India, Aug. 9 -- Politics in India is a highly competitive and contested space. Elections are its high point. And there are too many held too frequently. This makes the challenge of the Election Commission of India (ECI) difficult and risky. In the past, this constitutional body has conducted itself in an exemplary manner, contributing to the significant deepening of democracy in the country. Its success in holding elections in a diverse polity such as India with minimum fuss and attracting little contestation has influenced many other democracies to learn from its experience. Against this backdrop, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi's allegation that the institution has compromised its integrity to favour the electoral needs of the BJP marks a contentious moment. Gandhi is alleging that large-scale discrepancy in voter rolls in a single assembly segment influenced the results of the parliamentary constituency of Bangalore South, which the BJP won, in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. He has accused ECI of being in cahoots with the ruling dispensation and alleged that it stonewalled requests to share machine-readable voter lists. The BJP has described the allegations as motivated. Unnamed spokespeople for ECI have mounted an aggressive pushback, demanding that Gandhi either sign an affidavit backing his allegations or apologise to the nation. But its response has to be more sober and constructive. It has to offer a clear explanation to the charges the LoP has made to guard its institutional reputation and legacy. It must explore the possibility of releasing machine-readable voter lists and further expand its cooperation with political parties in sharing information with electoral rolls, within the bounds of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. There is precedent in this case. When complaints were raised about electronic voting machines in the past, ECI sought to rebut them by organising public demonstrations of the working of machines and explaining how EVMs are secured during the elections. This was an act that showed ECI as a highly responsible institution accountable to voters and willing to engage with its critics. The body secured not only the reputation of EVMs but also its own. Therefore, ECI should consider giving a more reasoned response rather than resorting to technicalities. It's the job of the poll watchdog to ensure that the electoral process is unsullied and remains above the political fray. For example, the ongoing special intensive revision in Bihar was aimed at cleaning up the voter rolls, but the high bar of documentation triggered complaints, prompting the Supreme Court to ask ECI to consider Aadhaar and voter IDs and remind the body that inclusion, rather than exclusion, should be the objective. Such controversies are best avoided. There is a takeaway for the polity - both the government and the Opposition - as well. In India, allegations about compromised voter rolls are unfortunately both old and common and have been raised by parties cutting across the political spectrum. In a country with almost one billion voters, managing the electoral roll will always require some hard choices and balancing between fears of wrongful inclusion and wrongful exclusion of ordinary people. These decisions have to be made carefully and deliberatively, in an atmosphere not influenced by polarised electoral considerations. Unfortunately, that appears to be in short supply in India today....