeared to have taken the form of targeted electoral discrimination against Muslims, “partly facilitated by weak monitoring by election observers”.

However, he argued that his research was “not proofs of fraud” and does not “suggest that manipulation was widespread”. “Proving electoral manipulation in a robust democracy is a significantly harder task that would require detailed investigation of electoral data in each constituency separately”.

National Election Survey

On the initial point, the paper analyses the National Election Survey (NES) of 2019 which has micro data on election campaigning and does not find evidence that the BJP campaigned more in places where they won by a close margin. “Citizens do not say they were visited more by a party worker/candidate from the BJP in constituencies barely won by the BJP”.

The paper then explores further evidence in favour of the election manipulation hypothesis.

It states, significantly, that, after the 2019 polls, the Election Commission initially put out two separate lists of vote counts — constituency-wise “final” EVM count of votes polled across candidates and constituency-wise number of votes counted in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

“These numbers, however, do not match with the PC-wise number of votes counted in the EVMs, as available in the official website of the ECI. This is unusual as votes polled and votes counted in the EVMs should be identical and when the media pointed this out, the first list was deleted”. The paper finds that the mismatch between the twice released turnout data is significantly higher in constituencies barely won by the BJP, which certainly hints at manipulation or fraud. Moreover, the pattern is, as before, concentrated in States ruled by the BJP. The academic work argues that manipulation is local at the booth level.

Further, it also suggests that the manipulation appears to be concentrated in constituencies that have a high share of observers who are State civil service (SCS) officers from BJP-ruled States, and unlike the IAS, they may be more politically pliable.

Ashoka University cringes, disassociates itself from the work

“This paper contributes to the discussion by documenting irregular patterns in 2019 general election in India and identifying whether they are due to electoral manipulation or precise control, i.e., the incumbent party’s ability to precisely predict and affect win margins through campaigning,” Das has analysed. “I compile several new datasets and present evidence that is consistent with electoral manipulation in closely contested constituencies and is less supportive of the precise control hypothesis.”

Yesterday and today, august 2, the paper was widely discussed, especially on social media. with several influencers, including the Opposition leader Shashi Tharoor, using the findings to raise concerns about the state of Indian democracy. Other users, with political leanings towards the BJP, sharply criticised  Das’ research. They hit back saying that such conclusions discredited India’s democratic and electoral processes.

Most tragic however was the reaction of the university. On Aug 1, Ashoka University – where Das teaches economics – issued a statement dissociating itself from his research. “Ashoka University is dismayed by the speculation and debate around a recent paper by one of its faculty members (Sabyasachi Das, Assistant Professor of Economics) and the university’s position on its contents,” said the Haryana-based private institution.

It added: “The University encourages its 160-plus faculty to carry out research, but does not direct or approve specific research projects by individual faculty members…Social media activity or public activism by Ashoka faculty, students or staff in their individual capacity does not reflect the stand of the University.”

Reactions to Ashoka university

The university’s statement was in turn criticised by other academics and prominent personalities. Many sharply lampooned the university for failing to stand by a faculty member and bowing to pressure. Joyojeet Pal, an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information, said in a tweet that faculty around the world should look at Ashoka University for “how weak institutions throw junior faculty under the bus”.

“Not only is [Sabyasachi Das’] work empirically solid, it is supported by the work in several other fields, including ours,” Pal said.

Narayani Basu, a historian and foreign policy analyst, concurred. “Debate is the actual purpose of academia & if that’s what a….*checks notes* …. “liberal arts” university is dismayed by, it speaks volumes about its lack of spine & integrity,” Basu wrote in a tweet. “Throwing your own under the bus is cowardice.”

Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak, a professor of economics at Yale University, said that “the goons have already gotten to Dr Das’ employer”.

Suhas Palshikar, a renowned political scientist who taught political science at the Savitribai Phule Pune University, said that academic freedom has “met with its end finally among the country’s institutions” when a “prestigious private university goes out of its way to tweet to dissociate itself” from an ongoing research.

“With undeclared restrictions on research and field work by scholars based outside of India and squeezing of autonomy of researchers within the country, we are managing to scuttle the core ability of social science research to examine, critique and search for alternatives,” Palshikar wrote on Twitter on August 2. Palshikar added, “[Restrictions on research] will enhance the project of creating ignorant and obedient citizens and servile and ideologically committed administrators.”

Nandini Sundar, professor of sociology at the Delhi School of Economics, concurred. “Excellence in research and teaching can only flourish if there is academic freedom and universities don’t bend over backwards to disassociate themselves from research that is inconvenient to ruling regimes.”

 Bruno Maçães, an author and Portugal’s Secretary of State for European Affairs, wrote that Ashoka University seemed to be “running scared”. “Faculty publish papers, that’s what they do,” Maçães wrote on Twitter.

Despite the university’s statement, some at the institution such as Gilles Verniers, director of Ashoka University’s Trivedi Centre for Political Data, expressed support for the faculty member. “I condemn the vicious attacks against [Das], a colleague of rare courage and integrity,” Verniers tweeted on Wednesday. “If we don’t leave room for research that is inconvenient, we shut the door to the possibility of fixing our problems.”

Related:

Only 36 out of 543 Lok Sabha MPs have declared assets after May 2019 elections

India: what’s at stake in the 2019 elections

Appeal to non-BJP opposition Parties Regarding 2019 Elections

The post Were the 2019 general elections free & fair? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a third reminder, dated November 19,2019 addressed to the Election Commission of India(ECI), the Constitutional Conduct Groupconsisting of 64 retired civil servants, has sought answers: their first letter on this issue was sent on July 2, 2019, with two subsequent reminders, but there has been no response from the Election Commission to date. The effort has been endorsed by 83 veterans of the defense services, academics, and other concerned citizens. Again, in today’s letter, they have, again,  specifically requested for conducting a social audit of a sample of EVMs/VVPATs used in the Lok Sabha elections to assess the integrity of the results. The group has also sought a meeting with the Election Commission to discuss the modalities further.

The letter raises issues that d are critical for the well-being and proper functioning of our democratic republic. Our group has been in touch with your predecessor, Shri O.P. Rawat, on a number of issues related to the conduct of elections. As a group of former civil servants, many of whom have been associated with election processes over the past six decades, the authors say they “consider it their duty to work with the Election Commission of India (ECI) to address the doubts that have arisen in the public mind about the impartiality and fairness of our electoral processes.

Further, the letter adds that, “Many of these questions would have been avoided if the ECI, currently under your stewardship, had accepted the principle of agent transparency vis-à-vis its principal, which, in this case, is the people of India. So, disclosure should be the rule rather than the exception. All information relating to the conduct of elections should be open to the public except where  specifically needing to be exempted. Even when disclosure of some information is exempted, the criteria for keeping it confidential must be made public and transparent.

The signatories have demanded that the ECI display, on its website:

the Parliament Constituency-wise, Assembly segment-wise, and polling station-wise figures of (a) votes polled in EVMs [i.e. other than postal ballots] and (b) votes as counted in EVMs. Ideally, there should be no discrepancies between the two sets of figures.

Details of the 5 polling stations chosen as ‘samples’ for each Assembly segment, and the polling station-wise figures of (a) EVM electronic count and (b) VVPAT manual count. Ideally, there should be no discrepancies between these two sets of figures also.

Full text Copies of the letter (DOC and PDF) may be read here

Text of the Letter addressed to Sunil Arora, Chief Election Commissioner                                   

Ashok Lavasa, Election Commissioner, Sushil Chandra, Election Commissioner dated November19, 2019

Sub:- Your Silence on Issues Raised with Regards to Serious Irregularities in the Conduct of Lok Sabha General Elections, 2019

Ref:- Our letter dated July 2, 2019 and reminders dated  July 10, 2019 and August 10, 2019

Please refer to the letter dated July 2, 2019 on the above subject of addressed to you by 64 former civil servants and endorsed by 83 veterans of the defense services, academics, and other concerned citizens. Subsequent reminders have been sent as indicated above.

Your failure to respond to any of the points raised in the letter and reminders, or to even acknowledge their receipt, leads us to wonder whether we will ever receive a response.

The issues raised are critical for the well-being and proper functioning of our democratic republic. Our group has been in touch with your predecessor, Shri O.P. Rawat, on a number of issues related to the conductof elections. As a group of former civil servants, many of whom have been associated with election processes over the past six decades, we consider it our duty to work with the Election Commission of India (ECI) to address the doubts that have arisen in the public mind about the impartiality and fairness of our electoral processes.

Many of these questions would have been avoided if the ECI, currently under your stewardship, had accepted the principle of agent transparency vis-à-vis its principal, which, in this case, is the people of India. So, disclosure should be the rule rather than the exception. All information relating to the conduct of elections should be open to the public except where specifically needing to be exempted. Even when disclosure of some information is exempted, the criteria for keeping it confidential must be made public and transparent.

We do not believe that there is any justification for the ECI not displaying on its web site:

the Parliament Constituency-wise, Assembly segment-wise, and polling station-wise figures of (a) votes polled in EVMs[i.e. other than postal ballots] and (b) votes as counted in EVMs. Ideally, there should be no discrepancies between the two sets of figures.

details of the 5 polling stations chosen as ‘samples’ for each Assembly segment, and the polling station-wise figures of (a) EVM electronic count and (b) VVPAT manual count. Ideally, there should be no discrepancies between these two sets of figures also.

But there have been extensive media reports about large-scale discrepancies in respect of both (i) and (ii) above. While we are aware that media reports may not always be correct, the ECI has failed the test of transparency by not disclosing the above sets of its figures on its web site, thereby paving the way for an adverse presumption being drawn in this matter.

In the interests of transparency and electoral integrity, we call upon the ECI to immediately display on its web site, the figures indicated in (i) and (ii) above;

disclose the ‘decision rules’, if any, of the ECI about manual counting in the event of discrepancies of either type occurring;

disclose if there were any occasions to apply these decision rules during the recently concluded Parliamentary Elections.

Even while our letter of July 2, 2019 was waiting for some kind of a response from you, various media reports have appeared, suggesting that unauthorized private engineers had access to the EVM and VVPAT machines in the General Elections, 2019;

Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL)and Electronics Corporation of India (ECIL) Ltd. have refused to provide information in response to to RTI queries on EVMs and VVPATs even after having collected the fees for the same, though we understand that now the RTI first appellate authority has directed the ECIL to provide the information while the BEL first appellate authority for RTI has directed them to transfer the queries relating to the number of EVMs and VVPATs deployed for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections to the ECI.

Clearly, the issues relating to the EVM and VVPAT machines are yet to be resolved satisfactorily, and the ECI, under your stewardships, needs to put this controversy to rest. Recent reports also seem to suggest that a programme installed in the VVPAT can access VVPAT memories and alter the input to the Control Unit, thereby manipulating the people’s mandate.To set at rest doubts in the public mind, we suggest a social audit of the functioning of the EVM and VVPAT machines used in the recent Lok Sabha General Elections. Social audits are an accepted tool in all democracies and, even in our country; we have used them to monitor the functioning of various social sector programmes. We are ready to work with you in the organization and conduct of such a social audit.

To conduct such a Social Audit,we propose as follows:

Access to the entire electoral records, including EVM and VVPAT machines used in 20 select Lok Sabha Constituencies (representing merely 3.6% of the total Lok Sabha constituencies), in the recently concluded General Elections, 2019, be provided to a Social Audit Group, comprising three representatives each of civil society representatives (which will include members of our group of former civil servants) and the ECI.

The twenty Lok Sabha Constituencies will be selectedby the Social Audit Group and the same will be intimated to the ECI for making the records/machines available.

The ECI will release these records, EVM and VVPAT machines under whatever supervisory arrangement itconsiders necessary to ensure that while the auditors have full access, these records are not tampered with in any way during the audit.The only rider would be that thesearrangements would not in any way fetter the ability of the Social Audit Group to examine the records and machines in any way the Group considers necessary.

To test the integrity and security system of the EVM and VVPAT machines, the Social Audit Group will, in consultation with the ECI,have the freedom to appoint an independent third-partyteam of IT experts from India or from abroad, if necessary, who have the experience of conducting hackathons. There would be no restrictions on the hackers – they would be free to check the hardware, the software, and also the programmes embedded in the chips of all these machines to determine whether the EVM/VVPAT machines are capable of being manipulated either before, during or after each step of the electoral process.

All the EVM and VVPAT machines used for the hackathon would be disabled for future use under the joint supervision of the Social Audit Group and ECI, to ensure that none of these is ever used again in any future election.

We are sending copies of this letter to the Chief Electoral Officers of all States and Union Territories, to keep them apprised of our proposal. Furthermore, as many of the electoral records, EVM and VVPAT machines are lying in the immediate custody of various state government agencies, they too are custodians of public property.

We look forward to an early response from you. A delegation from our group is willing and keen to meet you at a mutually convenient time to discuss the further modalities of the Social Audit.

The letter has been copied to the Chief Electoral Officers of all States and Union Territories

Related Articles:

2019 polls: ECIL seeks disclosure of information on EVM, VVPAT; BEL, EC equivocate under RTI Act
Full page campaign ads onelection day: Poll code violation?
RTI info on Electronic Voting Machines would ‘endanger’ life of engineers: BEL

The post ECI Silent on Serious Irregularities in May 2019 Gen Election: Constitutional Conduct Group appeared first on SabrangIndia.