No EVMs, Only Ballot Papers: What Will Rahul Gandhi Blame for Congress’s MLC Election Setbacks Now?
India’s latest round of Legislative Council elections has presented an uncomfortable political question for the Congress party and, more specifically, for its most prominent national leader, Rahul Gandhi. Across Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, elections involving 28 seats have produced victories for parties representing different political formations, including the BJP, Janata Dal (Secular), Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal and Prashant Kishor’s Jan Suraaj Party. The results and emerging trends have demonstrated that political competition remains very much alive, with ruling parties suffering defeats, opposition candidates winning constituencies and even relatively new political organisations making electoral breakthroughs. Yet, amid this varied political landscape, Congress has struggled conspicuously, raising questions that deserve considerably more attention than the familiar accusations directed at India’s electoral institutions.
There is another aspect of these elections that makes the political comparison particularly interesting. Voting was conducted using traditional ballot papers rather than Electronic Voting Machines. Votes were cast on paper, ballot boxes were opened, ballots were scrutinised and counting proceeded according to the prescribed electoral rules. In some constituencies, the preferential voting system required extended counting and the redistribution of preferences before winners could be determined. This was precisely the kind of electoral environment in which objections centred on electronic voting machinery were irrelevant. Yet Congress’s difficulties remained, suggesting that the party’s electoral problems cannot simply be attributed to the technology used to record votes.
The emerging picture has been especially striking in Karnataka, where Congress governs the state but failed to win any of the four contested Legislative Council seats. In Bihar, a Jan Suraaj candidate defeated a former Congress state president, while the RJD managed to defeat a veteran BJP legislator. In Uttar Pradesh, the Samajwadi Party secured important victories against the BJP. Although counting in several constituencies, particularly Maharashtra, was still underway at the time of writing on October 28, the confirmed results were already sufficient to establish a pattern worthy of political scrutiny. Other parties were demonstrating their ability to convert electoral opportunities into victories, while Congress was confronting yet another uncomfortable examination of its political effectiveness.
This brings us to the question that Rahul Gandhi and the Congress leadership must confront. For months, Gandhi has levelled extraordinary allegations against India’s Election Commission, questioned the integrity of the electoral system and accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of conduct amounting to betrayal of the country. His rhetoric has repeatedly placed electoral administration at the centre of his political narrative. But when elections conducted through ballot papers produce serious setbacks for Congress while other opposition parties secure victories, is it not reasonable to ask whether the real problem lies considerably closer to home? Could the explanation be less about electoral machinery and more about Rahul Gandhi’s political leadership, organisational strategy and inability to translate accusations into electoral success?
Twenty-Eight Seats, Four States and an Uncomfortable Question for Congress
The Legislative Council elections covered 11 constituencies in Uttar Pradesh, eight in Bihar, five in Maharashtra and four in Karnataka. These were not ordinary Assembly elections involving the entire electorate. They were contests involving teachers’ and graduates’ constituencies, where electoral participation depends on specific eligibility requirements. Such elections require careful organisation, targeted campaigning, engagement with professional communities and strong local networks. They are therefore useful indicators of a political party’s ability to mobilise particular groups of voters, even though their results cannot be treated as a direct measure of statewide or national public opinion.
What makes the results politically revealing is the diversity of the parties registering victories. The BJP secured seats in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Bihar, but also suffered defeats. The Samajwadi Party demonstrated its capacity to defeat BJP candidates in Uttar Pradesh. The RJD defeated a long-serving BJP legislator in Bihar, while Jan Suraaj registered a breakthrough in the same state. These outcomes do not establish that every election is flawless, but they do raise an obvious question about claims suggesting that electoral competition has effectively ceased to function. Different parties are winning and losing under the same broad constitutional and administrative framework.
Congress’s performance deserves examination against this backdrop. Its confirmed Karnataka defeat and its difficulties elsewhere cannot be explained away merely by pointing to the BJP’s organisational strength. The results also expose the party to comparisons with other opposition organisations that have demonstrated electoral effectiveness. If the RJD can defeat an established BJP candidate, if the Samajwadi Party can win constituencies against the ruling party in Uttar Pradesh, and if Jan Suraaj can defeat a former Congress state president, what is preventing Congress from producing comparable breakthroughs? Political accountability requires answers to such questions rather than an endless search for explanations outside the party.
Karnataka: When Being in Government Is Not Enough to Win
Karnataka offers perhaps the most uncomfortable result for Congress because the party cannot blame its defeat on the absence of governmental power. Congress governs the state and possesses the administrative visibility, political infrastructure and organisational resources associated with being the ruling party. Nevertheless, the BJP-JD(S) alliance swept all four contested Legislative Council seats, with the BJP retaining three constituencies and JD(S) capturing the Bengaluru Teachers’ constituency from Congress. The result represented a complete electoral setback for Congress in these contests, despite the party’s position in the state government.
The Bengaluru Teachers’ constituency is particularly significant because JD(S) candidate A P Ranganath defeated sitting Congress MLC Puttanna by 908 votes. Elsewhere, BJP candidates recorded victories in the North-East Teachers’, South-East Graduates’ and West Graduates’ constituencies. These were not elections in which Congress lacked political representation or access to experienced leaders. Senior Congress figures campaigned, the party had established candidates and the contests involved constituencies where organisational preparation and direct voter contact are particularly important. The opposition alliance nevertheless secured all four seats.
It is worth asking what this reveals about Congress’s ability to convert governmental incumbency into electoral support. Is the party sufficiently engaged with teachers, graduates and other organised voter groups? Are its local organisations functioning effectively? Is candidate selection being driven by electoral viability or internal political considerations? Does the party possess a coherent mobilisation strategy beyond relying on the visibility of senior leaders? These are practical questions that any serious political organisation would investigate after a defeat. For Rahul Gandhi, whose national political narrative frequently focuses on institutional accountability, Karnataka presents an opportunity to demonstrate whether the same standards can be applied to his own party.
Other Opposition Parties Can Win. Why Is Congress Struggling?
The Bihar results provide another revealing comparison because they demonstrate that political setbacks are not confined to Congress’s relationship with the BJP. In the Darbhanga Teachers’ constituency, Jan Suraaj candidate Suresh Rai defeated former Bihar Congress president and two-time MLC Madan Mohan Jha. For Prashant Kishor’s relatively new political organisation, the victory represented an important breakthrough into the Legislative Council. For Congress, however, the defeat of such an established leader raises questions about the party’s changing electoral appeal and its ability to retain support even among specialised voter groups.
In another Bihar contest, the RJD’s Dr Sanjeev Kumar defeated BJP veteran Nawal Kishore Yadav, a five-term MLC, in the Patna Teachers’ constituency. The result demonstrates that an established BJP candidate can be defeated when an opposition party assembles sufficient electoral support. Similarly, the Samajwadi Party’s victories in Uttar Pradesh, including the Varanasi Teachers’ constituency, show that opposition parties can still prevail against BJP candidates. Indeed, a Samajwadi Party victory in a constituency associated with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s parliamentary city adds another dimension to claims that political competition has become entirely one-sided.
The larger lesson concerns political effectiveness. Different opposition parties are operating in different environments, with different organisational capabilities and different relationships with their voters. Their victories cannot automatically be transferred to Congress, but they demonstrate why Congress must examine its own performance rather than relying exclusively on a national narrative of electoral injustice. Rahul Gandhi may continue to challenge the Election Commission, as any opposition leader is entitled to do, but he must also explain why his party is struggling in contests where other opposition organisations are finding ways to win. The two questions are not mutually exclusive, and one cannot permanently substitute for the other.
Rahul Gandhi’s Accusations Against Gyanesh Kumar: Will There Be an Apology?
The discussion becomes substantially more serious when Rahul Gandhi’s recent accusations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar are considered. On September 24, 2026, Gandhi launched an extraordinary public attack on Kumar, describing him as a “deshdrohi”, or traitor, demanding his resignation and suggesting that he should become an approver in an alleged electoral conspiracy. Gandhi also accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah of involvement in wrongdoing against India’s democratic system, while asserting that elections across the country were being rigged. These were not routine criticisms of administrative decisions. They were accusations of exceptional gravity against individuals occupying some of India’s highest constitutional and political offices.
The immediate controversy involved reporting about objections raised by fellow Election Commissioners concerning electoral-roll revision procedures and decisions taken within the Election Commission. Such matters deserve examination, documentary scrutiny and, wherever warranted, legal accountability. However, the existence of questions about administrative conduct does not automatically establish that particular officials have committed treason or participated in a nationwide conspiracy. There is an important difference between demanding an explanation from an institution and publicly declaring its head a traitor. A Leader of the Opposition who makes accusations of that magnitude assumes a responsibility to substantiate them through evidence capable of withstanding independent scrutiny.
This is precisely where the latest ballot-paper elections become relevant to the political discussion. They do not independently resolve allegations about electoral-roll manipulation, which are distinct from concerns about EVMs. Nevertheless, they provide an important opportunity to examine the sweeping language used to describe India’s electoral system. When opposition parties secure victories, ruling-party candidates lose and new political organisations defeat established political figures, the claim that electoral competition is uniformly engineered against the opposition becomes difficult to sustain without much more specific evidence. The results warrant an explanation that goes beyond treating every Congress setback as confirmation of a predetermined institutional failure.
And this brings us to an unavoidable question. If Rahul Gandhi is prepared to accuse Gyanesh Kumar of betraying the nation, will he also be prepared to publicly acknowledge any allegations that independent examination fails to substantiate? Will he apologise if his accusations against the Chief Election Commissioner are shown to have been unfounded? Such an apology cannot be demanded merely because Congress loses an election, just as a political victory cannot establish that an accusation was justified. The standard must be evidence. But the seriousness of Gandhi’s language makes the question of accountability entirely legitimate, particularly when those accusations have been delivered with such certainty and amplified across the country.
Ballot Papers Have Removed the EVM Question, but Not the Leadership Question
For years, electronic voting technology has occupied a prominent place in India’s political arguments about electoral transparency. Congress leaders and other opposition figures have questioned aspects of EVM use, while separate controversies have concerned voter lists, counting procedures and the functioning of the Election Commission. These matters are not identical, and ballot-paper elections cannot be presented as conclusive answers to every electoral complaint. What the latest MLC contests do establish is that Congress’s political difficulties can persist even in elections conducted entirely without EVMs.
That distinction is politically important because it shifts attention towards the responsibilities that electoral technology cannot discharge on behalf of a political party. Ballot papers cannot select candidates, organise constituency-level campaigns, establish relationships with teachers and graduates or persuade undecided voters. Those are political responsibilities. They require leadership, organisation, resources, credibility and a clear understanding of the electorate. No election administrator can manufacture these qualities for Congress, and no change in voting technology can compensate for their absence.
Rahul Gandhi’s challenge, therefore, is not simply to demonstrate why he believes particular electoral procedures require reform. It is also to demonstrate that Congress possesses an effective strategy for winning elections conducted under those procedures. If the party’s performance remains disappointing irrespective of the voting technology, the explanation must include an examination of its political weaknesses. That is not an argument for dismissing legitimate concerns about electoral administration. It is an argument against allowing those concerns to become a convenient alternative to internal accountability.
Is Congress Paying the Price for Rahul Gandhi’s Leadership?
Congress’s electoral difficulties inevitably raise questions about the effectiveness of its national leadership. Rahul Gandhi remains the party’s most recognisable political figure and one of the principal architects of its public narrative. Although Mallikarjun Kharge is Congress president and individual state organisations possess substantial responsibilities, Gandhi’s influence over the party’s national positioning is undeniable. Consequently, it is reasonable to examine whether the party’s emphasis on accusations against constitutional institutions is producing tangible political benefits or distracting attention from the difficult organisational work required to win elections.
Successful political leadership involves more than delivering press conferences, questioning opponents or attracting national attention. It requires building durable voter coalitions, identifying credible local candidates, resolving internal divisions, motivating party workers and communicating policies that resonate with specific constituencies. The latest MLC elections, involving relatively defined electorates of teachers and graduates, underscore the importance of precisely these capabilities. A party that struggles to perform in such contests must ask whether its organisational machinery is functioning as effectively as its public rhetoric suggests.
The issue is not that every defeat proves a leader incompetent. No political party wins every election, and even successful leaders experience setbacks. The issue is whether repeated disappointments are producing meaningful changes in strategy or merely more accusations against the institutions overseeing elections. Rahul Gandhi has demanded scrutiny of the Election Commission, the government and the political system. There is no reason why Congress supporters, party workers and voters should not demand equally rigorous scrutiny of his leadership. If accountability is a democratic principle, it cannot operate in only one direction.
Should Rahul Gandhi Be Allowed to Count the Votes Himself?
The latest Legislative Council elections have created an opportunity for Rahul Gandhi to reconsider the relationship between electoral accountability and political responsibility. Parties across the political spectrum have recorded victories and defeats. The BJP has lost constituencies, opposition parties have secured important wins, and voters have demonstrated different preferences across states. Congress has suffered a confirmed whitewash in Karnataka and faces difficult questions about its broader performance as counting continues elsewhere. These developments do not settle every controversy about India’s election administration, but they make it increasingly necessary to examine Congress’s own political performance with greater seriousness.
The accusations against Gyanesh Kumar also remain part of this accountability debate. A constitutional officeholder is not beyond criticism, but neither should accusations of treason be treated as ordinary political slogans requiring no subsequent explanation. Rahul Gandhi must be prepared to present evidence for his allegations, acknowledge findings that contradict them and correct the public record where necessary. At the same time, he must explain why Congress continues to face electoral difficulties even when voting takes place through ballot papers and other opposition parties are capable of securing victories.
Ultimately, India’s democracy requires an opposition that is capable of holding the government accountable while accepting responsibility for its own political performance. Congress cannot strengthen its claim to national leadership merely by escalating its allegations against electoral institutions. It must persuade voters, rebuild its organisation and demonstrate that it can win competitive elections. If Rahul Gandhi continues to question the electoral process whenever Congress suffers a setback, without adequately confronting the party’s own failures, the public is entitled to ask where this argument logically ends. With EVMs absent from these contests and ballot papers already in use, what more must change before Congress examines its leadership? Should the Election Commission now allow Rahul Gandhi himself to count every vote, or is it finally time for him to accept that political incompetence cannot always be blamed on the election machinery?
