 |
|
The Election Commission of India's (ECI) recent directive for a Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar, subsequently to be implemented nationwide, has sparked significant controversy and raised concerns about its potential to disproportionately disenfranchise vulnerable populations. This initiative, requiring individuals not featured in the 2003 electoral rolls to prove their citizenship, marks a departure from the ECI's historical role as a champion of voter enrolment and protector of voting rights, particularly for marginalized communities. While the ECI cites the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, as the basis for this exercise, its scale and the proposed timeline raise serious questions about its practicability and fairness. The core issue lies in the sheer number of people affected. According to population projections, approximately 4.76 crore individuals in Bihar, constituting around 59% of the current voting-age population, are under the age of 40 and therefore potentially subject to this verification process. The ECI's initial estimate suggested that only 2.94 crore individuals would need to submit eligibility documents, but this calculation appears flawed, as it fails to account for deaths and permanent migration out of Bihar since 2003. A more accurate assessment, considering mortality rates and migration patterns, indicates that roughly 4.74 crore people need to prove their eligibility within a single month. The challenge is compounded by the stringent documentary requirements for proving citizenship. The ECI stipulates that individuals must present one document from a list of eleven, including identity cards, birth certificates, passports, matriculation certificates, and caste certificates. However, in a state like Bihar, characterized by widespread poverty and limited access to documentation, these requirements pose a significant barrier for many. Data reveals that only a small percentage of the population possesses documents such as birth certificates, passports, or government-issued identity cards. While a larger proportion may have matriculation certificates, this effectively makes the completion of secondary education the primary criterion for voter eligibility, disenfranchising those who had to leave school due to economic hardship. This shift undermines the principle of universal adult franchise and creates a system that favors the educated and affluent. The reliance on specific documents also raises questions about the exclusion of readily available forms of identification, such as Aadhaar cards and ration cards. Aadhaar, in particular, is widely held in Bihar, yet it is not accepted as proof of citizenship. This apparent inconsistency suggests a bias towards documents that are less accessible to marginalized communities. Furthermore, even if the list of acceptable documents were expanded, the sheer volume of applications to be processed within the allotted timeframe poses a logistical nightmare. Each electoral registration officer (ERO) would be responsible for scrutinizing an average of 1.95 lakh applications within a 62-day period, a task that is virtually impossible to accomplish effectively. This raises concerns that many legitimate voters will be unfairly excluded due to administrative bottlenecks and errors.
The implications of this voter verification drive extend beyond mere logistical challenges. It risks creating a climate of fear and uncertainty among vulnerable populations, who may be intimidated by the process and deterred from exercising their right to vote. This could have a chilling effect on democratic participation and further marginalize communities that are already underrepresented in the political process. The ECI's initiative also raises questions about the underlying motives behind this sudden emphasis on voter verification. Critics argue that it may be a politically motivated attempt to manipulate electoral rolls and disenfranchise certain segments of the population. Given the ECI's recent struggles with credibility, this perception further erodes public trust in the electoral process. The timing of the voter verification drive is also problematic, coming just ahead of crucial state and national elections. This raises concerns that it could be used to unfairly influence the outcome of these elections by selectively excluding voters from certain constituencies. The potential for abuse is particularly high in areas with large migrant populations or significant numbers of marginalized communities. The implementation of the voter verification drive also lacks adequate safeguards to protect against errors and arbitrary decisions. There is no clear mechanism for appealing wrongful exclusions, and the process relies heavily on the discretion of individual EROs. This creates opportunities for bias and discrimination, particularly against individuals who lack the resources or knowledge to navigate the complex bureaucratic procedures. The absence of sufficient public awareness campaigns also exacerbates the problem. Many eligible voters may be unaware of the verification requirements or unsure about how to comply with them. This lack of information could lead to widespread confusion and inadvertent disenfranchisement.
In conclusion, the ECI's voter verification drive in Bihar presents a serious threat to democratic principles and risks disenfranchising millions of legitimate voters, particularly those from marginalized communities. The initiative is based on flawed calculations, imposes unrealistic documentation requirements, and lacks adequate safeguards to protect against errors and abuse. The timing and implementation of the drive raise concerns about its potential to manipulate electoral rolls and unfairly influence election outcomes. To ensure a fair and inclusive electoral process, the ECI must urgently reconsider its approach to voter verification. It should prioritize voter enrolment over voter exclusion, simplify documentation requirements, and implement robust safeguards to protect against errors and discrimination. The ECI should also invest in public awareness campaigns to educate voters about their rights and responsibilities. Ultimately, the goal should be to create a system that promotes democratic participation and ensures that every eligible citizen has the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. The current approach, however, falls far short of this ideal and risks undermining the very foundations of Indian democracy. The overzealous implementation of rules and regulations, without due consideration for the realities on the ground, can have devastating consequences for vulnerable populations. The ECI must recognize its responsibility to protect the rights of all voters, regardless of their socioeconomic status or educational background. A more nuanced and equitable approach to voter verification is essential to ensure that the electoral process remains fair, transparent, and inclusive. Furthermore, exploring alternative methods of verification that are more accessible to marginalized communities, such as community attestations or the use of Aadhaar cards, is crucial. Engaging with civil society organizations and local community leaders can also help to identify and address the specific challenges faced by different segments of the population. Ultimately, the success of any voter verification initiative depends on its ability to strike a balance between ensuring the integrity of the electoral rolls and protecting the right to vote for all eligible citizens. The current approach fails to achieve this balance and risks creating a system that is both unfair and undemocratic. The Election Commission of India must urgently re-evaluate its strategy and adopt a more inclusive and equitable approach to voter verification.
Source: Voter verification drive in Bihar: too little time, too many hurdles