The opposition bloc wanted just one addition to its political arsenal—a narrative strong enough to take on the BJP’s claims of economic, social and political progress. Rahul Gandhi’s “vote chori (theft)” presentation on August 7, highlighting alleged fraud in the electoral system, seems to have given them that narrative just two months before the Bihar assembly elections. Four days later, more than 300 opposition MPs held a well-coordinated protest against the Election Commission.
The Trinamool Congress, usually misaligned with the broad-based opposition, and the Aam Aadmi Party, which had clashing interests with the Congress, came together on a common issue for the first time after last year’s Lok Sabha elections. Also, for once, all in the opposition backed Gandhi’s demand that the EC respond to his allegations.
Opposition leaders say this momentum is rare as they had not shown such cohesion even after limiting the BJP to below majority in the Lok Sabha elections.
Gandhi had tried to rally the opposition by pointing fingers at corporate giant Adani and the Rafale jet deal, but the support he hoped for did not materialise. The regional parties believed they had their own state-level agendas that mattered more to their voters than such national issues. Notably, some opposition parties have corporate ties in their states, so backing an “anti-Adani” stance could have hurt their business relationships. A Congress Lok Sabha member, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the party’s own leaders failed to pick up the Adani issue. Without a coordinated opposition push, the BJP would easily reframe such debates.
Satish Jha, an associate professor of political science at Delhi University, says that a weak opposition has meant that the BJP could work the same even though it is now in a coalition. There have been several allegations against electronic voting machines before, but Jha says the difference now is that Gandhi has “come out with some facts”. “He has given specific instances and hard data from the EC records,” he says. “Therefore, the whole opposition has come together on an issue-basis. It has nothing to do with deeper alignment.”
Akhilesh Yadav and Sharad Pawar added more fuel to the fire. The Samajwadi Party president claimed there was vote theft in the 2022 assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh. “We have already filed 18,000 affidavits after the elections showing there was vote theft,” says party spokesperson Kirti Nidhi Pandey. “There was no response from the EC.”
Pawar, the Nationalist Congress Party (SP) founder, claimed that two persons had approached him before last year’s Maharashtra assembly elections, offering to secure 160 of the state’s 288 seats for the opposition. This was a sign of what Pawar claims was a wider malignancy in the electoral system.
The current campaign, say political observers, has strengthened the opposition before the Bihar elections. Parthav Mukerjee, CEO of Analytico Data Analysis Private Limited—which works at the booth-level across states and is affiliated with the Congress—says that the presentation of facts has provided momentum to the Mahagathbandhan in Bihar. “If we go by the views of people right now, it is going to have a big impact on the results,” he says. “There is resentment being seen on ground.”
The question is, how will the opposition connect the allegations to the BJP? “What is the standard method of approaching proof?” asks former Union law minister Salman Khurshid. “It is the ‘proof of circumstance’, which Gandhi has made 100 per cent clear with his evidence. Even an ordinary person can tell that there is clear circumstantial evidence. The onus is on the EC. Instead, it appears to be shifting responsibility onto Gandhi.”
Khurshid thinks the opposition has clinching proof and no tribunal or any forum can reject it. “If any reasonable person, irrespective of his political leaning, is given proof, he will act on it,” he says. “This is serious enough and clear enough for the courts to take a position on this.”
The EC, meanwhile, has gone into a rare public overdrive. Its problem is that “vote theft” is inherently a political allegation that targets its credibility. Instead of its usual clipped, procedural replies, it has taken an almost combative stance and is issuing public clarifications with unusual frequency. This marks a departure from its traditional role as a quiet referee and risks blurring the line between a constitutional umpire and a political participant. That is precisely the minefield the INDIA bloc wants it to step into.
The EC’s current strategy is two-pronged. First, it is publicly challenging the opposition to produce evidence, thereby placing the burden of proof on them. Second, it is putting out data, statistics and timelines in an attempt to overwhelm the narrative with procedural detail. This is meant to showcase competence and transparency, but it risks drowning itself in bureaucratic defensiveness.
What makes this dangerous for the EC is the political calendar. With key state elections approaching, every procedural misstep, a delay in updating electoral rolls or even a contradictory press note will be seized upon as fresh ammunition. Also, the “vote theft” slogan is far more emotive than “EVM manipulation”, because it casts the act as targeted and personal—“someone is stealing your vote”. In electoral politics, this is like a dynamite.
By wading so visibly into rebuttal mode, the EC sets a dangerous precedent. The more it reacts to political framing, the more it gets entangled in partisan narratives. The institutional strength of the EC lies in its ability to inspire trust through process integrity, not rhetorical combat.
If the EC cannot recalibrate, the INDIA bloc might succeed in turning this into a broader referendum on the poll body’s credibility. That could have consequences far beyond these elections, eroding the EC’s moral authority, inviting judicial oversight and reshaping the public’s faith in the electoral process itself.