The Election Commission of India is in the news for reasons other than elections.
The sudden resignation of Election Commissioner Arun Goel last Sunday and the State Bank of India sharing the details of electoral bonds following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of its plea for a postponement—after some “scathing” comments (India Today) on Tuesday—are the stories of the week, notwithstanding the government’s notification of the CAA and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s hectic inauguration spree.
And if it’s sensationalism you’re looking for, look no further than the weekend report that “Nuclear war (was) averted by Modi…” (CNN News 18) — but more about this later.
First up, the curious case of Goel’s abrupt departure from the ECI. This is a bit of a whydunnit: Why did he leave and why just ahead of the general elections, that too when the election body was already missing its third member and, as leading English newspapers pointed out, Goel’s tenure was going to last 2027 and he was slated to take over as the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)?
Why indeed.
The puzzled newspapers
There’s no clear answer to this: Over the weekend, The Times of India said the ECI was taken by ‘complete surprise’ — the same can be said for the media.
The story on Sunday was a straightforward report of events, backgrounders, and career profiles of Goel, with special mention of his controversial appointment as an EC almost immediately after he retired from government. The Indian Express also told us this is only the third time an EC has resigned and dwelt on the previous two instances.
In the absence of any statements by Goel or CEC Rajiv Kumar, the media was left to depend on US—Unidentified Sources, in the government or the ECI—to piece together the puzzle of Goel’s adieu.
On the basis of ‘sources’, leading English newspapers came up with multiple choice options for us to pick from. Choose one or all from the following: ‘no official reason’, ‘health reasons’, ‘personal reasons’.
The Indian Express cited officials who said he had been unwell during the recent visit to Kolkata.
The plot began to thicken Sunday afternoon, when The Hindu published a story mentioning ‘apparent differences emerged’ during the EC’s recent visit to Kolkata.
By Monday, everyone was talking about ‘differences’ as the cause of Goel’s goodbye— ‘differences’ with the CEC on various issues, ‘differences with CEC over specific issues’.
Still, all was speculative: In a story headlined, ‘A day later, questions persist over Goel’s exit’, Hindustan Times said the EC officials were still “at a loss” over Goel’s exit. After speaking to five EC officials, off the record, it said the CEC Kumar and EC Goel “had their share of differences, including on routine matters, though that did not explain Goel’s abrupt resignation.”
The paper went on to detail a “key point of difference” as told by four officials—“the February 17, 2023 order on the allocation of the Shiv Sena’s party name and poll symbol to the Eknath Shinde faction on the basis of legislative majority..” Goel also had problems with the ‘VIP culture’ of the EC, added HT. It also said differences in Kolkata were untrue.
The Economic Times had another set of “disagreements’ between the two officers—these were largely over “policy issues…,” it wrote. But there were differences over “the composition and size” of EC teams in the “states for poll preparations.
The Times of India took a more benign approach. “It was business as usual a day before at EC HQ…”. It reported his itinerary as well as the doctor’s visit to the Oberoi Grand in Kolkata where “a course of medication was started right away…”
In its editorial, it reassured readers, “EC Exit, No Big Worry”. It said the CEC was perfectly capable of conducting the Lok Sabha elections alone.
The story ends there—for the moment. However, while the media has tried to explain why Goel may have resigned from his post, the mystery over the timing of the move, crucial with Lok Sabha elections around the corner, remains unsolved. Also, what of the government—didn’t it have any say in these developments? After all, Goel’s resignation was announced by the Union law ministry.
Also read: No matter what the Opposition does, it can do no right in the eyes of Indian TV channels
Truth behind ‘Modi averting nuclear war’
Alright, time to head back to the reports on PM Modi and the nuclear attack. While morning newspapers paid scant attention to the story, some of their online portals filled us with pride: It seemed our PM had stopped a nuclear war, all by himself.
As The New Indian Express headline of an online story said it: ‘PM Modi’s intervention averted Russia’s ‘potential nuclear attack’ on Ukraine: Reports’.
The opening line said, Modi’s “intervention prevented Russia from taking nuclear action during the 2022 conflict with Ukraine, according to CNN reports…”
India Today online said PM outreach “prevented such an attack”, while WION wrote ‘India’s intervention made Putin abandon use of nuclear weapon in Ukraine: Report’.
HT Online added a new dimension saying ‘On Biden’s plea, PM Modi helped prevent nuclear attack in Ukraine’.
Well, well, well: where did this come from?
From CNN actually, the US news channel. In a report, news anchor and strategic affairs specialist Jim Sciutto writes about his just published book, The Return of Great Powers.
In the article, he writes that in 2022, the US prepared ‘rigorously’ for a Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine. This information, he says, is based on ‘two senior administration officials’ in US President Joe Biden’s government.
Sciutto says that the US enlisted the help of its allies and “the help of non-allies, in particular China and India, to discourage Russia from such an attack.”
And here is the punch line: “US officials say that outreach and public statements from Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi helped avert a crisis.”
Oh dear, the coupling of China and India, Modi and Jinping, doesn’t make for sensational headlines, does it?
The author tweets @shailajabajpai. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)