Latest news with #BharatJodoAbhiyaan
Indian Express
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
In Bihar, it's not just about a voter list
Confusion and chaos among ordinary people. Staggering discrepancy between official claims and ground reality. A majority of people without any of the documents that are being demanded of them. An overwhelming anxiety among the marginalised sections about losing their right to vote, if not their citizenship. These are some of the conclusions that emerged from a rapid appraisal, based on perhaps the first sample survey of its kind, of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise currently underway in Bihar. Over three days (July 5-7), volunteers of the Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan travelled to eight districts and collected information about 709 potential voters. They carried a copy of the latest electoral rolls of 2025 as well as the electoral rolls of 2003 for the relevant booth, downloaded from the Election Commission website. They conducted long face-to-face interviews with 163 households and asked them about supply of the enumeration forms and the availability of the documents required for enrolment as per the ECI order for each adult member of the household. The sudden announcement of the SIR and widespread reports about disruptions and apprehensions caused by it demanded a quick, if rough, idea of the big picture. Our survey cannot claim the level of accuracy of a proper scientific study. Six of the eight districts we surveyed (Katihar, Araria, Darbhanga, Madhubani, Saharsa, Sitamarhi, Patna and Rohtas) are in north Bihar. Except Patna (ranked among the top performers), all these fall among the middling performers in the SIR. While the selection of assembly segments (12 in all) and that of polling booths (17 in all) was dictated by the availability of teams, the household selected for interview was chosen randomly from the latest electoral rolls. While the findings of the survey are subject to a wide margin of error, they may be more robust than drawing-room speculation or anecdotal evidence. The big news first: Two-thirds of Bihar's adult population had not received the enumeration forms till the 13th day of the SIR. We found that, in all, only 43 per cent of families reported receiving enumeration forms, despite a slight but steady improvement on each day of our survey — from 39 per cent on the first day to 43 per cent on the final day. Since these forms are individualised (with the printed name and photo of the person from the latest ER), not all members of the family receive the forms simultaneously. In all, only 36 per cent of the adult household members reported receiving the form. Only 6 per cent had received two copies of the forms (one to be submitted and another to be retained by the applicant) as required under the SIR guidelines. The remaining 30 per cent were supplied only one copy. Compare these sobering figures with the official claims. The ECI claimed on July 5 that it had disbursed enumeration forms (presumably two copies each) to 94 per cent of the persons on the last electoral rolls. Not just that, the ECI has also claimed that more than 36 per cent have already filled in the enumeration form and submitted it to the election officials by July 7. Now, as mentioned above, our survey may contain fairly large errors, but the difference between the official claims of 94 per cent and the survey estimate of 36 per cent is simply too big to be the result of a sampling error. Unless the ECI has misread the number of forms dispatched from its office as the number delivered to the end user and the number of forms supplied as the number submitted, we are looking at a Himalayan discrepancy that is crying for attention. The survey findings also confirm the aggregate data analysis and the series of reports in this paper that a large proportion of the voters who may be required to submit documents to prove their citizenship do not possess any of the 11 documents on the ECI list. Our teams helped the household members to locate their names on the 2003 rolls and explained documentary requirements to those who did not figure there. In all, only 60 per cent of all the persons surveyed fulfilled the ECI's conditions for inclusion of their names as per the guidelines of the SIR. As many as 37 per cent of all persons did not fulfil any conditions: Their names did not figure on the 2003 rolls and they did not possess any one of the documents asked for by the ECI. (The remaining 3 per cent of cases were unclear.) The proportion of those who may be declared ineligible was staggering — above 60 per cent — among those in the age group 18-40. This rapid assessment estimate of 37 per cent 'ineligible' voters works out to about 2.9 crore potential eligible voters who may be deprived of their right to vote. The figure may come down if many people succeed in obtaining fresh certificates in the next fortnight. Or, if the ECI expands, formally or informally, the 'indicative (not exhaustive) list of documents' in its SIR order. As things stand today, the apprehension of mass disenfranchisement is not misplaced. Our teams discovered that marginalised social groups — poor, Dalit, extremely backward communities, Muslims and women cutting across all communities — were disproportionately at the receiving end of possible exclusion. In the village of Sharanpur, 25 km from Araria, is the Nonia (EBC) family of Rampati Devi. Four of the eight adults do not have their names on the 2003 list, nor do they have any of the listed documents. Like most families we surveyed, they have Aadhaar and ration cards and the MGNREGA job card, which the ECI won't accept. The condition was much worse in families in Mahadalit groups like Musahars. Our surveyors found a mad rush for caste or residence certificates, often triggered by the BLO's instructions. In Sonvarsha segment of Saharsa district, Pirvat Ram, a Dalit worker, has spent Rs 150 to apply for a caste certificate for himself, his wife and his mother. Women face a special problem. In the family of Palti Devi from Bahadurpur in Darbhanga, her three daughters-in-law, Sanjana (26), Pooja (20) and Neha (18), do not know if their parents had their names in the 2003 list. Tara Khatoon (47) and Kismato Khatoon (36) in Surjapur tola have the same question: How do we get the 2003 list from our mayka (parents' home)? To be sure, this preliminary and rough estimate cannot settle the debate on the impact of the SIR. But at the very least, it points to a desperate need for independent verification of official claims. We would invite all mediapersons to travel to rural Bihar and investigate the ground reality. We would urge academics and social scientists to carry out bigger and more representative sample surveys, immediately after July 25, to assess the impact of the SIR. We would also urge the ECI to put out unit-level data (names of persons who have submitted forms) in the public domain, so that it can be verified. (This is not confidential information, as the draft electoral roll will in any case be published.) What is at stake is not just the voter list in Bihar, but the very principle of universal adult franchise. Kamayani swami is state coordinator of Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan, Bihar. Rahul Shastri and Yogendra Yadav work with the national team of Bharat Jodo would like to thank district team leaders Ram Babu Arya, Mohammad Tawfeej, Pawan, Govind, Umesh Sharma, Vishwaranjan, Sanjay Kumar and Bhola Nath Singh
Indian Express
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Yogendra Yadav: ‘The North and South should make a deal on population vs revenue over delimitation'
Yogendra Yadav, member, Swaraj India, and national convenor of Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan, discusses the challenges of delimitation, freeing up the process from bias and streamlining voters' lists. The session was moderated by Amitabh Sinha, Science and Climate Editor On the impact of delimitation Delimitation, as it is called in India, or redistricting as it is called in the US, is a standard procedure or requirement for any electoral democracy to readjust the number of seats to reflect the changes in population. These changes in numbers and patterns mean the system has to ensure that the equality in representation is maintained. It has to address the need to change the nature of seats, the number of seats or their boundaries and so on. That's broadly what is called delimitation. In the Indian context, it has three different components. The first is reallocation. Since population changes, some states have more population than others. Within a state, some areas, typically urban areas, have more population than earlier. Therefore, they should get more seats. The second component is the redrawing of boundaries. You have decided Haryana should have 10 constituencies. What exactly should be their boundaries? If you have decided that Gurugram should have four Assembly constituencies, should it continue to be in one city or be split? There is a special third component, which is deciding upon reservations. Let's say among the 10 parliamentary seats of Haryana, which ones should be reserved for Scheduled Castes? In Jharkhand, how many seats should be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, and which seats should be reserved? Our constitutional provision (regarding delimitation) was fairly straightforward and followed a fundamental democratic principle of parity. The Constitution says, as far as possible, every Lok Sabha constituency should have the same population. The basic principle is one person, one vote. That's the parity principle. The Constitution says that after every census, which was assumed to be every 10 years, you could look at the population, re-allocate the number of seats for each state, re-allocate within the state, redraw boundaries and re-fix which constituency should be reserved. That is the constitutional position of the original constitutional state. On the history of delimitation There was a delimitation between 1952 and 1956 and then after the 1961 and 1971 census. But by then, the growth of the population was very uneven. Some states were beginning to lose systematically, others were beginning to gain systematically. So, in the 42nd Amendment, the constitutional provision was changed which froze delimitation or the allocation of seats for Parliament and Assembly constituencies. It froze reserved seats and even the boundaries. Everything was frozen for 25 years. The argument was that since the country was going through family planning, it wasn't fair to punish states doing well in family planning. So if their population went down, their representation in Lok Sabha must not be allowed to go down. Cut to 2001 when that was frozen once again. The then Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, after intense discussions and negotiations, decided to freeze delimitation for another 25 years. But with a change. It said while seat allocation for different states would remain as it was, it would unfreeze the allocation within a state because that would not change the federal balance. Also, it unfroze state boundaries and they were redrawn. So, for example, Haryana continued to have 10 seats but the boundaries were redrawn and a new constituency called Gurugram was created. It also allowed the number and the exact nature of reservations for constituencies to be changed. So, it was a partial unfreeze. On dealing with concerns and challenges around delimitation We have three options. One is to do what was done in 1976, which is to completely freeze all three elements, and continue for another 25 years or forever. At the moment, no one is quite advocating that. The second option is to re-do a partial freeze, which was done in 2001. To allow everything else to take place but not allow the number of seats for each state, or at least in percentage terms, the quota of each state, to change. The third option is to unfreeze fully and to go back to the original constitutional position. That could have drastic effects. My suggestion is let's permanently freeze this (present ratio of Parliament and Assembly constituencies), and go for option number two, which is partial freeze. We already have three fault lines in the country. First is a cultural fault line, the linguistic one, broadly Hindi versus non-Hindi. It's a distinction, not a division yet. Second is the economic fault line, which has intensified over the last three decades. I am not saying that the South and West have become rich but compared to them, the rest of the country is starkly poor. The third fault line is an electoral political fault line between areas where BJP dominates, and areas where the BJP's dominance is being challenged. BJP is not absent in the remaining part but it's being challenged. These three fault lines do not coincide perfectly and we are lucky that they don't perfectly coincide. But if you do reallocation as would indeed be required by the Constitution, then what you are doing is creating a fourth fault line which happens to coincide with the first, second and third fault lines broadly. That's why we need to make a deal. North Indians should stop demanding more political representation because they have a greater population. South and West Indians should stop demanding a greater share in federal revenue because they have a better GDP. Once you do so, that, to my mind, consolidates the foundations of Indian federalism and the Indian Union. On less highlighted concerns over delimitation In our country, the process by which delimitation should be done is not provided for in the Constitution. Every time delimitation takes place, a new law is enacted by Parliament. So far, delimitation has been done in a judicial manner. Usually, there is a delimitation commission. The head is a former judge of the Supreme Court, helped by the Election Commission. At a moment when institutions are under serious stress, my first concern is, will the non-partisan character of the delimitation exercise be maintained in India? Related is the concern about gerrymandering. In America, the boundaries of constituencies are decided by the outgoing representatives. So, they actually tweak and tailor the boundaries to suit their own interests. You have all kinds of weird shapes to ensure that you get people who are likely to vote for you inside your constituency and shove those who are unlikely to do so to the next constituency. This is called gerrymandering. India has generally been free of this challenge but unfortunately, in the last two instances, which took place in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam, delimitation was not done under judicial supervision. The manner in which the Election Commission carried out the delimitation in Assam was straightforward gerrymandering. It is communal gerrymandering intended to suit one party, namely the BJP. My third concern is that our constituencies are just too large. Can we find a way of increasing the numbers without shifting the federal balance? Fourth is which constituency should be reserved. It has been done by a certain lottery principle. It has not been so unfair, although you would find many Muslims complaining that wherever we have a population, things are reserved. So far, that has actually not been the case. But we don't have written rules about it. I would like this to be inscribed in the law itself. And finally, the concern is that in India, we have two election systems. The election system for Lok Sabha is done by the Election Commission of India. But the local bodies' elections — such as that of panchayat and municipality — are done by a separate body. The constituency boundaries are not done by the central Election Commission and most interestingly, the voter list is different from that of the Election Commission. So you could be a voter in one list, and not a voter in the other. The one thing that is desperately needed before we get into one nation, one election, is to have one nation, one voters' list.
