A novel, desirable exercise that, ideally, would have strengthened the democratic process, increased trust in the Election Commission of India, and made it appear more robust in the eyes of both voters and those who seek their votes, has become controversial—due to what appears to be a lack of foresight and uncalled-for urgency by the body administered by retired bureaucrats.
These same bureaucrats are selected to lead this body because they are expected to understand the ground realities, the problems faced by the people, and the difficulties that arise in implementing policies on the ground.
The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar is the latest example of how most of the babudom in India continues to moves—with force, without caring for the impact on the ground, mostly erratic, and without nuance—like a wild elephant drunk on mahua, the local drink popular in the Eastern states of India.
The SIR exercise is something that should have been conducted long ago. The last election that Bihar, along with the rest of India, witnessed was in April–May 2024; before that, it was the October 2020 assembly polls. At that time, the total number of electors in Bihar stood at 7.06 crore. Now, it is 7.90 crore.
Why did the ECI not carry out this door-to-door exercise to verify its rolls against voter documents in the intervening years? The ECI has no response.
Why was it ordered now—less than four months before the elections, after a gap of 22 years, and that too without prior public notice? The ECI has no response.
Why has AADHAR, the supposed one-stop, mother of all documents, not been permitted as valid proof of domicile and stay? The ECI has no response.
The ECI claims it needs to update its list, as many voters have either permanently or temporarily moved out of Bihar. Removing the names of those who have permanently relocated is indeed a justified step. But what about the crores of migrant workers, blue- and white-collar employees, who are working across India—from the far North to the deep South?
It is not a misstatement to say that people from Bihar can be found in the remotest parts of India, including the Northeast. This was clearly evident during the reverse migration that took place during the COVID lockdown. In many households, these workers are the only able-bodied and literate individuals capable of preparing official documents. Does the ECI expect them to return to Bihar at such short notice—or else lose their right to vote? Again, the ECI has no response.
Amid growing questions about what preparation, if any, went into executing this enormous exercise—not to mention the judicial scrutiny it is bound to face in the coming days—the ECI announced it would ease some of the rules. It stated that voters could submit enumeration forms even without the required documents initially. The documents could be submitted later, and if still incomplete, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) may take a decision based on a local inquiry or other supporting evidence. This relaxation is meant to address concerns about the short deadline and the unavailability of documents.
But if the rolls are to be ‘modified’ under this SIR without the necessary documents, does that not undermine the very rationale behind undertaking this revision? The ECI remains silent.
Having said this—on how the ECI seems to have tainted a fundamentally necessary step—it must also be discussed why this exercise was necessary in the first place, and how it should have been done with proper planning and execution.
For years—even before the BJP-led NDA government came to power at the Centre—intelligence and central agencies have flagged that non-Indian illegal immigrants were being settled in border areas. As I have reported in the past, this was being done primarily by non-BJP political parties with the clear objective of increasing their vote share and cultivating a loyal vote bank.
It was these political parties and their representatives who arranged identification documents—Pattas, ration cards, AADHAR, PAN—for them. When the alignment at the center changed, this issue continued to be raised, especially in the context of Bihar, West Bengal, and Assam.
A few years ago, a former official with a central agency showed me files that revealed how members of a particular political party had facilitated the entry of a Bangladeshi national into an eastern state. Over time, that individual established a business there and brought in more people—many of whom eventually became voters. When the official took up the matter with his seniors, seeking action against the political entity in question, he was told to back off. The reason given: the party was an ally in the ruling coalition at the Centre, and no action should be taken that might jeopardize the alliance.
Over time, that official too lost interest in pursuing the matter. So did I.
I mention this example here to reinforce the point that the SIR exercise in Bihar and other states was long overdue—but not in the form we are witnessing today.
People with no roots in the country, no emotional connection to it—here only as part of a transactional arrangement—will naturally vote for those who offer short-term material benefits.
The SIR is a necessity. It still is. But the way it has evolved—the mismanagement, the poor timing, the ambiguity—for that, the blame lies squarely with the ECI. It should have anticipated better.
