 |
|
The article centers on the strong objections raised by Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) being conducted in Bihar. Bhattacharya's primary demand is the immediate withdrawal of the SIR, arguing that it is being used to intimidate the populace and create an atmosphere of fear. He advocates for the upcoming Assembly elections in 2025 to be based on the 2024 voter list, which he believes is more accurate and representative. His argument hinges on the premise that the sudden emergence of concerns about foreign voters is fabricated and politically motivated. Bhattacharya questions the timing and source of these claims, pointing out that no such issues were raised during the 2024 elections. He directly challenges the Election Commission (EC) by referencing their previous statements to Parliament, where they asserted the absence of foreign voters between 2016 and 2019. He scrutinizes the EC's claim that numerous individuals from Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Nepal have suddenly been identified as ineligible voters in Bihar, suggesting this is a manufactured crisis designed to disenfranchise specific communities. The broader context of Bhattacharya's critique encompasses allegations of widespread harassment and intimidation targeting migrant laborers and Muslim residents of Bihar, who are reportedly being labeled as Bangladeshi. He also notes that migrant workers from West Bengal face similar discrimination due to their Bengali language. The leader questions the logic behind accusing Hindi-speaking laborers of being Bangladeshi and characterizes the entire exercise as a deceptive tactic to manipulate public opinion. He further alludes to the long-standing cultural and familial ties between Bihar and Nepal, dismissing the notion that simply having connections with Nepal should render someone suspect. Bhattacharya perceives the ongoing SIR as a violation of constitutional principles and a mockery of the democratic process. This assertion highlights the deep-seated concerns regarding the fairness and transparency of the electoral process in Bihar, and also the potential impact on the marginalized sections of society. The implications of such concerns spread beyond the immediate electoral outcome, potentially undermining faith in the democratic system and fueling social unrest. The historical context of political mobilization and social justice movements within Bihar further amplifies the significance of these allegations.
Further elaborating on the alleged irregularities surrounding the SIR, Bhattacharya criticizes the Election Commission's acknowledgment of problems with the process, specifically their reliance on Booth Level Officers (BLO) and volunteers. He argues that the EC's statement inadvertently confirms the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the revision campaign. Bhattacharya contends that a significant portion of the allotted time has already elapsed, yet reports from the ground indicate that BLOs have failed to reach many households, and the distribution of necessary forms has been minimal. He dismisses the exercise as a mere "game of numbers" that is creating "terrible chaos." This portrayal of the SIR as a disorganized and ineffective campaign adds weight to his claims that it is intended to disenfranchise voters. The allegations of pressure and distress experienced by the BLOs are particularly disturbing. Bhattacharya claims that one officer tragically died due to the pressure, and many others are reportedly stating that they lack the required documents to perform their duties effectively. He cites the specific case of Ganesh Prasad Yadav, a BLO in Madhubani district, who died of a heart attack, as a direct consequence of the immense pressure he faced. This assertion paints a picture of a system under strain, where the individuals responsible for conducting the voter revision are themselves subjected to undue stress and hardship. The reported resignation of a Block Development Officer (BDO) in Katihar, who alleged harassment, further underscores the severity of the problems plaguing the SIR. Bhattacharya also condemns the filing of an FIR against senior journalist Anjit Anjum, accusing the authorities of suppressing the truth by punishing those who attempt to expose the irregularities. These allegations of intimidation and censorship raise serious questions about the freedom of the press and the extent to which the authorities are willing to go to control the narrative surrounding the SIR.
Bhattacharya's critique extends to the discretionary authority granted to Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), particularly their ability to make decisions regarding voter eligibility based on local investigations or other documentary evidence when voters are unable to provide the required documentation. He sees this as a potential avenue for abuse and manipulation, arguing that it creates an opportunity for EROs to arbitrarily disqualify voters based on subjective criteria. This concern is rooted in a deep mistrust of the electoral machinery and a fear that it will be used to selectively disenfranchise certain segments of the population. Bhattacharya frames the entire process as an attempt to "steal this election," echoing a sentiment of widespread disillusionment and cynicism regarding the integrity of the electoral process in Bihar. He highlights the emergence of the slogan "chunav chor gaddi chhod (election thieves should leave the throne)" as evidence of growing public discontent and a demand for electoral reform. He emphasizes the fundamental right to vote for every citizen and calls on the Election Commission to ensure that this right is protected. Bhattacharya reiterates his demand for the withdrawal of the SIR and the conduct of the 2025 elections based on the 2024 voter list, emphasizing the need for peaceful and fair elections in Bihar. His demand to meet separately with the Election Commission suggests a desire to engage in constructive dialogue and find a resolution to the concerns he has raised. In summary, the article presents a forceful critique of the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, highlighting concerns about voter disenfranchisement, harassment, and manipulation. The allegations made by Dipankar Bhattacharya, coupled with the reported problems experienced by BLOs and the suppression of dissenting voices, raise serious questions about the fairness and integrity of the electoral process in the state. The call for a withdrawal of the SIR and the conduct of elections based on the 2024 voter list reflects a deep-seated desire for a more transparent and accountable electoral system.
The historical context significantly colors the interpretation of these events. Bihar has a long and complex history of caste-based politics, social inequality, and electoral manipulation. The legacy of these issues continues to shape the political landscape and influence public perception of the electoral process. The allegations made by Bhattacharya resonate with historical patterns of disenfranchisement and discrimination, particularly against marginalized communities. The anxieties surrounding the SIR are therefore not simply about the technical aspects of voter registration; they are rooted in a deeper fear that the electoral process will be used to further marginalize and disempower certain groups. The CPI(ML), as a party committed to social justice and the rights of the marginalized, has a long history of challenging electoral irregularities and advocating for the rights of the disenfranchised. Bhattacharya's strong stance against the SIR is consistent with the party's historical mission and its commitment to fighting for a more equitable and democratic society. The broader context of political competition in Bihar also plays a role in shaping the dynamics surrounding the SIR. The state has a multi-party system with a complex web of alliances and rivalries. The allegations of electoral manipulation are often used as political weapons by competing parties to undermine each other and gain an advantage in the upcoming elections. The debate over the SIR is therefore not simply about the integrity of the electoral process; it is also about the balance of power and the competition for political dominance in Bihar. The long-term implications of the current controversy could be significant. If the concerns regarding the SIR are not addressed adequately, it could further erode public trust in the electoral process and undermine the legitimacy of the government. This could lead to increased social unrest and political instability. On the other hand, if the authorities take steps to address the concerns and ensure a fair and transparent electoral process, it could help to restore public trust and strengthen democratic institutions in Bihar. The outcome of the upcoming elections will depend, in part, on the way these issues are resolved and the extent to which the public believes that the electoral process is fair and credible.
The role of the Election Commission is crucial in navigating this complex situation. The EC has a responsibility to ensure that the electoral process is conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner. This includes addressing the concerns raised by Bhattacharya and other stakeholders, investigating the allegations of irregularities, and taking corrective action where necessary. The EC also needs to engage in effective communication with the public to build trust and confidence in the electoral process. This includes providing clear and accurate information about the SIR, explaining the procedures for voter registration and verification, and addressing any concerns or questions that the public may have. The EC's credibility and impartiality are essential for ensuring the legitimacy of the electoral process. If the EC is perceived to be biased or ineffective, it could further erode public trust and undermine the democratic process. The challenges facing the Election Commission in Bihar are significant. The state has a large and diverse population, a complex political landscape, and a history of electoral irregularities. However, the EC has a constitutional mandate to uphold the integrity of the electoral process, and it must take all necessary steps to ensure that the upcoming elections are conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The outcome of the elections will have a significant impact on the future of Bihar. The state faces numerous challenges, including poverty, inequality, and social unrest. The government that is elected must be able to address these challenges effectively and build a more prosperous and equitable society. The integrity of the electoral process is therefore essential for ensuring that the government is accountable to the people and that their voices are heard. The citizens of Bihar have a right to expect that their elections will be conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner. It is the responsibility of the Election Commission, the government, and all political parties to ensure that this right is protected.