The ‘Save democracy’ movement, which commenced on October 2, has brought the accountability of the Election Commission (EC) to the forefront of national political discourse.The role of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the decision-making processes within the Commission, and the 2023 legislation concerning the appointment of election commissioners – all of these matters already figure among the opposition’s demands. However, the fundamental question remains: is Kumar solely responsible for the modifications being implemented within the electoral system? Will his removal provide answers to all the concerns that have cast doubt upon the impartiality of the EC?To comprehend this narrative, one must examine the historical context. The SIR is not the genesis of these issues. The new law governing the appointment of election commissioners is not the beginning either. Kumar represents a relatively recent development within this sequence of events.A crucial link in this chain emerged during the period when Amit Shah assumed a central position within the BJP’s national organisation and extended election preparedness from the constituency and polling station-level down to individual pages of the electoral roll.First, an organisational framework was created to meticulously identify and maintain contact with voters. Next, data concerning millions of individuals was linked to specific polling stations. Following this, the appointment mechanism of the EC was restructured, official functions of commissioners received legal protection and a phase of extensive voter list revision commenced. Further ahead looms the issue of delimitation following the census.The sequential occurrence of these events does not, in itself, prove the existence of a coordinated plan. However, without examining the potential connections among these developments, a complete picture of the changes transforming the electoral system cannot be revealed.Shah assumed the position of in-charge for Uttar Pradesh in 2013 and became the national president of the BJP in July 2014. During his tenure, organisational structure at the booth level and electoral management received particular emphasis. The ‘panna pramukh’ (page in-charge) system emerged as the most notable component of this framework. Each local party worker was assigned responsibility for a single page of the electoral roll. Above them were the booth committees, followed by other organisational units of the party.The significance of a panna pramukh extends beyond merely facilitating transportation for voters to the polling station on election day. This individual is a resident of the same locality and knows the families in the community personally. They possess insights into social ties and political inclinations – identifying who are supporters, who are opponents, whose opinions may be subject to change and which households require repeated engagement.In essence, this constitutes a voter database at the booth level, offering an understanding of local society that cannot easily be acquired from a centralised office.Technology was gradually integrated into this system. Through missed-call campaigns and other outreach initiatives launched in 2013, the BJP had compiled a database of approximately 25 crore people by 2019. This information was subsequently linked to specific polling stations and was being utilised to reach beneficiaries of government schemes. Reports from that period also indicated that the party engaged a technology firm to map beneficiaries’ contact numbers to their respective polling stations.The significance of the 25 crore figure extends beyond mere numerical value. Of greater importance is the fact that such a substantial volume of personal data was linked to specific polling stations. While a political organisation may possess knowledge of the aggregate number of its supporters, this represents merely one dimension. The critical distinction lies in the organisation’s awareness of the specific neighbourhoods, polling stations and demographic communities in which these supporters are concentrated.Such granular data enables the organisation to gauge its own strengths, identify areas where the opposition is strong and pinpoint areas where a marginal shift in voter preference could materially influence electoral outcomes at the constituency level.The BJP’s ‘Saral’ app appears to expand this system further. According to a Rest of World report released in 2024, during registration it was collecting details other than name and address, including religion, caste, occupation, social category, parliamentary constituency and voter ID number. The BJP described the app as a platform to digitise the organisation and facilitate communication with party workers.In this manner, local workers’ social insight, voter list pages, polling stations and comprehensive databases became interconnected. A political party possessing such detailed information about voters can analyse the electoral landscape with far greater precision compared to its rivals.This is precisely where the political significance of modifications to the electoral roll becomes evident. A report stating that 500 names have been removed from the draft electoral roll of a particular polling station merely conveys a numerical figure. However, an organisation possessing knowledge of the social composition and political leanings of that region can comprehend the potential electoral implications of such a development. Which families and social groups do these names belong to? Which political party held the lead there in the previous election? How might the addition or deletion of names shift the balance of the contest?This is the political significance of such data. Therefore, when it comes to the revision of electoral rolls, the question is not simply about how many names were added or removed. One must also examine which areas underwent these changes, which groups were affected by them and whether there exists any consistently discernible political pattern within these modifications.In this context, the mechanism for appointing election commissioners was altered in 2023. On March 2, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that, pending parliamentary legislation, the chief election commissioner and election commissioners would be appointed based on the recommendations of a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. Later that same year, parliament enacted a law replacing the chief justice with a Union cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister on the selection committee.Following this modification, the three-member committee came to include two representatives from the government. The government no longer required the consent of an opposition member for appointments.The legislation was challenged in court. The petitioners argued that replacing the chief justice with a cabinet minister would undermine the institutional safeguards for free and fair elections. The question is straightforward: Why should the government be granted decisive majority authority in selecting the leadership of an institution that must maintain an impartial role among all political factions, including the government itself?Section 16 of this Act provides immunity to present and former chief election commissioners and election commissioners from civil and criminal proceedings in respect of actions undertaken or statements made in their official capacity, or in the discharge of their official duties. This protection continues even after they leave office. The government’s decisive majority in appointments with such immunity for official actions both render the question of independence and accountability more serious.In March 2024, Kumar was appointed election commissioner, and later assumed the position of chief election commissioner in February 2025. Prior to this appointment, he had handled important responsibilities in the Ministry of Home Affairs under Shah. He also played a role in the administrative processes related to Article 370 and the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir.However, before his appointment, several important changes had already taken place. The BJP’s panna pramukh network was operational, a comprehensive booth-level database had been set up, a detailed information system through the Saral app had been unveiled and the new appointments legislation had been enacted.A few months after Kumar’s appointment as chief election commissioner, the SIR process was initiated in Bihar. Later this process expanded to other states. According to a report published by the Indian Express last month, more than 13 crore names were left out from the draft voter lists across 30 states and Union territories. In light of such extensive SIR operations, the need for transparency, hearings and independent investigation in SIRs cannot be ignored.Meanwhile, Rahul Gandhi redirected the debate surrounding electoral irregularities from electronic voting machines toward voter lists. His presentations revealed details regarding names and addresses, allegations of duplicate entries, documentation pertaining to Form 6 for new voter registration and records concerning the addition and deletion of names at polling stations.Instead of responding to these allegations, the EC adopted an aggressive stance and attempted to place Gandhi himself under scrutiny. The BJP consistently characterised these questions as an attack on institutions after successive electoral defeats. Kumar even suggested that Gandhi should either submit an affidavit or offer an apology to the nation.However, the important aspect in this situation was that the allegations were being linked to records that could be verified. Previous and current voter lists could be cross-referenced. Names registered at specific addresses could be investigated. The basis for adding or removing an unusual number of names at any polling station could be questioned. While this does not automatically validate the allegations, it does open a concrete path to examine them.Gyanesh Kumar should certainly be held accountable for the decisions made by the Commission under his leadership. However, attributing the entire problem solely to him would leave the broader systemic structure out of scrutiny. Photo: PTI/Atul Yadav.Subsequently, on September 23, reportage by the Indian Express revealed disagreements within the Commission. According to its reports, two commissioners of the three-member commission – Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi – had filed written objections on at least 14 occasions over the previous ten months regarding decisions and procedures. These objections included matters like the deletion and restoration of names, Form 6, provision of information technology and control over the voter list database.One of the objections termed the modifications to Form 6 as unauthorised and illegal. Concerns were also raised regarding the gradual centralisation of the database. These objections hold significance because they pertain to the same issues that were the subject of ongoing political debate. They cannot be dismissed merely as allegations levelled by the opposition. The Commission stated that important decisions were taken collectively and unanimously, and that internal differences were part of the process of deliberation.The Congress-led INDIA bloc has chosen to fight both in court and on the streets over the appointment legislation, the SIR and the functioning of the Commission. The next challenge ahead in this movement is not just to expand its list of demands. It must articulate how a political organisation possessing detailed voter information, widespread changes in the voter list and questions raised on the Commission’s independence may be interconnected. Where the connection is not proven, there should be a demand for investigation. Where procedural irregularities are on record, accountability must be fixed.This question becomes more important due to the forthcoming delimitation process. The revision of the electoral roll raises the question of whose name will remain in the voter list. Delimitation, conversely, addresses the question of how population and area will be allocated across electoral constituencies. One process affects the composition of the electoral roll, while the other determines the boundaries of constituencies. Both processes may have political ramifications, despite being distinct legally and administratively.For an organisation possessing detailed data on polling station outcomes, local demographic composition and political trends, a constituency boundary is not merely a line on a map. It can precisely assess how shifting specific areas from one seat to another might alter the electoral contest.By consolidating opposition strongholds into a limited number of seats, the influence of opposition parties across remaining constituencies can be substantially diminished. Conversely, fragmenting a strong support base across multiple constituencies could neutralise its decisive electoral power. Through simulations, various potential delimitation maps can be generated and evaluated based on past election results.This is precisely where the issue extends beyond Kumar’s role. He should certainly be held accountable for the decisions made by the Commission under his leadership. However, attributing the entire problem solely to him would leave the broader systemic structure out of scrutiny. His removal would not eliminate the BJP’s database, dismantle the Panna pramukh network or automatically alter the laws governing appointments. An investigation into the changes made to electoral rolls remains essential, and the question regarding the impartiality of the delimitation process would persist.Therefore, the scope of the inquiry should extend beyond the individual to the system itself. How robust is the firewall separating political parties’ private databases from the EC’s official database? Who has access to official information, and who holds the authority to modify it? What do booth-level details regarding additions and deletions during electoral roll revisions reveal? Is there a discernible pattern that consistently benefits a particular party? Also, what are the processes and criteria for determining constituency boundaries under delimitation?These questions cannot be answered through speeches alone. Answering them requires examining old and new electoral rolls, the grounds for adding or removing names, records of the Commission’s decisions and details regarding access to and modifications within the technical systems. An independent analysis of the proposed delimitation maps is also essential. An investigation should reveal whether genuine connection exists between these various events or whether their occurrence during the same timeframe is merely coincidental.The political significance of the movement that began on October 2 will be determined by this very yardstick. The discontent directed towards Kumar must be transformed into a broader struggle for accountability within the electoral system. This encompasses his conduct as well as the appointment mechanism used to select the Commission’s leadership. It also extends to the scrutiny of electoral rolls and the institutional safeguards essential for the future delimitation of constituencies.Over the past 12 years, the BJP has developed an extraordinary capacity to identify voters, maintain contact with them and evaluate electoral constituencies. This same period has witnessed major changes regarding EC appointments and the revision of electoral rolls. Examining the link between these developments is a matter of democratic accountability. If there is no coordinated political agenda, the records should make that clear. Otherwise, it is necessary to trace the decisions and responsibilities underlying these events.Kumar is a key figure in this narrative. However, the story neither begins with him nor will it end with his departure. The fundamental question pertains to where impartiality is guaranteed – spanning everything from gathering voter data and altering electoral rolls to the delineation of electoral boundaries.The movement must not limit itself to questioning the actions of the Commission’s current leadership. It must also ask who created the system capable of altering the electoral landscape, how its various components function and who is reaping the political benefits.Translated by Naushin Rehman. Readers of Hindi can also check this article out on The Wire Hindi.The writer is a senior journalist and runs the ‘Unbreaking’ YouTube channel.