Pointers from Surat urge a probe

The unopposed election of Bharatiya Janata Party candidate Mukesh Dalal as Member of Parliament from Surat seat in Gujarat is bound to cause surprise and raise suspicion.

One could question if the election process is being manipulated to favour the ruling dispensation in its pursuit of ‘Beyond 400’ target.

Mystery surrounds as to how the nomination papers of Nilesh Khambani, joint candidate for the Indian National Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), was rejected by the Returning Officer(RO)—who also happens to be the collectors of Surat—Sourabh Pardhi on the grounds of signatures of three proponents ‘having inconsistencies’.

The RO based his decision on the three proponents purportedly informing him of their signatures being forged. Neither the three, nor Mr. Nilesh Khambani presented themselves to support their claim.

The nomination paper was rejected merely on the complaint, not the inquiry that should have followed. Reports point out that the three proponents were closely related to the candidate.

The complaint on behalf of the three candidates was prepared by an advocate affiliated to the BJP. Not this alone.

Eight other candidates, including the alternate Congress candidate Suresh Padsala and nominee of the Bahujan Samaj Party, Pyarelal Bharti, withdrew their nomination papers.

Surprisingly, the Congress candidate did not object to or challenge the rejection of the nomination. And how did the RO accept the nomination papers at the first instance, without ascertaining the antecedents of the proponents, also begs an answer.

All these leads to the question if the Congress candidate as well as the BSP nominee and the independents have all been a part of the drama enacted at the behest of the ruling party.

A similar drama has played out regarding the nomination papers of Samajwadi Party candidate Meera Yadav for Khajuraho seat in Madhya Pradesh.

Yadav’s paper were rejected on flimsy ground of not submitting verified list of voters and that her signature was missing at one place.

Even in Arunachal Pradesh, 10 BJP candidates have been elected unopposed, a regular feature of the hill state with the Indian National Congress having done better that this in previous elections.

Uncontested wins have been rare in Indian elections where the scene is rife with superabundance of parties, ideas and ideologies, aspirants and even dummies who are keen to replace the official candidate.

The circumstances in Surat point to use of unfair means to eliminate the contest through electoral management. Discussion and deliberation is the essence of a democracy.

Anything that dumbs down contest is all likely to be an object of suspicion. Surat was likely to see a keen contest as the city’s textile industry is facing closure of several units.

Lakhs of workers have returned home leaving the industry in dire straits. The Rajput community in Gujarat as well as in neighbouring Rajasthan, had declared to vote against the BJP in protest against unsavoury remarks made by the State BJP Minister Rupala.

An election would have posed stiff challenge to the party ruling Gujarat for the last quarter century. It is inconceivable that there could be an uncontested win in a parliamentary seat in a city like Surat, where even a corporator’s seat carries a premium.

Perhaps the political parties may take up the matter with the Election Commission or the courts once the current electoral din comes down.

Pointers emanating from Surat have implications for the health of the democracy. In any case it should not be left unprobed.