 |
|
The Election Commission (EC) of India, under the leadership of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, has been actively addressing concerns regarding the accuracy and integrity of electoral rolls, particularly in the state of Bihar. This initiative, known as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), has sparked significant debate and controversy, with opposition parties alleging 'vote theft' and questioning the timing and rationale behind the exercise. However, the EC maintains that the SIR is a necessary step to correct long-standing imperfections in the electoral roll, a demand that has been voiced by political parties themselves for over two decades. The core issue revolves around the deletion of approximately 65 lakh voters from Bihar's draft electoral roll. The EC asserts that this action was taken in response to directives from the Supreme Court and was completed within 56 hours of receiving the order. This swift action, according to the EC, demonstrates its commitment to upholding the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that only eligible voters are included in the rolls. The EC has urged electors and political parties to actively participate in the remaining 15-day timeframe to file any claims or objections they may have regarding the deleted voters. The CEC emphasized that any errors flagged after September 1st would be considered pointless, implying a deadline for addressing discrepancies and ensuring the accuracy of the final voter list. The EC has strongly refuted allegations of 'vote theft' leveled by opposition parties. It argues that the SIR is being conducted in a transparent and harmonious manner, with the active involvement of electors, party representatives, and booth level officers. The EC claims that these individuals are endorsing the exercise with their signatures and video testimonials, suggesting a broad consensus on the need for and the integrity of the revision process. The CEC expressed concern that the endorsements from district presidents and booth level agents of various parties are either not reaching their state level and national leadership or are being deliberately overlooked. This raises questions about internal communication and decision-making processes within political parties and suggests that the opposition's criticism may not be fully representative of the views of their own members on the ground. The timing of the SIR has also been a subject of scrutiny. The CEC clarified that the decision to conduct the revision now was carefully considered. Starting the revision earlier, in April, would have been too early relative to the annual summary revision with respect to January 1, 2025. Conversely, starting the revision later, in October, would have been too close to the assembly elections due in Bihar in November. Therefore, the current timing was deemed the most appropriate to ensure a thorough and accurate revision without disrupting the electoral calendar. Another challenge addressed by the CEC relates to the issue of multiple voters being registered at the same address. This problem is attributed to the lack of proper numbering of houses and addresses by panchayats and municipalities, as well as the presence of unauthorized settlements. In such situations, the EC and Booth Level Officers (BLOs) often resort to registering voters from notional addresses, frequently using 'zero' as the house number. The EC provided historical examples from Assam (1966), Rajasthan (1980), and Uttar Pradesh (1985) where electoral roll excerpts showed missing or '01' house numbers, demonstrating that this practice is not unique to Bihar or the current SIR exercise. The underlying issue points to systemic challenges in urban and rural planning and the need for improved address management systems to ensure accurate voter registration. The SIR exercise in Bihar highlights the ongoing efforts of the Election Commission to maintain the integrity and accuracy of electoral rolls. While the process has been met with criticism and allegations from opposition parties, the EC maintains that it is acting in good faith and in accordance with its mandate to ensure free and fair elections. The success of the SIR will depend on the active participation of electors, political parties, and local authorities in identifying and addressing any discrepancies in the voter list within the given timeframe. Ultimately, the goal is to create an electoral roll that accurately reflects the eligible voting population of Bihar and safeguards the democratic process.
The controversies surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar’s electoral rolls underscore the complexities and sensitivities inherent in electoral administration. The Election Commission of India (ECI), an autonomous constitutional body responsible for administering elections, finds itself at the center of a political storm, navigating allegations of bias, procedural irregularities, and even deliberate disenfranchisement of voters. The crux of the matter lies in the deletion of approximately 6.5 million voters from the draft electoral roll of Bihar. While the ECI attributes this action to the implementation of directives from the Supreme Court of India and a routine effort to rectify inaccuracies and duplications, opposition parties have vehemently criticized the move, branding it a deliberate attempt to manipulate the electoral outcome in favor of the ruling coalition. Their accusations of ‘vote theft’ cast a shadow over the entire exercise and raise serious questions about the transparency and impartiality of the electoral process. The ECI's defense rests on several key arguments. First, it emphasizes that the SIR was initiated in response to long-standing demands from political parties themselves, who have consistently raised concerns about the imperfections and inaccuracies in the electoral rolls. This historical context suggests that the current exercise is not a sudden or politically motivated endeavor but rather a continuation of efforts to improve the quality of electoral rolls. Second, the ECI highlights the participatory nature of the SIR, emphasizing the involvement of electors, political party representatives, and booth-level officers in the revision process. The ECI claims that these stakeholders are actively endorsing the exercise through signatures and video testimonials, suggesting a broad consensus on the need for and integrity of the revision. However, the opposition disputes this claim, alleging that the endorsements are either coerced or misrepresented and that the ground reality is far different from what the ECI portrays. Third, the ECI addresses the concerns about the timing of the SIR, arguing that it was carefully chosen to balance the need for a thorough revision with the proximity of upcoming assembly elections. The ECI maintains that starting the revision too early or too late would have been impractical and disruptive, and that the current timeframe is the most conducive to achieving the desired outcome. Finally, the ECI tackles the issue of multiple voters being registered at the same address, attributing it to systemic challenges in urban and rural planning, such as the lack of proper house numbering and the prevalence of unauthorized settlements. The ECI argues that it has adopted pragmatic solutions to address these challenges, such as using notional addresses, and that similar practices have been followed in other states in the past. However, critics argue that these solutions are inadequate and can lead to confusion and errors in voter registration. The controversy surrounding the SIR in Bihar underscores the importance of public trust in the electoral process. When allegations of bias and manipulation are made, it erodes public confidence in the integrity of elections and undermines the legitimacy of democratic institutions. It is therefore crucial for the ECI to address these concerns transparently and effectively, providing clear and convincing evidence that the SIR is being conducted fairly and impartially.
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar's electoral rolls, with its consequential deletion of 65 lakh voters, exposes a complex interplay of factors that shape the electoral landscape of India. Beyond the immediate controversy surrounding the deletions and accusations of 'vote theft,' the situation reveals deeper systemic issues related to voter registration, urban planning, and the political dynamics that influence electoral processes. The Election Commission of India's (ECI) attempt to address long-standing imperfections in the electoral rolls has inadvertently triggered a political firestorm, highlighting the delicate balance between administrative efficiency and political sensitivity. The sheer scale of the deletions – 65 lakh voters – is inherently alarming and raises legitimate concerns about potential disenfranchisement. While the ECI insists that these deletions are based on valid grounds, such as duplication, migration, or death, the opposition parties argue that they disproportionately affect marginalized communities and represent a deliberate attempt to reduce their voting power. The lack of transparency in the deletion process further fuels these suspicions, as the ECI has not provided detailed explanations for each deletion or established a robust mechanism for affected voters to challenge the decision. The ECI's justification for the SIR also raises questions about the effectiveness of its existing voter registration system. If imperfections in the electoral rolls have persisted for decades, despite repeated efforts to revise and update them, it suggests that the system is fundamentally flawed and requires a more comprehensive overhaul. The reliance on manual processes, the lack of coordination between different government agencies, and the absence of a centralized database of voters all contribute to the problem. The issue of multiple voters being registered at the same address is particularly indicative of the systemic challenges. The ECI's explanation that this is due to the lack of proper house numbering and the prevalence of unauthorized settlements is only partially accurate. In many cases, multiple voters are registered at the same address because of lax verification procedures and the deliberate manipulation of voter registration by political parties to inflate their vote banks. This practice is particularly prevalent in densely populated urban areas and in constituencies where electoral competition is fierce. The political dimension of the SIR cannot be ignored. Elections in India are highly competitive and often characterized by intense mobilization of voters along caste, religious, and regional lines. Political parties are therefore highly sensitive to any changes in the electoral rolls that could potentially affect their vote share. The opposition parties' accusations of 'vote theft' reflect their deep-seated mistrust of the ECI and their fear that the ruling coalition is using its influence to manipulate the electoral process. The ECI's credibility and independence are therefore crucial to ensuring the fairness and integrity of elections. The ECI must not only act impartially but also be seen to be acting impartially. This requires transparency in its decision-making processes, accountability for its actions, and a willingness to engage with all stakeholders in a constructive manner. The SIR in Bihar provides an opportunity for the ECI to demonstrate its commitment to these principles and to strengthen public trust in the electoral process. However, it also highlights the need for a more comprehensive and systemic approach to voter registration and electoral reform.