General Elections 2024: Was the Mandate Stolen from the People?

General Elections 2024: Did the Government Have the People's Mandate?

Prema Sridevi: I have with me Mr. M.G. Devasahayam. Devasahayam is a former Army officer and a former IAS officer and has worked as an administrator in the country for over five decades. He knows how the system functions and has also been involved in movements to bring more transparency in governance. Very recently, he worked on a report published by Vote for Democracy, which speaks about some shocking details regarding the 2024 general elections. Let's understand what the report says and its implications from Mr. Devasahayam. Thanks for joining me, Mr. Devasahayam, on this episode of Unbreak the News.

M.G. Devasahayam: Thank you very much.

Prema Sridevi: Mr. Devasahayam, before talking about the report, I want to learn why this is important. Because people might think the dust has settled on the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections. A new government is in place now, and the budget has also been announced. Why should we talk about the general elections that went by? What do you have to say to this?

M.G. Devasahayam: The government is only a creation of the people. Nothing has been done and dusted. Democracy continues; we are talking about democracy here. Governments come and go. Politicians come and go. We are talking about democracy, which should be permanent. We are talking about democracy, which is under grave threat because of people's greed and their capacity to manoeuvre and manipulate. That is why we are taking up this issue in a big way, and we have been doing it for quite some time now. It is nothing new. Only now things have come to a flashpoint. Actually, it has been building up ever since the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) was introduced, which completely killed the concept of democracy itself.

Earlier, we had paper ballots. In 2014, EVMs were introduced throughout the country in the parliamentary elections. That was the first election where the entire country used EVMs. The problems actually started in 2009. The present ruling party, which did not win the 2009 election, took up the issue of EVMs in a very big way, very systematically and scientifically, with involvement from prominent figures like Subramanian Swamy and L.K. Advani. They approached the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court, and the Election Commission of India. The issue stated was that in the machines, we did not know what was

General Elections 2024: Did the Government Have the People's Mandate?

Prema Sridevi: I have with me Mr. M.G. Devasahayam. Devasahayam is a former Army officer and a former IAS officer and has worked as an administrator in the country for over five decades. He knows how the system functions and has also been involved in movements to bring more transparency in governance. Very recently, he worked on a report published by Vote for Democracy, which speaks about some shocking details regarding the 2024 general elections. Let's understand what the report says and its implications from Mr. Devasahayam. Thanks for joining me, Mr. Devasahayam, on this episode of Unbreak the News.

M.G. Devasahayam: Thank you very much.

Prema Sridevi: Mr. Devasahayam, before talking about the report, I want to learn why this is important. Because people might think the dust has settled on the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections. A new government is in place now, and the budget has also been announced. Why should we talk about the general elections that went by? What do you have to say to this?

M.G. Devasahayam: The government is only a creation of the people. Nothing has been done and dusted. Democracy continues; we are talking about democracy here. Governments come and go. Politicians come and go. We are talking about democracy, which should be permanent. We are talking about democracy, which is under grave threat because of people's greed and their capacity to manoeuvre and manipulate. That is why we are taking up this issue in a big way, and we have been doing it for quite some time now. It is nothing new. Only now things have come to a flashpoint. Actually, it has been building up ever since the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) was introduced, which completely killed the concept of democracy itself.

Earlier, we had paper ballots. In 2014, EVMs were introduced throughout the country in the parliamentary elections. That was the first election where the entire country used EVMs. The problems actually started in 2009. The present ruling party, which did not win the 2009 election, took up the issue of EVMs in a very big way, very systematically and scientifically, with involvement from prominent figures like Subramanian Swamy and L.K. Advani. They approached the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court, and the Election Commission of India. The issue stated was that in the machines, we did not know what was happening. The voter does not know what is happening.

Voting is not an ordinary ritual; it is the transfer of sovereignty. In a country like India, the voter is sovereign. The voter should know whether their vote was cast as intended, recorded as cast, and counted as recorded. In paper ballots, this was possible. You could see it and be satisfied. In EVMs, the process is hidden inside the machine. We are not talking about technological advancements or the greatness of the machine at all. You may have the best technology in the world, but that does not matter if the fundamental principle of verifiability is compromised. EVMs are susceptible to all kinds of manipulations, such as vote injection and vote dumping. 

Prema Sridevi: Before the elections, many people talked about these issues. But we are talking about this issue now because for the first time after the general elections 2024, a report has been released that talks about how the people's mandate was stolen and this report talks about a scientific study. I am talking about the Vote for Democracy report which you were part of. 

M.G. Devasahayam: In the 2019 elections, we did a similar examination. This time, we did more comprehensive number crunching. In 2019, we examined the voting system very thoroughly with the best international and national experts, who declared that the EVM-VVPAT system as it is currently implemented does not ensure end-to-end verifiability. They are unfit for democratic elections. We gave our suggestions to the Election Commission and submitted the report. One of our key suggestions was that the VVPAT slip should be given to the voter's hand, and the voter should put it in a box. Strangely, the Election Commission of India refused to count the VVPAT slips. That was the fraud. The Election Commission's actions were very suspicious. They did not want to take the time to verify the votes properly. So this time we did a more detailed study on the general elections 2024. 

Prema Sridevi: Again, we've seen that the ECI has not been very transparent in how the election is being conducted. As you've said, it's very important to scrutinise the recent elections to determine if the electorate was deceived. So, I want to talk about this particular line in this report where you say that the general elections 2024 mandate was possibly stolen from the people. On what basis are you saying this in the Vote for Democracy report?

M.G. Devasahayam: We have been requesting the Election Commission to have a certain amount of transparency and accountability, particularly end-to-end verifiability. But they rejected it and even went to the Supreme Court, citing various rules and regulations. Despite everything supposedly being in order, nothing substantial was happening on the ground. 

From the very beginning, the Election Commission started showing its true colors. There are clear instructions that polling officers must report to the returning officer every two hours on the number of votes polled. If there were any discrepancies, these should have been identified and addressed within the first two hours. However, this protocol was not followed. There on, we saw many discrepancies which showed us that the ECI was behaving very strangely almost like they wanted to hide something. So this time, we decided to delve into the matter in more depth for people to understand whether their mandate was stolen.

"Out of 543 constituencies, in 538 the counted votes did not match the polled votes"

We found that, in 538 constituencies out of 543, the votes counted did not match the votes polled, ranging from one vote to about 15,000 votes. This significant discrepancy is a major red flag.

Prema Sridevi: How did you gather and verify this information?

M.G. Devasahayam: The numbers we discussed are based on data provided by the Election Commission itself. We did not create these numbers; they are official. However, we analysed them and found these discrepancies. This analysis revealed that the fundamental principle of error-free and tamper-proof EVMs was not upheld.

Prema Sridevi: What are the broader implications of these findings?

M.G. Devasahayam: The broader implication is that the very foundation of our democratic process is under threat. The Election Commission's refusal to ensure transparency and their handling of the electoral process raise serious doubts about the legitimacy of the election outcomes. If these issues are not addressed, the public's trust in the democratic process will continue to erode. 

Prema Sridevi: Your Vote for Democracy report has highlighted a significant discrepancy in the voting process, as you've been discussing. According to your findings, there was a substantial increase in the absolute number of votes between the voter turnout figures reported at 7:00 to 8:45 PM and the final turnout figures provided by the Election Commission of India. You mentioned that this discrepancy resulted in nearly 5 crore votes. Can you explain what this really means for India's voters?

M.G. Devasahayam: The Election Commission did not reveal absolute numbers. What was calculated, and as mentioned in our report, shows an increase amounting to nearly 5 crore votes. This has happened before in other elections, but the fluctuation was about 1% or so. This time, it ranged from 3.2% to 6.32% on average across all seven phases of polling. In some places like Andhra Pradesh, it was 12.54%, and in Odisha, it was 12.48%.

Prema Sridevi: What do these figures mean in simple language? 

M.G. Devasahayam: Since absolute numbers were not given, despite our repeated requests, we had to do mathematical extrapolation, which is an accepted principle. When given a percentage, you can calculate the total number of registered voters and the voter turnout. We worked out these numbers phase-wise and state-wise, which revealed significant discrepancies. When we started breaking down the figures state-wise, the results became absolutely shocking. There were discrepancies in Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Haryana, West Bengal and many other states. 

Then our suspicion deepened and then we decided now we must tell the people of the country whether the election was free and fair. We had to tell the people whether their mandate was really executed. 

"When We Started Breaking Down the Figures State-wise, the Results Became Absolutely Shocking"

Prema Sridevi: In your report, you have said that because of the inflated figures the ruling BJP led NDA won additional seats across various states. This led to 18 more seats in Odisha, 11 in Maharashtra, 10 in West Bengal, 7 in Andhra Pradesh, 6 in Karnataka, 5 each in Chattisgarh and Rajasthan, 3 each in Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Telangana, 2 extra seats in Assam, and 1 each in Arunacha Pradesh, Gujarat and Kerala. The report states that a potential total of 79 seats could have been secured by the BJP led NDA through this suspicious hike in votes. 

"79 Seats Secured by BJP-Led NDA Through Suspicious Vote Hike in General Elections 2024"

M.G. Devasahayam: We analysed the data given by the Election Commission and calculated the additional pumping of votes into the system. For example, in Odisha, the additional votes of around 42 lakh votes were pumped and they have 21 constituencies. 42 lakhs divided by 21 is about 2 lakhs. Then we looked at the winning margin. In 18 constituencies the winning margin was less than 2 lakhs. Then it was assumed, in all these 18 constituencies the political party had won the winning margins because of the spurious injection of votes. This method was applied across all states, leading to the conclusion of a total of 79 seats potentially affected. 79 is the minimum. 79, according to us is a very conservative estimate. It could actually be more.

Prema Sridevi: You have constantly used the terms spurious injection or pumping in of votes. How can such manipulation take place in an election? 

"There was Spurious Injection and Pumping in of Votes"

M.G. Devasahayam: In the paper ballot system earlier, vote stuffing could happen only in hundreds, and culprits could be caught. With EVMs, manipulation can occur in lakhs without anyone knowing. The Indian EVM system is secretive, with no access codes released. Manipulation is possible within the machine, and without end-to-end verifiability, fraudulent practices go undetected. The Election Commission ensured there was no verifiability, and the counting process was deliberately hurried, leaving no time for thorough checks.

In legal parlance there is something called as circumstantial evidence. Every crime cannot have direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence point the needle of suspicion. It is our duty to bring it out and it is the investigating agencies' duty to investigate and prove what really happened. 

"Earlier Elections Had Booth Capturing, This Election Saw Constituency Capturing"

Prema Sridevi: A letter was sent to the Election Commission of India on the 18th of July. What are you basically asking in this letter? 

M.G. Devasahayam: We are not calling it a letter. We are calling it a notice to the ECI. We have given an elaborate notice. We demand a full-scale, independent investigation involving experts and recounting of votes in the 79 constituencies where serious doubts exist. The Election Commission has the power to countermand elections if there is evidence of malpractice, even after the elections are over. This has happened before in cases of booth capturing, and now we suspect constituency capturing.

We will also approach the President of India to order a full-scale inquiry, as the Election Commission functions under the President's supervision. Ultimately, the people must decide whether they want a manufactured democracy or a genuine one.

Prema Sridevi: Thank you for your insights, Mr. Devasahayam. There are many questions the Election Commission and the government must answer. So far, what we've seen is virtual silence, and the questions related to the conduct of general elections 2024 have been brushed under the carpet. I hope we get more clarity and answers from the Election Commission of India and the government so that the sanctity of the election process is maintained in the eyes of the people. Thank you for joining me.

M.G. Devasahayam: Thank you.

Dive deeper with The Probe. For thoughtful analysis and in-depth stories directly to your phone, join our WhatsApp channel. Click and Connect with us Today: [WhatsApp Channel Link] 🔗

At The Probe, our commitment to social impact journalism is at the core of everything we do. Funded by well-meaning individuals from the public, our aim is to drive positive social change and make a real-world impact through the stories we report. 

If you wish to support us, please visit our Truth Brigade page and contribute to a cause that resonates with you the most. It is through your support that we have been able to keep the flame of our journalism alive in these difficult times. Click link to support us to make a difference: https://theprobe.in/truth-brigade