When India’s Election Commission launched the voter-verification exercise known as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), it could be argued that the Election Commission was fully justified in conducting the ongoing exercise. This is because the last major nationwide comprehensive voter verification and preparation of fresh electoral rolls in India was carried out in phases between 2002 and 2004. Certainly, by conducting the present SIR, the Election Commission is fulfilling its responsibility to help ensure free and fair elections, with genuine voters exercising their franchise.
However, a number of opposition parties in India have questioned the need for the SIR, apparently because of their concern that verification of the electoral rolls could affect what they regard as their vote banks. The exercise could identify illegal migrants from abroad who may have somehow been enlisted on the electoral rolls. It could also identify voters whose names appear in more than one constituency or location, as well as people who have died but whose names have not been removed from the electoral rolls and whose identities could potentially be misused by others to cast votes.
When the electoral roll was released in the first instance, the preliminary deletion rate in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise across the states was reported to be about 10 per cent overall, although it varied significantly from one state and region to another. The Election Commission made it clear that names deleted from the rolls would be restored if credible evidence of the concerned voters’ eligibility and genuineness were provided. Accordingly, where such evidence was submitted, the Election Commission duly revised the electoral rolls.
In a highly populated country such as India, where the population density is approximately 497 people per square kilometre, the Election Commission conducted the SIR through a door-to-door exercise involving thousands of officials and workers. In carrying out such a vast survey, given India’s enormous population and geographical size, it is possible that some discrepancies may have occurred. Such discrepancies are unavoidable in an exercise of this magnitude, regardless of who happens to be serving as the Election Commissioner.
When the final electoral rolls were published and deletions had been made, those deletions occurred, in the Election Commission’s account, because the concerned individuals had either failed to establish their eligibility or had not come forward during the verification process.
Opposition parties took the SIR issue to the country’s highest court, but the learned judges declined to halt the exercise. The clarifications sought by the Supreme Court were provided by the Election Commission. Furthermore, the Election Commission has continued to respond to doubts and questions raised by political parties.
In these circumstances, a number of opposition parties in India have launched what appears to be a highly critical campaign against the Chief Election Commissioner, demanding his resignation. One opposition leader has even called for his arrest, while opposition political parties have reportedly indicated that they may move a resolution in Parliament seeking his removal.
What is particularly disturbing is the manner in which sections of the print, visual and social media have treated the Chief Election Commissioner while debating the issue. Much of the coverage appears to have focused on provocative and hasty remarks that risk damaging his reputation before all the relevant facts have been fully considered.
By and large, the Indian media environment has changed considerably, with a number of newspapers and television channels owned by large business houses, political interests or religious organisations. There is a tendency in parts of the media to prioritise negative news, controversy, abusive statements and scandals in the belief that such coverage will increase circulation and viewership and thereby benefit commercial interests. However, the ground reality is that media organisations that repeatedly adopt such an approach risk rapidly losing credibility in the eyes of the public.
Furthermore, some individuals who regard themselves as intellectuals and the conscience-keepers of society have also joined the fray, whatever their motives may be.
So far, the Chief Election Commissioner, who has been the target of intense criticism and propaganda, has conducted himself with the level of dignity and restraint expected of someone occupying such an important constitutional position.
All said and done, there remains a considerable degree of wisdom and maturity among Indian citizens. Ultimately, they are capable of distinguishing between the positive and negative aspects of a contentious political issue and, in doing so, enabling the country to move forward in the right direction.
