Cometh polls, cometh controversy in India. What is somewhat surprising though is that on this occasion — the approaching Bihar assembly election — it is the Election Commission of India that has found itself in the eye of the storm raised by the Opposition. Late last month, the EC announced that it would undertake a special intense revision of electoral polls in the nation, beginning with poll-bound Bihar. The intention, the EC clarified, is to weed out anomalies and ineligible voters: demographic changes, the rise in migration, absence of updated data on the death of voters and the inclusion of new voters make such a periodic exercise necessary. The Opposition, though, has smelt a rat, claiming that the endeavour would lead to the disenfranchisement of voters, especially those from the margins, and lead to a favourable electoral outcome for the ruling regime. It has been estimated that about 37% of the electors whose names did not feature on the voter list after the last revision of electoral rolls in 2003 would need to submit eligibility proof. INDIA, the Opposition bloc which springs to life periodically, has sniffed an opportunity to mobilise its flock on this issue.
The intended objective of the EC is faultless. The sanctity of polls in a democracy is contingent upon the robustness of its electoral rolls. This requires the deletion of all spurious elements in these, including the presence of doubtful voters. So the EC’s intent is laudable; but the concern lies with the execution. This is because as bureaucratic exercises involving enumeration have shown a number of times, the chances of marginalised citizens slipping through the cracks — India has a particularly weak public culture of record-keeping — cannot be ruled out entirely. Redressal mechanisms — the EC has provided for these — must, therefore, be alert to grievances and resolve them quickly. What is of particular concern is the perceptible erosion of trust between the Opposition and the EC. Doubts about the EC’s objectivity have been aired by the Opposition parties on a number of occasions. Not enough has been done to clear the air by either of the two warring sides. This cynicism — can the reasons for its persistence not be addressed by the stakeholders? — is undesirable. It can breach collective confidence in institutions that are supposed to be the vanguard of democracy.