New Delhi: Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday used the ongoing Lok Sabha debate on electoral reforms as a platform to deliver a scathing critique of the Congress party, accusing its leaders of making “baseless allegations” about voter fraud while ignoring what he described as a long history of irregularities under previous Congress governments. His remarks, delivered during the second day of discussions on Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, quickly dominated the proceedings and drew attention across party lines.

Shah opened his intervention by highlighting the importance of historical context in any discussion about democracy and elections. “The Opposition gets angry when we talk of history, but how can any country or society move forward without history?” he said, stressing that understanding past events is essential to ensure electoral transparency and the integrity of democratic processes.

Tracing ‘Vote Chori’ to Nehru’s Era

In a pointed reference to India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Shah claimed that allegations of electoral malpractice—what he referred to as “vote chori”—were not new. He alleged that the first instance of vote manipulation occurred immediately after Independence. According to Shah, while Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was backed by 28 members, Nehru had support from only two, yet he became the country’s first Prime Minister. “This was vote chori,” Shah remarked, framing the historical anecdote as an early example of alleged electoral irregularity.

Shah went on to outline the series of Special Intensive Revisions carried out in India, asserting that SIR exercises have been conducted consistently to maintain the accuracy of electoral rolls. “The first SIR was conducted in 1952 when Nehru was Prime Minister. The next happened in 1957, and then in 1961, still under Nehru,” he said. He noted that this process continued through the tenures of successive Congress leaders—Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, P. V. Narasimha Rao—and later under non-Congress governments, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh.

“No party had opposed this process because it is a process of keeping elections clean and keeping democracy healthy,” Shah emphasized, asserting that the exercise of SIR was intended to remove deceased voters, include those who had attained the age of 18, and delete the names of foreign nationals, one by one.

Emergency Era and Indira Gandhi: Second ‘Vote Chori’

Shah also addressed the controversial period of the Emergency, referring to it as the “second vote chori.” He alleged that Indira Gandhi had engaged in vote manipulation by granting herself immunity after her election was set aside by the courts. “Second ‘vote chori’ was by Indira Gandhi, when she granted herself immunity after the court set aside her election,” he said, alluding to historical disputes that have long been debated in political and legal circles.

According to Shah, the Emergency-era controversy remains a significant moment in India’s electoral history, highlighting the vulnerabilities of the democratic process when political power is concentrated. He used this example to underline the need for continuous electoral reforms and vigilance to prevent any repetition of such events.

Sonia Gandhi and the Third ‘Vote Chori’

Turning to the contemporary political landscape, Shah referred to what he described as the “third vote chori,” a matter currently before civil courts involving Congress leader Sonia Gandhi. He questioned the timeline of her registration as a voter in India, suggesting that she became a voter before officially acquiring Indian citizenship. “The dispute of third ‘vote chori’ has just reached civil courts on how Sonia Gandhi became a voter before becoming a citizen of India,” Shah said.

Shah’s remarks were aimed at connecting historical instances of alleged voter irregularities with ongoing legal scrutiny, framing a narrative in which questions of electoral legitimacy persist across decades and political parties. By highlighting these examples, he sought to challenge the Congress party’s criticism of the current government’s management of electoral reforms.

Context of the Debate on Electoral Reforms

The Lok Sabha debate on electoral reforms, including the Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls, was scheduled following sustained pressure from the Opposition to allow a discussion on the subject. Initially, the government had declined to take up the matter, but an understanding was reached to hold the debate once discussions on the Vande Mataram issue were completed.

Shah’s intervention came on the second day of these debates, during which lawmakers from various parties raised concerns about electoral transparency, voter registration, and the integrity of the SIR process. The minister’s speech was both a response to Opposition queries and a proactive effort to place historical perspective at the center of discussions on electoral reforms.

A Broader Argument on Electoral Integrity

Throughout his speech, Shah emphasized that understanding historical precedents is essential for meaningful debate about electoral reforms. He argued that electoral irregularities, whether alleged or documented, have occurred under multiple governments and that any discussion of reforms must acknowledge this history. “How can any country or society move forward without history?” he reiterated, framing the narrative around continuity and accountability in India’s electoral processes.

Shah also stressed that the SIR process serves a critical function in maintaining the accuracy and credibility of electoral rolls. He contended that opposition parties have frequently raised allegations about the process without acknowledging its long-standing role in safeguarding democracy. According to him, electoral reforms and regular revisions are essential not only to prevent fraud but also to ensure that every eligible citizen has access to the voting process.

Reactions and Implications

Shah’s remarks are likely to fuel further debate in Parliament, as they touch upon both historical controversies and ongoing legal proceedings. Congress leaders, who have previously questioned the SIR process and alleged voter manipulation, are expected to respond to Shah’s historical framing and accusations concerning Sonia Gandhi’s voter registration.

Observers note that the minister’s strategy reflects a broader effort by the government to counter allegations of voter fraud by situating the discussion within a historical continuum. By invoking examples from India’s post-Independence history, Shah aimed to demonstrate that questions of electoral integrity are not confined to any single administration or political party.

Conclusion

Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s intervention in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday was a forceful critique of the Congress party, linking contemporary allegations of voter irregularities to historical instances dating back to India’s first elections. From Nehru’s time to the Emergency era and contemporary disputes involving Sonia Gandhi, Shah traced a narrative of what he described as repeated instances of “vote chori,” while emphasizing the ongoing importance of Special Intensive Revisions for maintaining electoral integrity.

By situating the debate on electoral reforms within a historical framework, Shah sought to highlight the continuity of challenges in India’s democratic processes and underscore the need for vigilance, transparency, and reforms. His remarks are likely to resonate in the ongoing parliamentary discussions and shape the discourse on electoral integrity in the coming weeks, as India continues to refine and safeguard its democratic institutions.

---