Voices that matter

The credibility of India’s electoral process rests not only on the conduct of free and fair polling but also on the accuracy of its electoral rolls. In a recent TV talk, three former Chief Election Commissioners-S.Y. Quraishi, O.P. Rawat, and Ashok Lavasa-reminded the nation that while India’s elections are broadly free and fair, the charge of “vote chori” is more often political rhetoric than reality. Yet, their remarks also carried an implicit warning- voters’ lists are never flawless, and when millions stand excluded, the very perception of fairness begins to fray. The current storm has been triggered by Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Over 65 lakh voters have already been excluded from the draft rolls, and estimates suggest that another two crore may be left out, largely due to the type of documents demanded by the Election Commission (EC). For a state with Bihar’s size, complexity, and political weight, such an exercise is bound to stir both logistical challenges and political suspicion. It raises the question on whether the ECI is deliberately aiding the ruling establishment by shrinking the electorate in Bihar which is going to the polls in November?. The three former ECs have warned that an SIR is a rare exercise, conducted perhaps once in 30 years, requiring time, patience, and painstaking verification. The ECI knew the logistical nightmares and political risks of ordering the SIR. Yet why did it choose to go ahead? The answer becomes clearer when one examines the ECI’s conduct. Its unprecedented August 17 press conference-timed to coincide with the Opposition’s “vote chori” yatra-looked less like an act of transparency and more like damage control on behalf of the regime. Also the Chief Election Commissioner’s aggressive tone, his refusal to order an inquiry into specific allegations, and his evasive answers about the Bihar SIR all betrayed the instincts of a political operator, not a constitutional guardian. His colleagues, mute and motionless, gave the impression of an institution under siege-or worse, under control. The nadir came when the CEC publicly threatened Rahul Gandhi, demanding that he either file an affidavit or apologise to the nation. This was not the language of a person of an impartial authority; it was the vocabulary of a politician of ruling party. In that moment, the mask slipped- the ECI was no longer protecting democracy, it was protecting power. The former commissioners have repeatedly underlined that the ECI’s greatest strength is the trust of the people. That trust is now bleeding away and instead of embracing complaints with transparency, the Commission is stonewalling, dismissing, and intimidating. Instead of upholding neutrality, it appears to be shielding the government. India’s proud tradition of free and fair polls, which survived seven decades of political churn, cannot survive a partisan referee. The SIR controversy is no longer a matter of administrative lapses. It is an institutional betrayal, a surrender of neutrality, and a direct threat on democracy. If the ECI does not correct course immediately, it will be remembered not as the custodian of the world’s largest democracy, but as the accomplice in its undoing. The Election Commission of India (ECI), once the most trusted pillar of Indian democracy, is today staring at an existential crisis of credibility.