EC's neutrality under doubt

The role of Election Commission of India is akin to the role of an umpire in a cricket match. Its credibility rests on its neutrality and non-partisanship. Its functioning should be above board in order to command the trust of the vast electorate who assign their choice of candidates to it in order to deliver to them the rulers who would rule them for a fixed tenure.

It is the trust reposed in its functionaries that runs central to its credibility. Not merely should it be an honest umpire, it should also be seen as one. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) ordered and conducted in Bihar had put the credibility of the Commission under doubt.

But the results announced following the culmination of the exercise are even more damning and only reinforce the doubt that not everything is hunky dory about it. It is quite normal to expect a rise in number of voters when a new electoral roll is published as India is still not the country where population is declining.

More so in Hindi states where the total fertility ratio (children born to a woman in the 18-45 reproductive age) is higher than states in the southern and western parts of the country. But the results published following the end of the SIR exercise on July 25 have shown the number of voters coming down from 7.9 crore in the past to 7.23 crore now.

According to the Commission, about 65 lakh names are likely to be removed from the draft rolls as they have been found to have either died, not found at their addresses or permanently shifted or are untrace able. Surprisingly, there is no mention of new voters who must have attained the age of 18 following the last election.

It is unlikely for a state like Bihar not to have seen any addition to its population. The SIR report raises more questions than it answers. To begin with the Election Commission rules do not have any provision like Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Secondly, conducting it in a state known for mass migration (locally referred as palayan) of people for eking livelihood in other states presupposes a sufficient time gap to allow the migrant population to either return or take measures to enrol themselves as voters.

A survey of Bihar migrants conducted in Bengaluru has revealed that only around 2% of them were aware of the SIR exercise being conducted back in their native states. The timing of the SIR coincided with the paddy-sowing season when maximum number of Bihar labourers would be working in paddy fields from Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab in the north to Tamil Nadu and Kerala in the south.

Again, even within the state, swollen rivers dis place a sizeable chunk of the rural population. It is quite natural for them not to be available for enrolment in an exercise being carried out in a hasty manner. Finally, the documentary proof sought by the Commission strangely had excluded Aadhaar Card, voter ID and the ration card.

It was only after the Supreme Court castigated the Commission for their exclusion that these documents were included. It is not known how many electors failed to produce the proof of their citizenship prior to the SC directive. Given the above features, it is difficult to determine if the SIR was an exercise for inclusion or exclusion of voters.