EC8217;s uneasy dates

A needless argument has been caused about the date of elections in the three Jammu and Kashmir constituencies of Anantnag, Baramulla and Udh...

A needless argument has been caused about the date of elections in the three Jammu and Kashmir constituencies of Anantnag, Baramulla and Udhampur. The National Conference has been arguing that these constituencies should either vote alongside the whole country or the counting of votes countrywide should not be started until they have voted too. The Election Commission may have been prompted, in ordering later polling in these areas on March 7, by their special security needs. But these are only three constituencies after all, and the EC can surely meet their security needs even on an ordinary polling day if it is determined to do so. It is also true that delaying the counting of votes increases the danger of tampering with the ballot boxes. But the bottom line is that ensuring security on polling is the EC8217;s responsibility.

It ought to be able to find a way of doing it that does not add to the long list of grievances that the electorate in this region already feels. Setting these constituencies apart fromthe rest of the electorate can only enhance their sense of isolation, especially now that the regional political party has made an issue of it. Instead, the EC has compounded matters by first clearing February 28 as the polling date for Ladakh and two other constituencies and then postponing it drastically, to June. Here again, its argument of weather conditions is valid. But flip-flopping on these decisions is not a good idea in such a sensitive region where the most innocent of actions is liable to be misrepresented, misinterpreted and resented.

And the National Conference does have a point. For starters, as the ruling party in the state, it had a right to be consulted about the election dates. It says that if the three constituencies must vote on March 7, then the voting pattern there is likely to be affected by the counting of votes beginning nationally on March 2. So if the polling dates cannot be changed, the counting dates should be.

It is hard to see how the EC can quarrel with this, consideringthat it was its own idea to set nationwide guidelines against exit polls so that voting behaviour is not affected by the voting patterns elsewhere. If it sees nothing wrong in people knowing beforehand how their countrymen have voted, then this guideline becomes pointless. If the Commission is to be seen to be fair, it must be consistent as well. The EC may be on firm legal ground in delinking voting in some Jammu and Kashmir constituencies from the rest of the country. Indeed, this may not have mattered if there had been no protest. But now that there has been, the fear is not unfounded that it will give an already wary electorate another reason to feel isolated and discriminated against.

The Supreme Court has probably taken the correct legal position by rejecting the National Conference petition against the EC ruling. It maintained that it cannot intervene in the polling process at this stage. Conceivably, it could have done good by intervening. But this is not yet the end of the matter. The NC hasappealed to the Election Commission to review its decision, and the Commission would be well advised to do so. It is significant that the judges did say that something had been done which should not have been done. The EC ought to be responsive.