Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Indian elections: voters united by anti-fraud ink mark

Ink mark applied to index fingers of every voter worn by many as symbol of democratic privilege as they visit polling booths
Indian voters wear Mysore ink mark as symbol of democratic privilege
A woman shows her ink-marked finger after voting in the village of Shilatne, Maharashtra. Photograph: Danish Siddiqui/Reuters

In a country where a myriad body markings, jewellery and turban styles can differentiate people by caste, region or tribe, an ink mark applied on every voter's finger at the polling booth is a rare unifying feature.

Amid crowds of Indian people heading to the polls on Thursday, the biggest day of the country's general election, the ink used to mark voters' hands to prevent fraud was flashed by many as a badge of universal democratic privilege.

The thin black mark adorns the manicured index fingers of upper class women, their hands heavy with gold bracelets and diamond rings, as well as the rougher hands of rural labourers and low-caste farmers.

The ink, which has been shipped to more than 20 countries including Sierra Leone, East Timor and Cambodia is made from a secret recipe developed by scientists in India. It cannot be washed away or erased for at least a week, sometimes up to 15 days.

But its sole global manufacturer is the legacy of a monarch whose clan ruled the princely kingdom of Mysore, unelected, for more than half a millennium.

Mysore Paints and Varnish Ltd was founded in 1937 by Maharajah Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV, one of the richest men in the world at the time. His family had owned gold mines and the Maharaja bought his favourite Rolls Royce cars in batches of seven because that was his lucky number, according to Vinay Nagaraju of Royal Mysore Walks.

"Rolls Royce dubbed his habit 'doing a Mysore'," said Nagaraju. "It means someone who spends an extravagant amount of money."

In 1962, when independent India held its third general election, scientists at the National Physical Laboratory in Delhi devised a simple ink, with small amounts of silver nitrate which reacts to light, to mark voters' hands.

"It cannot be washed away by any known chemical or solvent," said Hemanta Kumar, managing director. "When it's exposed to sunlight or even indoor light, it will darken again because of its photo-sensitive nature."

Since then, the ink, manufactured only by Mysore Paints and Varnish, has been used in every local and national Indian election, as well as in key elections across the world, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More than six billion fingers worldwide have been inked over the decades, according to the company.

"In some countries, the index finger is dipped in ink. Here in India, the cuticle and nail of the index finger is marked. It remains on the skin for a week, and on the nail until a new nail grows," said Kumar. This year alone, Mysore Paints and Varnish Ltd has sold 22,000 litres of ink to India's election commission, pushing its profits from ÂĢ215,000 last year to ÂĢ3.9 million so far in 2014, according to Kumar.

"We are very proud," he said. "We have been helping India and the world to uphold democratic credentials."

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...democratic-privilege

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Ink does not prevent fraud by low level elections officials.

What's to prevent the odd village level Presiding Officer from allowing some PYO goons to vote for the dead and the migrated?

not sure what non-obvious point u are making here

 

how can using ink not be better?

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Ink does not prevent fraud by low level elections officials.

What's to prevent the odd village level Presiding Officer from allowing some PYO goons to vote for the dead and the migrated?

not sure what non-obvious point u are making here

 

how can using ink not be better?

 

I am not anti-ink.

 

I was just pointing out that it's only useful as an anti-fraud measure in that it allows Elections officials to prevent individuals from casting multiple ballots.

 

Any fraud that's gonna happen on May 11th will involve any number of the thousands of individual poll site officials especially them ones at Aunty Elsie's bottom house.

 

100 extra PPP votes x 100 tainted poll sites = 10,000 PPP votes

 

And just for good measure, don't just simply add PPP votes but destroy some Coalition votes in some Indian/Amerindian areas.

 

There will be almost 600k ballot papers printed in an election where turnout should hover in the 300k to 350k range. It's almost impossible to detect fraud when voters from the List are casting votes. For example, if Poll Site Annandale has 400 voters on the List and 350 of them are recorded as having voted and the ballot box has 350 actual votes then tell me how you detect fraud there?

 

The GECOM tabulation center in Georgetown is only receiving Statements of Poll and will quite accurately count them in the presence of overseas observers. But what happens when the corruption generates corrupt Statements of Poll so that GECOM is accurately counting corrupted Statements of Poll?

 

Elections are best rigged at the lowest level possible so that the disease becomes less detectable as it rises in the body to the head.

 

Also, why not bribe a company official at the company that's printing the ballot papers to run off a few extra thousand ballot papers for you and not tally that on the official supply request?

FM
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Ink does not prevent fraud by low level elections officials.

What's to prevent the odd village level Presiding Officer from allowing some PYO goons to vote for the dead and the migrated?

not sure what non-obvious point u are making here

 

how can using ink not be better?

 

I am not anti-ink.

 

I was just pointing out that it's only useful as an anti-fraud measure in that it allows Elections officials to prevent individuals from casting multiple ballots.

 

Any fraud that's gonna happen on May 11th will involve any number of the thousands of individual poll site officials especially them ones at Aunty Elsie's bottom house.

 

100 extra PPP votes x 100 tainted poll sites = 10,000 PPP votes

 

And just for good measure, don't just simply add PPP votes but destroy some Coalition votes in some Indian/Amerindian areas.

 

There will be almost 600k ballot papers printed in an election where turnout should hover in the 300k to 350k range. It's almost impossible to detect fraud when voters from the List are casting votes. For example, if Poll Site Annandale has 400 voters on the List and 350 of them are recorded as having voted and the ballot box has 350 actual votes then tell me how you detect fraud there?

 

The GECOM tabulation center in Georgetown is only receiving Statements of Poll and will quite accurately count them in the presence of overseas observers. But what happens when the corruption generates corrupt Statements of Poll so that GECOM is accurately counting corrupted Statements of Poll?

 

Elections are best rigged at the lowest level possible so that the disease becomes less detectable as it rises in the body to the head.

 

Also, why not bribe a company official at the company that's printing the ballot papers to run off a few extra thousand ballot papers for you and not tally that on the official supply request?

a most caribny 'response' . . . lengthy, non sequiturish but insightful in that authoritative "Captain Obvious" style

 

but i digress . . . let's just simply agree that using ink is among the least complicated rig prevention tools available at that "lowest level" you are supposedly so concerned about, ok?

 

there is very good reason, sir, that it has been used in Guyana forever and is relied upon so much in low-tech, hi-fraud elections in the 3rd World

 

think for a bloody second what the existing ridiculous levels of voter fraud would be in India without use of that simple little stain on the finger

 

and dude . . . what the f**k is there to debate over utilizing any and all possible measures to prevent individuals "from casting multiple ballots" in an election involving less than half million real people?

 

furthermore, it is me, not you, who has been sounding the alarm about potential fraud involving (a) battam house polling places, (b) ballot papers printing, and (c) inadequate coverage of polling stations by opposition observers, etc.

 

so, i most certainly don't need a tutorial from operators like u on the obvious . . ., and no one is impressed with your johnny-come-lately fake concern about PPP rigging/skullduggery in May

 

am i coming in clearly Sir?!

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×