Karnataka’s Ballot Paper Move: Democratic Rights or Political Strategy?

The Karnataka government’s recent decision to conduct local body elections using ballot papers instead of EVMs has once again sparked a national debate. Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar has defended the move by saying that the method of conducting local elections is entirely the state’s prerogative. Constitutionally, he’s right. States do have the authority to decide the format for local elections. However, the real question is—is this just a legal right being exercised, or is there a deeper political strategy at play?

This move comes at a time when doubts over EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) have been growing louder. For the past few years, opposition parties—especially the Congress have repeatedly raised questions about the credibility of EVMs. They argue that EVMs are vulnerable to tampering, that the Election Commission is under pressure, and that results are often skewed in favor of the ruling party.

Recently, Rahul Gandhi publicly questioned the results of several state elections and the Lok Sabha polls. He alleged that voter lists were manipulated lakhs of names were removed, many fake names were added, and this benefited the BJP directly. He specifically pointed to Mahadevapura constituency in Bengaluru Central, claiming serious issues with the voter list there.

Against this backdrop, when Karnataka’s Congress-led government chooses ballot papers over EVMs, it’s hard to see it as a purely technical decision. It seems to send a political message: that the opposition’s concerns are no longer limited to statements, they're being acted upon.

But the next logical question is—can ballot papers really restore trust?

Historically, ballot paper voting in India was linked with serious issues: booth capturing, fake voting, stolen ballot boxes, and widespread rigging. Counting used to take several days, results were delayed, and the entire process was expensive and chaotic. These very problems led to the adoption of EVMs in the 1990s. The machines made the process faster, cleaner, and more reliable. Voters could simply press a button, and even verify their vote through VVPAT slips. In the early years, EVMs received wide acceptance.

However, as political competition intensified and victory margins began shrinking, opposition parties started questioning the machines themselves. EVMs became the easy scapegoat whenever results didn't favor them.

Over the years, multiple petitions demanding a return to ballot papers have reached the Supreme Court. Just last year, the top court rejected this demand but did allow that if a candidate is unhappy with the result, they can request verification of 5% of EVMs’ microcontroller chips in their constituency. This was a way to add a layer of transparency. Clearly, the court supports improving the system not discarding it.

So, why is Karnataka choosing ballot papers now?

One possible reason is that the state wants to test how people respond to this change, what administrative challenges arise, and whether this step genuinely builds trust in the electoral process. If the experiment succeeds, it could become a model that opposition parties push for in assembly and even national elections. But it also strengthens the opposition's political narrative—that their complaints are not just rhetoric but are leading to real action.

At the same time, this move isn’t without its hurdles. Ballot paper elections come with huge logistical challenges. Millions of papers need to be printed, transported safely, and stored securely. The counting process is slow and prone to human error. In a country like India, where hundreds of millions vote—this could mean delays, higher costs, and administrative chaos. For small elections, it might work. But for large-scale polls like Lok Sabha elections, it’s far from practical.

That brings us to the real issue: trust.

If the public and political parties don't trust the election process, it is dangerous for any democracy. But trust can’t be built by abandoning technology. Instead, the focus should be on making EVMs more transparent and accountable.

Some steps in that direction could include:

• Increasing the number of VVPAT slips counted,
• Allowing independent experts to audit machines,
• Training political parties and voters about how EVMs work,
• Making the entire voting process open and transparent to the public.

This way, people will gain confidence in the system, and political parties will have less room to question the outcomes.

In this journey of trust-building, three key players need to work together—the government, the opposition, and the Election Commission. The government must ensure fairness over political gain. The opposition must go beyond blame and offer practical solutions. The Election Commission must not just follow the law but also uphold the moral integrity of the system.

So yes, Karnataka’s move might be limited to local body elections, but its impact could be national. It forces us to ask tough questions, not just about EVMs or ballot papers but about the overall credibility of our democratic process.

In the end, democracy doesn’t survive on machines or methods alone. It stands on trust—trust in the process, in the institutions, and in the idea that every vote counts and counts fairly. That’s the real challenge. And that’s where the focus needs to be not on moving backward, but on moving forward with confidence, transparency, and collective responsibility.