Former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee sharpened her attack on Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at the INDIA bloc meeting in New Delhi on Wednesday, referring to him as “Vanish Kumar” and accusing him of making voters in Bengal “vanish” from the electoral rolls.
The remark came during the opposition leaders’ meeting at the Constitution Club of India, convened against the backdrop of the controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise and a recent The Indian Express investigation into differences within the poll panel over several decisions connected to electoral rolls.
According to a source aware of the discussions at the closed-door meeting, Banerjee said: “Vanish Kumar has to go. That name suits him the most. Voters in Bengal were vanished by him. He has insulted democracy, made people suffer to help BJP. Elections were looted…”
The remarks were made as opposition parties sought to coordinate their response to the Election Commission and decide the next course of action against Kumar.
The meeting assumes significance because the criticism of the poll panel has intensified following the Indian Express report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a 10 month period to decisions and procedures concerning, among other things, voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, and aspects of the SIR process. The objections were addressed to or copied to CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
The Election Commission, however, has maintained that differences of opinion and observations are part of institutional decision-making and has said that decisions relating to the SIR were ultimately taken unanimously by the three-member Commission.
From Bengal's SIR battle to a national opposition campaign
For Banerjee, the issue is particularly significant because the SIR exercise became a central political flashpoint in West Bengal. She has repeatedly alleged that genuine voters were removed or placed under adjudication and that the exercise was designed to benefit the BJP. The Election Commission and the BJP have rejected the opposition's allegations.
Banerjee had already used the “Vanish Kumar” moniker publicly before Wednesday's meeting. At a rally in Serampore on September 26, she demanded Kumar's removal and said her agitation would continue until he resigned.
She had also claimed that 93 lakh names in Bengal had either been deleted or placed under adjudication. On Tuesday, while arriving in Delhi for the INDIA bloc meeting, Banerjee again identified the CEC as the opposition's principal target, saying: “Our target is the Chief Election Commissioner and his entire software team”, and confirming that the opposition had been calling him “Vanish Kumar”.
The latest meeting therefore marks an effort to take what began as a fiercely contested Bengal issue and turn it into a broader opposition campaign centred on the functioning and accountability of the Election Commission.
Leaders of 19 political parties participated in Wednesday's meeting, including the Congress, Trinamool Congress, Samajwadi Party, CPI and Shiv Sena (UBT), according to reports from the meeting. The gathering followed days of consultations between opposition leaders. Banerjee had spoken with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby, while opposition parties sought to put aside their political differences in order to coordinate their response to the Election Commission controversy.
The proposed political action has included seeking Kumar's removal through Parliament, demanding his resignation, questioning the SIR process and planning further protests. Opposition parties had also discussed a possible removal motion against the CEC ahead of the meeting.
The Congress Working Committee, which met in Delhi on Tuesday, also demanded Kumar's resignation and called for the SIR to be suspended, adding to the pressure being built around the issue.
Wednesday's INDIA bloc meeting thus brought together opposition parties around a common institutional issue despite their differences in individual states.
