From polls to global events, transparency is non-negotiable

Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. The phrase endures because institutions must be seen to act beyond reproach. In India today, where elections unfold with relentless regularity — a state going to the polls, a by-election announced, a local body contest underway — that standard acquires special urgency.

We are, in effect, a nation in permanent campaign mode. The Election Commission functions continuously, from Nirvachan Sadan to the booth-level officer. The executive governs in an atmosphere where every summit, speech and administrative decision carry political weight. In such a climate, democratic conduct is not an abstract ideal.

It is a daily test. Let us examine this through two recent case studies — not to endorse allegations nor to undermine institutions, but to assess whether our public conduct consistently meets the standard that Caesar’s wife demands.

The first concerns electoral transparency.

During the 2024 Andhra Pradesh Assembly elections, held alongside the Lok Sabha polls, political commentator and economist Parakala Prabhakar highlighted official turnout data showing that approximately 17 lakh additional votes were recorded within a roughly 130-minute window late on polling day.

In interviews, including one with Karan Thapar, he argued that distributing this increase across the booths concerned implied an extraordinarily high rate of voting during that compressed period — effectively, by his calculation, amounting to a vote every few seconds at certain polling stations.

He described such a pace as “humanly impossible” given the time required for voter identification, EVM operation and VVPAT confirmation.

Whether his arithmetic withstands scrutiny is precisely the point that demands institutional clarity. If the surge reflects reconciliation of voters already in queue before the official close of polling, the protocol can be explained.

If delayed uploading of booth data created the impression of a compressed spike, time-stamped reporting logs can be published. If the interpretation is flawed, it can be disproved with transparent, booth-wise documentation.

But when a defined numerical claim — 17 lakh votes in roughly 130 minutes in a specific election — circulates without comprehensive clarification, doubt lingers longer than data.

This is not an isolated controversy. During the 2024 general elections, Rahul Gandhi alleged that sharp post-5 pm increases in turnout figures in certain phases, when broken down mathematically, appeared to imply voting activity extending well beyond official polling hours.

He sought release of CCTV footage to verify the final hours of voting. The Election Commission rejected that demand, citing privacy concerns and maintaining that the increases reflected the clearing of voters already present in queue before closing time.

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process provides another illustration. Voter list revision is essential to democratic accuracy.

Yet when large-scale deletions triggered concern and judicial scrutiny prompted course correction, a broader question arose: could greater transparency at the outset have prevented mistrust and litigation?

Why not publish district-wise dashboards detailing additions, deletions, objections filed and objections resolved? Why not institutionalise independent observation during intensive revisions?

Across the political spectrum, concerns have surfaced at various times. The Aam Aadmi Party has questioned voter roll discrepancies.

Congress has written letters alleging irregular deletions. Mamata Banerjee has raised objections over electoral rolls. Raj Thackeray has publicly demonstrated what he claimed were EVM malfunctions. Each claim may be contestable, but it merits engagement and a fact-based, transparent rebuttal — not summary dismissal.

The late T.N. Seshan demonstrated that institutional authority is reinforced, not weakened, by clarity. He confronted political power firmly and communicated decisions openly. In an era of constant elections, that spirit of visible accountability remains relevant. Transparency is not a concession to critics; it is the foundation of legitimacy.

The second case study concerns executive conduct and public optics.

The recent AI summit, intended as a showcase of technological ambition, generated controversy over logistics and messaging. Reports described traffic disruptions that forced delegates to walk considerable distances.

There were accounts of halls being vacated ahead of the Prime Minister’s arrival for security reasons, disrupting scheduled engagements. An exhibitor reportedly misplaced documents during the reshuffle, which were later recovered.

One episode that drew particular global attention — and caused embarrassment — was the demonstration of what was presented as an indigenous AI-driven robotic dog by Galgotias University, only for reports to suggest that the product closely resembled an existing Chinese model available commercially.

International media commentary followed, raising questions about due diligence and screening processes. Whether the lapse was intentional or careless, the procedural issue remains: what verification mechanisms governed the selection of exhibits?

Were technical claims independently vetted before being showcased at a global forum? The episode might have prompted deeper reflection on vetting and quality control. Instead, the narrative shifted when a Youth Congress “topless protest” against the government’s claims generated dramatic visuals.

The debate moved from screening standards to spectacle. In the churn of outrage and counter-outrage, the more substantive issue — the rigour of selection and presentation at an international platform — receded from public focus.

Large gatherings involving global participants inevitably strain logistics. Security around a sitting Prime Minister is non-negotiable. Yet better planning and calibrated movement management could arguably have minimised disruption rather than requiring delegates to vacate halls abruptly.

The question, ultimately, is one of standards. When an event designed to project technological competence encounters visible organisational friction, what message does that send? When summit visuals prominently feature political symbolism, does the line between governance platform and campaign theatre blur?

In an age where optics shape perception as much as policy, administrative precision becomes part of democratic credibility. Political language further shapes that climate. Expressions such as “vote chori” on one side have been met with terms like “Nanga Party” on the other.

Campaign rhetoric has included references to mutton, buffaloes, mangalsutras, industrialists’ alleged bags of money and insinuations about wealth. Electoral politics can be sharp; yet the Prime Minister, by virtue of office, is expected to set the tone of national discourse.

Robust debate need not descend into derision. When language becomes caricature, political discourse risks becoming trivialised.

Let us also remember that from Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha to contemporary demonstrations across parties, public protest has served as a legitimate democratic instrument through which citizens express dissent.

It is protected under the constitutional right to freedom of expression. It reflects the opinion of a section of the polity and often compels institutions to introspect.

The present ruling party itself rose to national prominence amid the mass mobilisation of the Anna Hazare–led India Against Corruption movement and the political churn surrounding alleged scams during the UPA years. To question protest as such would be to disregard democratic history.

The issue, therefore, is not dissent. It is whether both protest and power are exercised with responsibility. When protest becomes theatrical spectacle without substantive engagement, it risks diluting its own message. When authority responds with rhetorical escalation rather than institutional explanation, democratic maturity suffers.

Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. That principle applies equally to the Election Commission and to the executive. It applies to the counting of votes and to the conduct of national events. It applies to statistical reconciliation and to political rhetoric.

If allegations are unfounded, rebut them comprehensively and publicly. If procedures are sound, demonstrate them repeatedly through accessible data. If logistical lapses occurred, acknowledge and correct them transparently.

If language has crossed lines, recalibrate it. Institutions grow stronger when they treat scrutiny as an opportunity to reinforce trust rather than as an affront to authority.

In a nation of immense scale and diversity, democratic legitimacy rests not only on outcomes but on confidence in process and tone. Questions do not weaken democracy; unanswered questions do.

Transparency does not diminish power; it dignifies it. And if India is to remain a republic beyond suspicion, every institution must continually strive to meet that unforgiving but necessary standard.

(The columnist is a Mumbai-based author and independent media veteran, running websites and a youtube channel known for his thought-provoking messaging)