CM Samrat Choudhary joins BJP's EVM-vs-ballot attack on Congress
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
Whether votes are counted by machine or paper, Bihar Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary argued on Tuesday, 13 October 2026, the verdict has been the same: the public has repeatedly rejected the Congress. In a pointed post on X, Choudhary amplified a challenge posed by Union Home Minister Amit Shah to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, demanding an answer to why the party's electoral fortunes have not improved even when ballots replace electronic machines.
The post, tagged #ShahExposesRahul, carried a video clip of Shah's remarks and asked in Hindi: 'EVM hो ya Ballot Paper, janta ne Congress ko nakara!' — 'Be it EVM or ballot paper, the public has rejected Congress!' The framing is a direct rebuttal to a line of opposition argument that has run for over a decade.
The EVM debate Congress cannot escape
The Electronic Voting Machine controversy has simmered in Indian politics since Congress and other parties began questioning EVM integrity after the 2014 Lok Sabha defeat. The machines were first piloted in 1982 and became universal across national elections by 2004. The Supreme Court of India has upheld their use — including with Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips — across multiple rulings between 2013 and 2019.
BJP's counter-argument is arithmetically blunt: Congress has also lost elections held under ballot-paper systems, in state after state. Shah's question, as amplified by Choudhary, essentially asks Rahul Gandhi to explain why the party's explanation should be trusted when the data cuts both ways.
Choudhary's signal from Patna
As a senior BJP leader and head of government in Bihar — one of India's most electorally consequential states — Choudhary's amplification of this message carries weight beyond a routine retweet. Bihar has been a battleground where both EVMs and political narratives are tested under intense scrutiny. His intervention signals that the BJP machinery intends to keep the 'Congress rejected by voters' frame alive in the current political cycle.
The exchange is combative, but its logic is straightforward: if the voting mechanism were truly responsible for Congress losses, ballot-paper contests should have produced different results. Choudhary is putting that question squarely back on the opposition's table — and waiting for an answer that, so far, has not come.