Democracy does not end when the last vote is cast. It survives only so long as citizens continue to believe that the institutions counting those votes are transparent, accountable, and worthy of trust.
That is why the recent fire at a government warehouse in Alipore, Kolkata, where thousands of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were reportedly damaged, cannot be dismissed as merely an administrative mishap. Whether the fire was accidental, the result of negligence, or something else entirely remains unknown. A forensic investigation is still underway. Yet the significance of the incident lies not only in what happened, but also in the political context in which it occurred.
According to official statements, nearly four thousand EVMs were damaged in the blaze. The state’s fire minister stated that the fire originated on the lower floors before spreading upward to the floors where the machines were stored. But before investigators had completed even a preliminary inquiry, authorities were already able to specify the number of damaged machines. Questions immediately followed.
Which elections were these machines connected to? Why were they stored there? What safety protocols were in place? How were the losses assessed so quickly? Most importantly, why should citizens simply accept official assurances when public trust in democratic institutions has already been steadily eroding?
The fire entered public consciousness against the backdrop of a highly contentious election season in West Bengal.
During the recent state assembly election, opposition parties and independent observers repeatedly raised concerns regarding delays in the publication of counting data on the Election Commission’s website. In a democracy, transparency is not merely procedural; the public must be able to follow the counting process in real time. When information becomes delayed, inconsistent, or difficult to verify, suspicion inevitably flourishes.
Particular controversy emerged around the Rajarhat–New Town constituency. Reports indicated that the Trinamool Congress candidate maintained a lead through much of the counting process before the outcome shifted dramatically in the final stages, producing a narrow BJP victory. Subsequent investigations by journalists and fact-checkers examined irregular voting patterns in at least one booth, where official figures appeared strikingly inconsistent with local demographic realities and voter testimonies.
None of this constitutes proof of electoral manipulation. The final result remained legally valid. But democratic legitimacy requires more than legal validity.
Why Legal Wins Fail to Win Over Public Trust
This distinction is increasingly important in contemporary India.
A political system can satisfy every formal legal requirement while simultaneously losing public confidence. Elections can be conducted according to established procedures, yet leave large sections of the population unconvinced that those procedures are functioning impartially. When this occurs, the crisis is not merely technical. It becomes political.
The issue extends far beyond West Bengal.
Across India, public confidence in key democratic institutions has weakened over the last decade. The Election Commission, investigative agencies, regulatory bodies, and even sections of the judiciary increasingly face accusations—fair or unfair—of political bias. Opposition parties routinely allege selective enforcement of laws. Critics point to patterns in which political defections overwhelmingly benefit the ruling party, while investigative scrutiny disproportionately targets its opponents.
Again, the point is not whether every allegation is true. The point is that democratic institutions are increasingly struggling to command unquestioned public trust.
Trust, after all, is not produced through official statements.
It is earned through transparency.
EVM Fires & Deepening Crises of Public Trust
This is where the Alipore fire becomes politically significant. The controversy is not fundamentally about EVM technology itself. The debate is about institutional credibility. When citizens no longer feel confident that information is being fully disclosed, every unexplained incident becomes a source of deeper anxiety.
In a healthy democracy, authorities would recognise this problem immediately. Rather than dismissing public concerns as conspiracy theories or partisan attacks, they would respond with radical transparency. Every detail concerning the damaged machines would be made public. Independent investigators would be granted full access. Questions would be answered promptly rather than avoided.
Because democracy ultimately depends on something more fragile than machines.
It depends upon consent.
The political theorist Antonio Gramsci argued that modern states govern not only through coercion but also through consent—the willingness of ordinary people to accept institutions as legitimate. Once that legitimacy begins to erode, formal authority may remain intact, but its social foundations begin to weaken.
India today faces precisely such a challenge.
The Alipore fire may ultimately prove to be nothing more than an unfortunate accident. Yet accidents acquire political meaning when they occur within systems already burdened by mistrust. In that sense, the significance of the fire lies not in what it destroyed physically, but in what it reveals politically.
A democracy can replace damaged buildings.
Rebuilding public trust is far more difficult.
