Civil society is given valuable space in democracies because it acts as a conscience keeper, making critical interventions in times of crisis, reminding the system of what the moral and ethical precepts demand. Civil society doesn’t exemplify vested interests, acting as collaborators with the ruling elite to shield them from questions and accountability. Civil society stands for justice and empathy, siding with the vulnerable masses and weaker sections of society. Civil society doesn’t empower the oppressors by providing covering fire to individuals or groups desperate to repudiate culpability.

Had a group of esteemed individuals prayed for the rebirth of the model code of conduct for elections, the entire nation would have erupted in appreciation. The Election Commission (EC) is duty-bound to provide a level-playing field, and the model code of conduct arms it with the tools to execute this sacred task. It prevents the misuse of money power, caste or religion in elections. It places more stringent restrictions on the ruling party, ensuring that the administrative machinery is not deployed to steal any undue advantage.

Alas! The so-called “civil society” was sleeping when the EC remained a mute spectator to brazen attempts by the prime minister, the home minister, BJP chief ministers and senior leaders to trigger religious polarisation for votes.

The “civil society” looked the other way when the EC did not stop the transfer of Rs 10,000 into the accounts of millions of voters in the middle of elections. The BJP was accused of hiring trains to send thousands of voters to Bihar from other states, making a mockery of the model code of conduct. In the past, attempts to lure voters with freebies were crushed by the EC in several states, from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan. But Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar found no violation in Bihar. The “civil society” kept quiet. The “distinguished persons”, whose credentials have now been exposed, watched the funeral of the model code of conduct without protest.

A group of “272 senior citizens” have now risen in the name of “civil society” to intimidate Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi for what they have described as a serious threat to democracy from “a rising tide of venomous rhetoric directed toward its foundational institutions”. But their letter contains gross misinformation. For instance, the letter says, “The irony is stark: when electoral outcomes are favourable in certain states where opposition-driven political parties form governments, criticism of the Election Commission disappears.”

It’s truly unfortunate that the group, consisting of former judges, retired army generals, bureaucrats and police officers, has relied on lies to mislead the nation. The Congress has maintained that questions about manipulation remain valid irrespective of electoral outcomes, and Gandhi started his investigation from Karnataka, a state where the BJP was vanquished. In the Assembly constituency Aland that has emerged as the centrepiece of Vote-Chori allegations, the Congress candidate had won. In Maharashtra, the demand for a mock poll in Markadwadi village was made although the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader had won the election.

Has the EC answered the questions that Gandhi has raised about duplicate and fake voters being managed through a centralised system? Has it furnished details sought by the Karnataka investigators? Why was the rule on videography during polling changed? What about anomalies in Haryana? What about videos of BJP workers voting in different states? Is there any credible explanation?

But the “civil society” declared that the Vote-Chori charge “collapses under scrutiny.” What do you call a group that attacks the opposition parties fighting for justice and accountability? Remember that famous couplet from Habib Jalib: “Zulmat ko jiya sarsar ko saba bande ko khuda kya likhna…?’

Shield and sophistry

This group of “eminent citizens” wrote in the open letter: “After their attempts to tarnish the Indian Armed Forces by questioning their valour and accomplishments, and the judiciary by questioning its fairness, parliament, and its constitutional functionaries, now it is the turn of Election Commission of India to face systematic and conspiratorial attacks on its integrity and reputation.”

Who attacked the Indian armed forces? No politician in India does that. If somebody questions the government’s policy, that is not a critique of the soldiers. Criticism of the prime minister is not an attack on the armed forces.

The next point they made was about the judiciary. The undeniable fact is that India’s politicians are too timid to confront judges. Many Supreme Court judgements haven’t received the criticism they deserved for perverse verdicts or for lowering the dignity of the judiciary. There is a need for a serious national debate on the plight of judiciary, which the self-appointed ‘civil society’ has failed to acknowledge.

They also referred to parliament and its constitutional functionaries. The entire nation will agree that the parliament has seen an abysmal decline in recent years. The ruling party stalls discussions on critical issues such as the Chinese intrusion, unemployment, price rise, the economic situation and foreign policy. Even a reference to Gautam Adani is expunged. Bills are passed without due consideration. The Lok Sabha deputy speaker’s post lies vacant for years. And the Rajya Sabha chairperson is forced to resign under mysterious circumstances. The way Jagdeep Dhankhar has vanished from the political scene is unimaginable in a democratic set-up.

The “eminent citizens”, whose grim realities have now been widely advertised, also wanted opposition leaders to offer a genuine policy alternative instead of resorting to ‘theatrical political strategies’. But when the government is animated by the sinister agenda of a “Congress-mukt Bharat”, when the prime minister has buried consensual politics, when the ruling party avoided even systemic engagement with the opposition till a diplomatic crisis evolved vis-a-vis Pakistan in Modi’s third tenure, do policy alternatives even matter? What policy alternative given by Gandhi to note-bandi, the lockdown and vendetta politics would have been accepted? Which suggestion would Modi have taken on the Manipur crisis, electoral bonds and the misuse of central agencies?

Real civil society

But where is the real civil society? Where are the true activists and intelligentsia hiding?

The whole world, including the US, witnessed massive and sustained demonstrations against the Gaza genocide. India did not. Who is responsible for defaming the land of Gandhi and Nehru by orchestrating a deafening silence on the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis?

What’s the opinion of the civil society on the question of integrity of the electoral process? Do they believe that Kumar, or his predecessor Rajiv Kumar, is following the noble path shown by former CEC T.N. Seshan? Have they been disturbed by the Modi government’s decision to overrule the Supreme Court’s order on the appointment of election commissioners? Did they expect a more meaningful and constructive response from the ECI to the evidence placed by the LoP in the public domain?

Is the real civil society worried about the rise in toxic communalism and polarising tactics over the last few years? Are they rattled by the miserable plight of the key democratic institutions and the destructive role played by the media? Are the activists, professors, poets, artistes, technocrats and unemployed youth alarmed by the protection given to bigots, thugs and demons of superstition? Are they upset about the selective crusade against corruption, the muddled-up foreign policy and audacious crony capitalism? Are they angry about the diversionary ploys that ceaselessly drag national attention away from real concerns? If yes, silence isn’t the option. As Janisar Akhtar wrote, “Inquilabon ki ghadi hai/Har nahin haan se badi hai.” 

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.