In the charged arena of Indian politics, data has become a powerful weapon in the struggle for control. On August 7, 2025, Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a key figure in the Indian National Congress, held a press conference presenting meticulously curated data alleging widespread voter fraud in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Focusing on Karnataka’s Bangalore Central constituency, particularly the Mahadevapura Assembly segment, Gandhi claimed over 1 lakh votes were manipulated through duplicate voters, fake addresses, and misused registration forms, securing a narrow victory for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This revelation, drawn from internal Congress research, has sparked protests, detentions of opposition leaders, and demands for judicial scrutiny, threatening to destabilize the BJP’s political dominance by exposing alleged collusion with the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Through Michel Foucault’s theories of power/knowledge and Sabina Leonelli’s insights on data curation, Gandhi’s approach emerges as a potent act of resistance. Data curation, far from neutral, becomes a mechanism to challenge entrenched power structures, revealing how electoral data, managed by institutions like the ECI, normalizes BJP victories while sidelining opposition voices. This case illustrates data’s journey from official records to a disruptive political tool, undermining the BJP’s aura of invincibility and galvanizing opposition unity.
Foucauldian Power/Knowledge: Electoral Data as a Disciplinary Tool
Foucault’s concept of pouvoir/savoir (power/knowledge) frames knowledge as a product of practices that reinforce power. In Indian elections, voter lists and polling data act as disciplinary mechanisms, categorizing citizens into “valid” or “invalid” voters to shape electoral outcomes. Gandhi’s allegations highlight how the ECI curates data to favor the BJP: duplicate voter entries, registrations tied to nonexistent addresses, and bulk registrations at commercial sites. These practices construct a reality where the BJP defies anti-incumbency, as Gandhi noted, attributing their success to “choreographed” elections rather than genuine mandates.
This data curation mirrors Foucault’s panopticon, where constant surveillance creates self-regulating subjects. The ECI’s opaque processes, such as providing voter lists only as cumbersome paper records, deter scrutiny and maintain power asymmetries. Gandhi’s response—digitizing and analyzing this data to expose patterns like 40,009 invalid addresses or 33,692 misused forms—produces counter-knowledge that challenges this control. By estimating rigging in 70-80 seats nationwide, potentially undermining the BJP’s majority, Gandhi disrupts the disciplinary gaze, fueling protests and opposition marches, some met with detentions. Foucault’s insight that power breeds resistance is clear: Gandhi’s curated data, amplified through opposition alliances and public discourse, contests the BJP’s narrative of electoral legitimacy, offering a genealogical critique of how data enables authoritarian tendencies in Indian politics.
Leonelli’s Relational Data: The Journey of Voter Lists as Political Artifacts
Sabina Leonelli views data as relational, its meaning shaped by curation, context, and movement across institutions. Voter lists are not mere facts but artifacts molded by social practices, gaining power through standardization and dissemination. In Gandhi’s hands, ECI data undergoes a transformative journey: from non-machine-readable printouts designed to obscure analysis to digitized evidence of fraud. This six-month manual effort highlights Leonelli’s point that data requires metadata and expertise to become usable, here exposing institutional biases.
Leonelli’s concept of “data journeys” is evident as Gandhi recontextualizes ECI data: what was meant to legitimize BJP wins becomes proof of manipulation, such as an implausible addition of one crore voters in Maharashtra over five months. This relational shift politicizes curation; Gandhi’s team, as curators, packages data with examples like duplicate voters to make it accessible and impactful. The ECI’s response—demanding oaths without refuting the data—underscores curation’s contingency, as supposed transparency serves power. Historically, voter rolls reflect political interests, from colonial censuses to modern digital systems, often prioritizing BJP-aligned frameworks. Gandhi’s curation democratizes data, aligning with open science ideals but revealing inequalities, as only well-resourced groups can undertake such efforts.
Synthesis: Data Curation Manifesting Power Shifts
Combining Foucault and Leonelli, Gandhi’s strategy reveals data curation as a battleground for power. Foucault’s power/knowledge explains how ECI data reinforces BJP dominance, while Leonelli’s relational lens frames Gandhi’s curation as a disruptive journey, transforming raw lists into knowledge that challenges epistemic authority. This has destabilized BJP’s politics: protests in Bengaluru, opposition marches, and warnings of consequences for ECI officials signal resistance gaining momentum. BJP’s dismissal of Gandhi as “frustrated” fails to counter the data, highlighting Foucault’s idea that suppressed knowledge fuels counter-power.
The implications are significant. For governance, it demands transparent data practices, like accessible digital voter lists. For equity, it exposes how curation can marginalize groups, such as through voter deletions targeting minorities. Gandhi’s act empowers activism, amplifying narratives of electoral fraud through public and opposition channels.
Conclusion
Through a Foucauldian and Leonellian lens, Rahul Gandhi’s data curation emerges as a powerful act of resistance, explosively derailing the BJP’s politics by reframing electoral data from a tool of control to one of liberation. As Foucault notes, resistance is inherent to power. Here, data’s journey—from ECI records to public exposé—may reshape India’s democratic future, challenging the structures that sustain electoral manipulation and fostering a renewed demand for transparency and accountability.
