Where is the proof that SIR hurt Opposition? Sreenivasan Jain challenges Congress’ Bihar in-charge

Summary

The transcript discusses allegations surrounding a flawed voter list process in Bihar, specifically the deletion and addition of voters during an election cycle. The conversation touches on the systemic nature of these issues, with accusations of targeting certain communities and supporting the ruling party. The discussion also highlights the challenges in proving these allegations, citing a lack of concrete data and evidence to definitively show that the changes favored the opposition or ruling party. While the system is acknowledged as flawed, conclusive evidence of large-scale manipulation remains elusive.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker acknowledges concerns about the S process and its potential flaws, especially regarding voting deletions and additions.
• 😀 There are claims of roughly 65-70 lakh votes being deleted and about 20-21 lakh votes added, with some voters reporting issues at polling booths.
• 😀 Voters have reported instances of their votes being deleted, others casting votes in their name, and people voting multiple times.
• 😀 The speaker raises doubts about the evidence supporting the idea that the final list of deletions disproportionately affected opposition votes.
• 😀 A pattern of targeted deletions affecting certain communities, including the poor, minorities, Dalits, and women, is suggested.
• 😀 Despite claims, there’s no concrete, comprehensive evidence that the S process benefited the ruling party over the opposition based on available data.
• 😀 The timing of the S introduction, just after the opposition's May Behen Yojana campaign gained momentum, is noted as significant.
• 😀 The introduction of the S coincided with rising traction for the opposition, followed by large-scale vote buying efforts, including cash transfers to women and farmers.
• 😀 The interview points out that the process of vote addition and deletion is opaque, with no clear visibility into which votes are added or deleted and why.
• 😀 There is a debate about whether the flawed system of the S process actively helped the ruling party or whether it's just a case of systemic flaws without clear intent.
• 😀 The speaker emphasizes that without analyzable data, the issue remains speculative, and conclusions should be made cautiously rather than definitively.

Q & A

What are the main issues discussed regarding the 'S' process?

The script discusses concerns regarding the 'S' process, specifically around the deletion and addition of votes. It questions the evidence supporting claims that the process was biased towards the ruling party, impacting opposition votes, and highlights inconsistencies, such as certain communities being disproportionately affected.

What evidence is there to suggest that votes were unfairly deleted or added?

The script mentions reports of roughly 65-70 lakh votes being deleted, and about 20-21 lakh votes being added. Instances of people finding their votes deleted, or votes cast by someone else with a different picture, are also noted as evidence of possible irregularities.

Why is the profile of voters being questioned in relation to vote deletions?

The profile of voters is questioned because the deletions appear to disproportionately affect certain communities, such as women, the poor, minorities, and Dalits. These groups traditionally tend to vote against the ruling government, raising suspicions of biased deletions.

What is the counterintuitive point raised about women voters in Bihar?

Despite the general assumption that women are strong supporters of the NDA, the script points out that women voters were disproportionately affected by the deletions. This is counterintuitive because if the intent was to favor the NDA, one would expect their votes to be protected rather than deleted.

What was the timing of the 'S' process in relation to political campaigns?

The 'S' process was introduced at a time when the opposition's 'May Behen Yojana' campaign was at its peak, and the 'Gutbandan' alliance was gaining traction. This timing raises questions about whether the 'S' process was designed to affect the opposition's momentum.

How did the script describe the opposition's traction after the introduction of the 'S' process?

The script notes that the opposition continued to gain traction even after the 'S' process was introduced, leading to large-scale vote buying. The traction persisted until the 'war chur' (unclear reference, possibly indicating an election phase), after which vote buying, including cash transfers, became more apparent.

What is the significance of the cash transfers mentioned in the script?

The script highlights that cash transfers, including 10,000 rupees to women voters and 6,000 rupees to farmers, played a significant role in the electoral process. These transfers were seen as part of a broader strategy of vote buying aimed at influencing the outcome.

What does the script suggest about the evidence of vote manipulation?

The script suggests that while there are allegations of vote manipulation, particularly in favor of the ruling party, there is no conclusive evidence or data that fully supports the claim. The situation is described as being based on inferences or suspicions rather than definitive proof.

What is the stance of the speaker on the fairness of the 'S' process?

The speaker acknowledges that the 'S' process was flawed and had significant loopholes but is cautious about asserting that it was deliberately biased in favor of the ruling party. The speaker emphasizes the lack of conclusive evidence to support this claim.

Why is the issue of data visibility important in evaluating the 'S' process?

The issue of data visibility is crucial because the lack of transparency in who and why votes were added at the last minute makes it difficult for the opposition to effectively analyze or challenge the changes. Without access to comprehensive data, conclusions about the fairness or bias of the process remain speculative.