……………………………………………………………………
Gist – The attack on the Election Commission backfired, now Congress is hiding its face, did CSDS make a mistake or was it a well-planned strategy?
……………………………………………………………………
In a democracy, constitutional institutions like the Election Commission not only conduct elections, but they are also a bridge of trust between political parties and voters. When the credibility of these institutions is attacked, it affects the entire democratic structure.
Congress questioned the Election Commission on the basis of the wrong data released by CSDS. If seen, this incident was not just a “data error”, but its political and institutional implications are serious. The Election Commission of India is the watchdog of the world’s largest democratic process. If it is attacked repeatedly, then the message goes to the minds of the voters that the elections are not completely fair. This is a factor that weakens the faith in democracy.
As far as the entire incident is concerned, let us tell you that on August 18, Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera had posted a graphic on X and raised questions on the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI). According to him, there was an abnormal drop and increase in the number of voters in some constituencies in a period of just six months between the 2024 Lok Sabha and Maharashtra Assembly elections. He claimed that about 40% of voters were removed in Ramtek and Deolali while the number of voters increased by 45% in Nashik West and Hingna. Sarcastically, he wrote – “Now next time they will say that 2 + 2 = 420.”
These figures were given by Lokniti-CSDS professor Sanjay Kumar. But in just 48 hours, this entire claim collapsed and Sanjay Kumar had to publicly apologize. Let us tell you that on August 17, Sanjay Kumar, citing the examples of Nashik West and Hingna, said that the number of assembly voters there has increased unexpectedly compared to the Lok Sabha. In Nashik West, he had said the increase was 47%. In Hingna, he had said the increase was 43%. These numbers were immediately used by Congress leaders and supporters to question the credibility of the Election Commission.
But on August 19, Sanjay Kumar deleted his post and apologized. He admitted that his “data team read the wrong lines” and that is why the numbers were presented in an exaggerated manner. He said that his intention was not to spread misinformation. Let us tell you that according to official figures, the increase in voters in reality was between 3 to 6%, while a 45% increase was being spread.
This controversy gave the BJP an opportunity to attack both the Congress and CSDS. BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya said that CSDS has been working for years not just as a research institute but as a tool for narrative setting. He questioned the foreign funding and alleged that its aim is to weaken India’s social unity. He also said that CSDS shows Hindu society as caste-based divided in its surveys, while Muslim society is shown as homogeneous. According to Amit Malviya, this was not an innocent mistake like “everyday misread” but a well-planned effort that backfired.
Apart from this, since CSDS receives funding from the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), ICSSR also took cognizance of this incident. ICSSR said that this is a violation of grant rules and an attempt to undermine the credibility of a constitutional institution like the Election Commission. ICSSR has announced to issue a show-cause notice to CSDS.
If seen, this entire episode teaches us many important lessons. One lesson is that election-related data is extremely sensitive. A serious analyst should check it several times before publishing it. Second – as soon as Sanjay Kumar posted, Congress leaders attacked the Election Commission, which raises doubts whether the Congress knew in advance what Sanjay Kumar was going to post. Apart from this, even a small mistake by research institutes can make them a part of political agenda and reduce the trust in such institutions among the public.
If an institution like CSDS makes the data public without investigation, then not only its credibility is affected, but the impartiality of the entire research community is also questioned. This gives the impression that research institutes are also becoming tools of politics.
However, the controversy that started with the statements of Pawan Khera and Sanjay Kumar is not limited to the misinterpretation of data, but it has brought the credibility of research institutes, the credibility of the Election Commission and the strategy of political parties – all three are at the center. This makes it clear that even a little negligence in data-based politics can become a weapon of a big narrative war.
