A Brief Report on the recent Elections held in Manipur 2012
- Part 2 -

Shyleyn Chothe *

People going to the poll on Election Day in various places of Manipur :: January 28 2012

On 12 January 2012, the CPI candidate, D.N. Haokip, was on his way to attend the scrutiny of nomination papers in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner in Chandel District when the UKLF cadres waylaid and physically tormented him. He was then, forced to sign an undertaking with a statement declaring his (D.N. Haokip's)unconditional support to the Candidature of Shri Thangkholun Haokip, the INC candidate and the incumbent legislator from 41-Chandel A/C (The Sangai Express, 15 January 2012).

The following press statements issued by D.N. Haokip even revealed the details of his kidnappers. In fact, all, including kids, know the identities of Kuki militants. For the Kuki militant groups seldom conceal their identities. Yours truly had access to the complaints lodged by the CPI candidate. The CPI candidate had sent missives to the Chief Election Commissioner and the CEO-Manipur detailing the harassment he received in the hands of the UKLF on 13 January 2012. The Independent Candidate in 41-Chandel, SS Olish had submitted complaints against the tortures her workers received in the hands of the NPF's Candidate to the Special Observers of ECI on 15 Feb. 2012.

In another related incident, a new Kuki militant outfit called Kuki National Liberation Front (KNLF) banned the Congress-I (the INC) party from Chandel (The Sangai Express, 12 Jan. 2012).

Now, the simple logic is that, the 'involvement of militants in elections' means the militant groups, NSCN-IM, UKLF, and KNLF are promoting the candidature of particular Candidates or political parties. It is not that difficult to come to this logical conclusion.

It is a fact that, the political parties, INC and the Nagaland-based NPF(Naga Peoples' Front) are the two most powerful groups in the recent elections. Moreover, it is a fact that, candidates for NPF were chosen in Hebron, Nagaland, the Head Quarter of NSCN-IM affecting controversies within the NPF and the NSCN-IM (The Sangai Express,11 Jan).

Incidentally, the NPF opposed every decision taken by the Election Commission. At first, it opposed any decision for re-polls (The Sangai Express,2 Feb. 2012). Then, it opposed the photo comparison exercises undertaken by the EC (which is mandatory) [The Sangai Express, 10 Feb. 2012 & The Sangai Express, 13th Feb. 2012]. All these press releases made by the NPF reminded us of one adage, there could be no smoke without fire.

The SEO was short of understanding that, by opposing the mandatory norms like re-polls and photo comparison of electors, the NPF had inadvertently exposed its misdeeds of committing impersonation and booth rigging on the poll days.

The EC or the SEO did not consider referring to media reports and to the complaints lodged by the candidates, in the interest of examining whether anyone or groups had violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). The writing on the walls tells that the Election Officials themselves were either not qualified to conduct the elections or were being intimidated to ignore such complaints and reports by some 'powerful' elements. Perhaps, the NPF was right when it accused the ECI of partisanship (The Sangai Express, 14 Feb. 2012).

The CEO did not even take actions even against those caught for violating election rules. The present elected representative from Sagolband A/C was booked for threatening police officials while an MPS officer was apprehended with Rs. I lakh (her husband is a candidate in Thanga A/C) [The Sangai Express, 21 Jan. 2012]. In another instance,Assam Rifles nabbed the wife of Dr. L. Fimate, a candidate in Tipaimukh A/C, with an amount of Rs. 22, 10, 27,450 lakhs. On 17 January, 'flying squad' of income tax dept. seized Rupees 36, 50, 000 lakhs (The Sangai Express, 20 Jan. 2012).

The State Election Office did not take any further action on the matter.

For an instance, let us recall how the EC took to task several Union Ministers of India for 'violating' the election Model Code of Conduct (MCC).During the Assembly elections in India, the EC, in a swift and fair manner, registered cases against Salman Khurshid, the Union Minister of Law for allegedly violating the Model Code of Conduct. (The Sangai Express, 16 Feb. 2012)and (Imphal Free Press, 13 Feb. 2012).

Within a matter of days, nayhours, the EC even petitioned to the Indian President against Salman Khurshid. The President promptly referred the case to the Prime Minister. Such was the efficiency of the EC. Allegedly, Salman Khurshidhas promised, in an election rally, for prompt and fair execution of schemes granted to the minorities, according to national print and electronic media.

The Union Minister of Steel and other political leaders were given the same treatment.The most interesting part wasthe EC had registered cases against the Ministerspurely based on media reports. Of course, media reports can be admitted as, references,to a case unless proven of being case of yellow journalism.

Photo comparison of electors was undertaken from the 13th to 20 Feb. 2012 at the State Election Office, Imphal. On the 13th and 14th February, candidates, their election agents and few complainants were invited to witness the process. Yours truly had the opportunity to witness some of the proceedings. Impersonation was committed in all the polling stations of the hill Assembly Constituencies.

Photo comparison exercises revealed males voted in place of women and vice versa. Minors voted instead of senior citizens, a single person voted in the name of many electors in the same polling station, and votes were found polled in the name of deceased electors etc. (The Sangai Express, 9 Feb. 2012).

The INC Candidate's name (now elected) was entered in the electoral rolls of two different polling stations, viz., E/Mullam P/S and Khongban Kuki P/S; but in the same constituency (Saikul A/C), (The Sangai Express, 25 Feb. 2012). What is more, both of his votes were 'polled' in both the polling stations (Hueiyen Lanpao, 16 Feb. 2012). According to election laws, candidates having their names entered in two or more polling stations or Assembly Constituencies are NOT eligible to contest in elections. Actually, having our names in two or more polling stations or A/Cs is a crime.

The District Election Officers (DEOs) and the Returning Officers (ROs) are responsible for checking any discrepancy, wrong statement and false entries made by the aspiring candidates in their nomination papers.In the recent elections too, many aspiring candidates got disqualified for giving false statements in their nomination papers (The Sangai Express,13 Jan. 2012).

The question now remains, why the ROs and DEOs of Saikul A/C wereconcealing the mistakes of the INC candidate. Even if the time for scrutiny (12 Jan 2012) had lapsed, the election laws were valid until they are relaxed.

Decades ago(if memory does not lie), an elected legislator from Churachandpur district was disqualified based on the strength of the cases filed against him during his elections. I cannot believe such laws are obsolete now.

In some cases, photos of electors taken on the poll day were either darkened or blurred. The CEO of Manipur clarified that all such cases should not be considered as proxy voting (Hueiyen Lanpao,26 Feb. 2012). He went on to say that, there would not be any re-poll and there is no law for re-polls.

Nobody told the CEO that, laws could not be taken for granted nor compromised with.There are laws against impersonation, and they must be implemented in letter and spirit. Common sense tells us that, confirming the identities of those electors whose photos are either blackened or blurred would be not possible.Therefore, suggesting those blurred and blackened photos could belong to genuine electors' amounts to challenging election laws. If you cannot confirm the identity of a person, how could you say that the person is such and such?

Such problems could have been avoided, had the Chief Electoral Officer arrange for digital cameras to photograph the electors as directed by the Election Commission in its notice dated 13.01.2012 under vide no. 464/MR-LA/2012(Inst.)/474.

The magnitude of the evidences of impersonations and other form of malpractices were such that, even the EC had to change its decision every now and then. The EC itself was seemingly confused over the mismatched photos (The Sangai Express, 25 Feb. 2012). The photo comparison system has inadvertently, opened a Pandora's Box.

During the sessions of photo comparison of electors, the State Election Office revealed that evidences of impersonation and booth rigging were in every polling station of the hill Assembly Constituencies.The EC had to eventually order for re-polls in many polling stations, all of them in the hill Assembly Constituencies.

The EC explained that, polling stations detected with maximum numbers of impersonations are going for re-polls on March 4, 2012 (The Sangai Express,29 Feb. 2012). However, the EC did not clarified about the fate of those proxy votes in other polling stations! Unfortunately, the EC has validated the proxy votes, betraying the democratic principles of the world.

Nevertheless, the time between re-polls (4th March) and the day of counting of votes (6th March) was too limited to lodged complaints about any malpractices committed in the polling stations.Since militants were allowed to operate without any hindrance, complaints were bound to be submitted.

In addition, the EC and the SEO had clarified that only those complaints lodged 'in time' would be entertained.However, the definition of the phrase 'in time' needs more explanation. As long as the Election Code of Conduct is enforced, it is natural that any document relating to elections is legitimate.

On going through the pages of Peoples' Representative Act 1951, Handbook for Candidates 2009, Model Code of Conduct, and the Guidelines issued to the Polling Officials, there was NOT any provision that says that complaints regarding elections should be submitted on time. The EC and the SEO were obliged to inform the candidates and the public, personally and through the media, about such provisions,if it really exists, before the elections were conducted.

The officialannouncement about lodging complaints on time was made weeks after the poll day (The Sangai Express,29 Feb. 2012). Secondly, the Election Code of Conduct was relaxed on 14 February 2012 (Hueiyen Lanpao, 15 Feb. 2012). The legal notion is that, as along as any law is enforced, complaints or petitions lodged during that time are legitimate.

The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), SY. Quraishi bragged that the EC does not need any more powers since it is powerful enough (Hueiyen Lanpao, 5 March 2012). If that is the case, he is obliged to clarify his stand on the complaints lodged during the elections in Manipur; also, he should explain, on what grounds were the votes polled through impersonation were validated. The counting of votes reveals that the proxy votes in the polling stations that did not go for re-polls were included as valid votes.

My take on the elections in Manipur is that, new election norms were a complete failure: and a quixotic romance.Moreover, criminals who profited from booth rigging and impersonation were made to become smarter. I dare to suspect that the EC and the SEO as stooges of those in power. All the trumpeting of election laws was a perfect example of Empty vessel makes a noise.Who knows, the so-called election laws could have been tailored for the INC party (I have no grudge against the Cong). Around here, Cong is King forever.

Concluded ....