 |
|
Tejashwi Yadav's article lambastes the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, arguing that it is a thinly veiled attempt at voter suppression rather than a genuine effort to clean up voter lists. He contends that the exercise, which aims to revise the voter rolls, will disproportionately disenfranchise vulnerable populations and undermine democratic principles. Yadav points to the estimated deletion of approximately 94 lakh eligible adults from the voter rolls as evidence of the exclusionary nature of the SIR. He argues that the ECI's restrictive list of acceptable documents for voter verification, which excludes widely used identity documents like Aadhaar, voter ID, PAN, and ration cards, further exacerbates the problem. The exclusion of these documents, commonly used by Indians to access government services, lacks logical justification and creates unnecessary hurdles for voters, especially those from marginalized communities. This, he states, directly contradicts the spirit of inclusion that should underpin a healthy democracy. The author emphasizes the arbitrary nature of the ECI's decisions, highlighting the lack of a transparent appeal process for those excluded from the voter rolls. This opacity, he asserts, undermines democratic principles and violates constitutional guarantees of equal participation. Yadav aligns with critics who view the ECI's order as a tool for "institutionalized disenfranchisement," effectively creating tiers of citizenship based on access to specific documents. He argues that the process was rushed and chaotic from the outset, with the ECI abruptly junking a previously completed and deemed robust electoral roll, raising suspicions about pre-determined conclusions. The timing of the SIR, initiated just months before the election, further compounds the problems, leaving voters with limited opportunity to navigate bureaucratic hurdles, particularly in a state like Bihar, which is prone to flooding and high levels of migration. This compressed timeframe, coupled with digital infrastructure gaps, makes it difficult for voters to provide the required documentation and address any discrepancies. The author highlights Bihar's unique vulnerabilities, including annual flooding and widespread migration for work, which often result in lost documents and frequent address changes. These realities make it particularly challenging for residents to comply with the stringent documentation requirements of the SIR. He links the issue back to Bihar's long-standing demand for special status and a special developmental package, arguing that the state's vulnerabilities require targeted support, not exclusionary policies. Yadav cites the analysis of Rahul Shastri and Yogendra Yadav, who estimate a catastrophic shortfall of 94 lakh eligible adults on Bihar's electoral rolls, indicating a significant decline in the state's Electors to Adult Population Ratio. This dramatic drop, he contends, represents the largest one-time deletion of voters in Indian electoral history.
Yadav stresses that the SIR in Bihar is a pilot program for potential national implementation, raising concerns that similar exclusionary measures could be replicated across India. He warns that migrant populations, informal workers, and marginalized communities would disproportionately bear the brunt of these impossible documentation requirements, leading to widespread disenfranchisement. The author condemns the ECI's actions as a systematic drive toward exclusion, characterized by poor planning, troubling opacity, obstinacy, and needless bluster. He calls for a strong democratic spirit to challenge the SIR and protect the fundamental right to vote for all citizens. The author reiterates that India's democracy rests on the principles of universal adult franchise and equal citizenship, which prohibit creating tiers of citizens based on their ability to produce specific documents. He emphasizes that the Bihar revision directly violates these principles, effectively disenfranchising those who lack the required documentation. If replicated nationally, he warns that this model could disenfranchise approximately nine crore Indians, contradicting the Supreme Court's call for “mass inclusion, not mass exclusion.” This will transform electoral management from a process of democratic participation into a system of voter suppression. The author also criticizes the courts, stating that the lack of urgency in adjudicating on electoral matters is a serious concern. He argues that citizens need relief when their rights are being violated, not after the exercise is completed. The ECI, Yadav argues, must accept widely used identity documents like Aadhaar cards, provide transparent appeals processes for excluded voters, and extend the rushed timeline to allow for proper verification and correction. He urges the ECI to abandon the SIR policy template before it wreaks havoc on citizens elsewhere. The author concludes by asserting that democracy thrives on inclusion, not exclusion, and that electoral integrity requires ensuring that legitimate voters can fully participate in the elections. He characterizes the SIR in Bihar as a fundamental departure from these principles and calls for resistance to prevent it from becoming the norm for Indian democracy. He further describes the SIR as a constitutional fraud being perpetrated on the people, particularly the poor and marginalized, under the guise of electoral hygiene. Stripping citizens of their fundamental right to vote through opaque and selective processes, he argues, is a betrayal of democratic values and a direct assault on the spirit of the Constitution. The article functions as a strong critique, calling the ECI's integrity and motives into question.
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar raises several critical concerns regarding the integrity of the electoral process and the potential for voter disenfranchisement. The core argument is that the SIR, purportedly aimed at cleaning up voter lists, is in reality an exclusionary exercise that disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. The specific point of contention revolves around the restrictive list of acceptable documents for voter verification, which excludes commonly used forms of identification like Aadhaar, voter ID, PAN, and ration cards. This exclusion is problematic because these documents are often the primary means by which many Indians, particularly those from marginalized communities, access government services and establish their identity. The absence of a clear justification for rejecting these widely used documents raises suspicion about the ECI's motives and suggests a deliberate effort to create barriers to voter registration. The lack of a transparent appeal process further exacerbates the problem, denying those excluded from the voter rolls an opportunity to challenge the decision and rectify any errors. The timing of the SIR, initiated just months before the election, is also a major concern. This compressed timeframe leaves voters with limited opportunity to comply with the documentation requirements, particularly in a state like Bihar, which faces challenges like annual flooding, high rates of migration, and a significant digital divide. The combination of these factors creates a perfect storm of obstacles for voters, potentially leading to widespread disenfranchisement. The argument that the SIR is a pilot program for potential national implementation raises even greater concerns about the long-term implications for Indian democracy. If replicated across the country, similar exclusionary measures could disproportionately affect migrant populations, informal workers, and marginalized communities, further eroding the principles of universal adult franchise and equal citizenship. The criticism extends to the perceived lack of urgency on the part of the courts in addressing legal challenges to the SIR. The delays in adjudicating these matters leave citizens vulnerable to having their rights violated without recourse. The overall tone of the criticism is one of deep concern about the direction of electoral management in India. The SIR is portrayed as a departure from the principles of inclusion and democratic participation, and a step towards a system of voter suppression that could have far-reaching consequences for the country's democratic fabric. The author effectively uses data, statistics, and analysis from experts to buttress the argument and highlight the potential scale of the problem.
Source: Tejashwi Yadav writes: Bihar asked for special status, got ‘Special Exclusionary Revision’