THE DANGEROUS DOUBLE EDGE OF THE EVM DEBATE

Is the narrative about hacked electronic voting machines about genuine grievance or stoking discord? The Congress's dogged pursuit of the issue may end up being counter-productive

- SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU

IF electronic voting machines (EVM) have been hacked and are being used by the ruling party to subvert our democracy, then they should be replaced with ballot papers. It is about the very integrity of our republic. There can be no argument or quarrel about this. But there are two central questions that need to be answered here.

One, is a good majority of the electorate, the largest stakeholder, convinced that their vote has been stolen? Two, has it been convincingly and conclusively proven before a competent authority, like the Supreme Court of India, that it has been hacked? There is a sea of difference between saying EVMs can be hacked and have been hacked. Elections take place in a complex environment, under the gaze of millions. The question then is, have EVMs been hacked under such hypervigilance?

The hacking of the EVM in a somewhat static lab setting is very different from its manipulation in a dynamic public setting. Of course, EVMs are man-made machines; they can be made to behave differently by smart professionals. But can this be done publicly in the midst of several things at simultaneous play? If they can, evidence will have to be in real-time, not in retrospect.

This is also the nature of a commonsensical question that haunts an ordinary voter. It may be a stupid query for intelligent folks in the Congress, the biggest doubters of EVMs at this juncture (the biggest doubters before 2014 was the BJP). But they must answer it with patience and real-time evidence. Or else the party's credibility may be eroded, and its base may shrink further.