Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s comments in Boston alleging irregularities in India’s electoral system have drawn sharp condemnation from the BJP, who accused him of tarnishing Indian democracy on international soil.
BJP Hits Back
BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari called Rahul Gandhi “anti-democracy and anti-India,” accusing him of acting on behalf of global financier George Soros:
“Rahul Gandhi, who could not win the trust of the Indian electorate, begins to question the Indian democratic process on foreign soil… an agent of George Soros who is fighting the Indian state,” Bhandari posted on X.
Another BJP leader, Shehzad Poonawalla, echoed the criticism:
“Rahul Gandhi’s identity is to humiliate Indian organisations and institutions abroad. First the Constitution, now the Election Commission of India — this shows the opposition to PM Modi is becoming opposition to India itself.”
Rahul Gandhi’s Allegations in Boston
In his speech to the Indian diaspora, Rahul Gandhi alleged that the Election Commission was “compromised” and cited an anomaly during the Maharashtra Assembly elections:
“Between 5:30 PM and 7:30 PM, 65 lakh votes were added. That’s physically impossible… If each vote takes 3 minutes, there would have been queues until 2 AM. When we asked for videography, they refused and changed the law,” he claimed.
He emphasized this as proof of a system failure, stating:
“It’s clear to us that the Election Commission is compromised.”
ECI Sources Respond
Election Commission sources have firmly rebutted these claims, labeling them “unfounded.”
According to data from the Special Summary Revision (SSR) of January 2025, only 89 appeals were recorded in Maharashtra, despite 13.8 million Booth Level Agents participating across the country.
The SSR process includes:
- Adding newly eligible voters
- Removing duplicates or deceased entries
- Publishing a draft electoral roll open for corrections and appeals
Sources say the low number of objections implies broad acceptance of the electoral rolls, contradicting Rahul Gandhi’s allegations.
This face-off adds to the intensifying political heat in the run-up to the upcoming elections, as both trust in institutions and freedom of political critique dominate the narrative.