In an interview to Karan Thapar, economist and current affairs commentator, Parakala Prabhakar, drew attention to inexplicable and disconcerting discrepancies in the official turnout figures put out by the Election Commission in Maharashtra which, he says, “question the legitimacy of the mandate”.
The chat, full of allegations of mathematical impossibilities in the EC’s poll data, sheds light on a matter that cries out for an explanation from the Election Commission.
Below is the full text of the 30-minute conversation.
The following has been transcribed by Manya Singh, The Wire‘s editorial intern. The text has been edited lightly for style and clarity.
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. The well-known economist and current affairs commentator Parakala Prabhakar has spotted a mystifying, inexplicable and disconcerting discrepancy in the official turnout figures put out by the Election Commission for Maharashtra. It seems between close-up polls and the final tally, the turnout increased by nearly 8%.
That didn’t happen in Jharkhand, where it increased by less than 2% and 1% on the two days of polling. Now, Maharashtra, as you know, was won by the NDA and Jharkhand by the INDIA bloc. So today we ask, how do we explain this unprecedented increase in the Maharashtra turnout? Dr. Parakala is not suggesting that this is because of EVMs or ballot tampering, nor is he saying this is the reason for the NDA’s victory.
But that doesn’t mean this massive discrepancy doesn’t need to be explained. Joining me now is the well-known economist, current affairs commentator and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s husband, Parakala Prabhakar. Dr. Parakala, I want to talk to you about the tweets you have put out about the Election Commission’s Maharashtra and Jharkhand turnout figures.
Let’s start with Maharashtra. I’ll come to Jharkhand after that. At 5 pm on the 20th, the turnout in Maharashtra was deemed to be 58.22%. By 11.30 pm on the same day, it had increased to 65.02%. Before counting on the 23rd, it had gone up yet again to 66.05%. This means that the turnout increased by 7.83%. That’s such an astonishing figure.
I want to repeat it for the audience. The turnout increased between 5 pm and 11.30 pm by an astonishing 7.83%. That’s such a huge increase in terms of the number of people. Can you start by estimating for me how many people that would actually be?
Parakala Prabhakar: Karan, 5 pm there was a figure of 58.22%. And 58.22%, the gross number would be 5,64,88,024.
By 11.30 pm, that percentage has gone up to 65.02%, which gross figure would be 6,30,85,732. Between 5 pm and 11.30 pm, the total hike in gross number is 65,97,708. In other words, about 66 lakhs.
But the hike doesn’t end there. Just a few hours before the counting, again, there was an increase of 9,99,359. That’s almost about 10 lakhs.
All put together, from 5 o’clock on the 20th to 11.30 pm on the 20th, and some 12 hours before counting, the total increase was 75,97,067. That’s about 76 lakhs.
That is such an astonishing figure that it bears underlining for the sake of the audience, what the Election Commission is asking us to believe, is that between the formal close of polls at 5 pm on the 20th, and the last voting that happened at 11.30 pm on the 20th night, an additional almost 76 lakh people voted.
That is such a difficult figure for most people to believe. They would turn around and say it’s unbelievable. Isn’t it very hard to swallow?
Yes, if you look at the historical data, never ever have we had a situation where the Election Commission announces a provisional figure at 5 o’clock.
But then the final count is given a few hours later. Because there may be people who are waiting on the premises and they’re all allowed to vote. After that is also done, finally in the night, they give you the final figure.
Historically, the discrepancy or the difference between the provisional figure and the final figure has never ever crossed 1%. It has always been under 1%. Now today we are in a situation where between the provisional figure and the final figure, it is 7.83%. Gross figure is about 76 lakh votes.
Let’s take up the point you made that after polls officially closed at 5 pm, if there are still people waiting on the premises or in the compound, they are permitted to vote because they arrived there before polls closed. Let’s for argument’s sake, purely for argument’s sake, assume that there were 1000 people waiting in the compound to vote. Each of them arrived before 5 pm, so each of them would have a right to vote.
Now, let’s assume that it takes one minute per person to vote. Actually, it takes a lot longer. It takes around four or five at least.
But let’s for argument’s sake assume it takes one minute per person to vote. That means those 1000 people waiting to vote would take 1000 minutes to do so. And 1000 minutes is 16.6 hours.
But the problem is that between 5 pm and 11.30 pm, there’s only six and a half hours. So even in the six and a half hours available for extra voting, that 1000 simply could never have voted. And if the 1000 could never have voted, how on earth could 76 lakh have done so? So my question is a simple one.
How is this huge increase of nearly 8% to be accounted for? Does the Election Commission give any explanation? Or are they silent?
Karan, there is one more impossibility here. You know, a booth across India, on an average, has between 1,000 and 1,200 votes. If after polls closed, 1,000 people voted and usually it takes 16 hours, as you said, does it mean that throughout the day nobody voted? But the Election Commission says that 58.22% have voted.
That’s one. The second thing is the Election Commission’s own manual says that, people who have entered the premises [get to vote] – and the doors will have to be closed, the gate will have to be closed – and the last person waiting will be given a slip bearing ‘number one’. And the closest person to the booth is given the last number so that there are no more additions after the gates are closed.
And the whole process will have to be videographed. And all these slips will have to be deposited. Now, when people like us ask, ‘Where is the videograph?’, the Election Commission doesn’t say anything.
The Election Commission doesn’t give you any explanation. Not only here, even during Lok Sabha elections, we found a lot of discrepancies, but no answer is forthcoming from the Election Commission.
You’re making a very good point, Dr. Parakala, in addition to my point that it’s almost impossible if there were 1,000 people waiting to vote for them to have voted, because there simply wasn’t time for them to do so.
But you’re making an additional point on top of that, which is, if there was such a large number of people waiting to vote, it means that in many constituencies, people wouldn’t have voted at all. Because the constituencies simply do not have so many people to vote for both.
Both points vitiate the claim that 7.83% voted after the polls closed at five o’clock and before 11.30 pm. Let’s now come to your tweet about Jharkhand. There were two phases of polling in that state. In phase one at 5 pm, the turnout was 64.86%. By 11.30 pm, it had increased to 66.48%, which is just a 1.79% increase and very different to the 8% increase in Maharashtra.
In phase two, the turnout at 5 pm was 67.59%. By 11.30 pm, that had become 68.45%. That’s an increase of only 0.86%. And again, hugely different to the nearly 8% increase in Maharashtra. So the first question I want to ask you is how come the turnout didn’t increase in Jharkhand after polls closed the way it did in Maharashtra? Doesn’t that require an explanation?
Well, it does. And if you want the gross figures, I can give you the gross figures also.
Let’s talk about phase one. At 5 pm, the gross voting was 88,92,771. And the 11.30 announcement, after the provisional announcement, it was 91,14,885.
It’s about 1.62 as you said. And even this is also slightly more because it’s more than 1%. It’s more than one and a half percent.
But historically speaking, it’s never crossed. I think it’s very unusual to cross 1%.
What is therefore the total gross figure of people that 1.79% represents – of poll day one – in Jharkhand?
The hike was 2,22,114.
Very interesting. The hike for polling day one in Jharkhand was 2,29,000. The hike in Maharashtra was 76 lakhs.
It’s a vast differential between the two. And I might add the hike for polling day two in Jharkhand, where the difference was only 0.86% would be way below 2 lakhs. And therefore, the margin of difference with Maharashtra would be considerably greater.
For phase two, the gross hike of voting and the discrepancy is just about 1,06,560. And that translates into 0.86%. Look at what happened in Maharashtra and what happened in Jharkhand.
Absolutely, which is why I say to you, doesn’t it require an explanation?
It does require an explanation.
It requires scrutiny. It requires that the Election Commission come clean on this.
And so far, they’ve said nothing.
The point is stonewalling. You know, they say nothing, Karan. They say nothing. We did not say anything. We’ve questioned. We’ve given a memorandum. Citizens have given memorandum. I’m not talking about the political parties.
I keep the political parties out of this.
Also read: 95 Constituencies, 33,912 Votes: Maharashtra Data Mismatch Between Votes Polled and Counted?
So even though citizens have given a memorandum about this to the Election Commission, the Election Commission is silent.
It doesn’t even acknowledge. Citizens don’t matter.
Let’s go one step further, Dr. Parakala. In Maharashtra, where the turnout increased by nearly 8%, the NDA won.
In Jharkhand, where the turnout increased by less than 2% and 1%, the INDIA bloc won. Doesn’t that raise the question, is there a link between the increase in turnout and who wins?
I’ll give you a little more detail, Karan. You see, with a 1.79% hike in Jharkhand’s first phase, NDA wins 17 out of 43 seats.
Please listen to this carefully. With a 1.79% increase, NDA wins 17 out of 43. Whereas, with 0.86% increase, NDA gets 7 seats out of 30. Did you follow me?
I do indeed. You’re underlining the point I made. The greater the increase in the turnout after polling closes, the more seats NDA wins.
The smaller the increase in the turnout after polling closes, the opposition, the NDA, INDIA bloc win. And that’s the point I’m asking. It seems that there is a link between the increase in turnout and who wins.
A large increase in turnout, NDA wins. A very small marginal increase in turnout, INDIA bloc wins. Again, that needs someone to explain, doesn’t it?
Exactly, exactly. You see, for instance, let’s go back a little into the past and look at Haryana assembly elections. Should I say something only to highlight this?
Absolutely. Let me put it for you because you explained this to me.
You’ve spotted the same thing in Haryana during the recent Vidhan Sabha elections. And you spotted something very similar in UP during the June Lok Sabha election. In Haryana, the vote share increased by 6.7% and the BJP won.
It was a surprise victory. In UP, the vote share increased by under 0.5%, less than 1%. And the opposition won the majority of seats.
So again, what happened in Maharashtra and Jharkhand seems to have happened earlier in UP and Haryana, didn’t it?
Now, since you’ve raised UP also, it’s very interesting because UP confirms the historical trend of being under 1%. UP went to polls in third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh phases. In the third phase, the hike was 0.2%. In phase four, the hike in UP was 0.34%. In phase five, in UP the hike was 0.23%. In phase six, the hike was 0.01%. In phase seven, the hike in UP was 0.25%. So the highest hike was 0.3%.
And the result was NDA got 36, they were down from 62, their previous number, and INDIA, 43. And one seat was the one that Azad Samaj Party won, Mr. Chandrashekhar.
Very true. Once again, the same thing has happened as we are noticing between Maharashtra and Jharkhand.
The larger the increase, the larger the hike in voters after the official polling ends, the greater the chance of the NDA winning. The smaller the increase, the greater the chance of the opposition parties, i.e. the India bloc doing better. Again, the same thing happened in Maharashtra, Jharkhand, the same thing you’re saying happened earlier in UP and Haryana
Can I give you a couple of data points for Haryana? It’s very interesting because you see BJP’s strong performance in Haryana was in 10 districts.
And in 10 districts, they won 37 out of 44. And the remaining 12 districts, they won only 11 out of 46. Now, in those 10 districts where the NDA performed very well, the strike rate was very high, 37 out of 44, the discrepancy was over 10%. And if you want the district wise, I’ll give you just two districts. Panchkula 10.52%, Charki Dadri 11.48%. This is Haryana.
And Haryana, therefore, is underlining the point we made.
The greater the percentage discrepancy, the more likely it is that the NDA, of which the BJP is the main component, will win. It happened in Maharashtra, where the discrepancy was 7.83%. And you’re citing Haryana as another instance where it happened. The overall discrepancy in Haryana was 6.77%. But in individual constituencies, the discrepancy went up to 10 and 11%.
And the BJP won. This, once again, requires an explanation. Why is it that if a large number of people are voting after polls officially closed and before the voting ends, the NDA wins? And why is it that if it’s a very small number of people who are the additional voters, the opposition INDIA bloc with? That cries out for an explanation, doesn’t it?
It does. You know, Karan, I want to trust the Election Commission, because it’s a constitutional body. Although the appointments, if you see, after the amendments, etc, they don’t give you much confidence still. But then the Election Commission will have to give me a solid reason for me to be able to defend the Election Commission.
Now, if this is the kind of discrepancy from 5 pm to 11 30 pm, again, before counting, if these are the things, if they are not properly explained, how do I have confidence in the integrity of the election process, my democratic process?
That is the important point you’re making, that the discrepancies you pointed out create suspicion in people’s minds. And in turn, that suspicion will fuel damaging speculation, which will vitiate the system of voting in India, and go on to vitiate our democracy. That suspicion has to be ended.
It questions the legitimacy of the mandate.
Absolutely. And in a very real sense, the figures that we’re discussing, the arguments that we’re making in this discussion, question the legitimacy of what happened in Maharashtra.
Because there is suspicion about that 76 lakh additional number of people who voted after polls formally closed, people wonder, where did they come from? How did they manage to vote? Well, how come that the BJP won? All those are questions that arise, and all of those questions vitiate the process of voting, and then they go on to vitiate India’s democracy. This is why what you revealed is so important.
And this is also why the Election Commission’s stonewalling, as you put it, refusing to answer memorandums put up by citizens is so worrying.
That’s true. They don’t give footage.
They don’t give us the slips. And one more thing, Karan, in most of these phases, the Election Commission doesn’t give the gross voting. It just gives the percentage.
It doesn’t give the gross voting in the constituencies. It gives only district-wise percentages and state-wise percentages.
Let me put this to you.
This deliberate silence surely amounts to irresponsibility on the part of the Election Commission. They know, because it’s not a secret, that this silence is damaging, that it fuels suspicion, that suspicion undermines our voting and our democracy. Therefore, to continue to be silent is irresponsible, isn’t it?
You know, I have a feeling, Karan, that the Election Commission thinks that it is not accountable.
You know, you can’t question the Election Commission. They are not prepared to answer questions. They are not prepared to even entertain a memorandum from the citizens.
Could that be because the Election Commissioners, it’s often said, have been appointed as favourites of the government? That is a suspicion that is not part of our discussion. But you’re aware of it. I’m aware of it.
Could that be one explanation that these are favourites of the government, which is why they’re keeping quiet? Exactly.
And probably they have an agenda. You know, if the Election Commission, the Election Commissioners, come out with a solid explanation for these kinds of discrepancies, I’m prepared to listen.
Citizens are prepared to listen. Convince us. But you see, this on the face of it, in whatever way you want to, you know, you might say that this is a last minute surge.
You might say that, you know, there is a difficulty at 5 o’clock or 11 or 10 o’clock, when the polls close, it takes time for the information to reach the Election Commission, for them to compile. It might take time. So it’s all late.
And then the figures are revised from time to time. All that can be believed only if it is a completely manual thing. But you have the presiding officer know exactly at the close of a poll, or at any point of time, how many votes were polled there.
Because it’s electronic.
Exactly. And then it’s just a matter of, you know, this getting uploaded to the Election Commission.
Which means that the earlier explanations that might have worked when it was manual balloting, no longer apply and no longer work.
And what is worrisome is even when it was manual, even when we did not have internet connections, and even when we had bad telephone connections in far flung areas, rural areas, we were able to update the final figures within a few hours after the closing of polls.
Secondly, can you believe in a constituency like Chandigarh, Lok Sabha constituency, which has say about 15 square kilometres or so, well connected urban area, fully Wi-Fi, wherever you are. Even in that constituency during the Lok Sabha elections, the Election Commission takes about four days to update the final figure. How do you explain that?
Absolutely. And so we end this programme with one very simple point.
That astonishing increase of 7.83% in the number of people who voted after polls officially closed at 5 pm on the 20th, and before the polling finally finished at 11.30 pm, is so large, so astonishing, it needs an explanation. And the silence and refusal by the Election Commission to explain it creates suspicion. That suspicion in turn leads to speculation, and that speculation could vitiate our voting process and vitiate our democracy.
And as you said, it raises questions about the mandate in this particular instance that we’re talking about. It raises questions about the Maharashtra mandate. And those are questions that are very damaging for a country that’s proud of being the world’s largest democracy.
Let’s leave it there. I thank you for drawing our attention to this. It’s a very worrying concern that I’m grateful that you’ve highlighted.
Now let’s hope the Election Commission becomes responsible and responds to what you’ve raised. Thank you very much indeed. Take care, Dr. Parakala. Stay safe.
Thank you, Karan.
