Listen to this article:

It is usual to greet acquaintances and friends with a question in Kolkata – “Ki hochchhe?” What’s happening? In 2026, the invariable follow up question is, “Is all well? SIR?” In this most extraordinary of elections in India ever, the West Bengal experience is the most bizarre. The head spinning particulars of why that is so can be explained in two ways: first, by a chronological account of what happened when and why and the new set of jargon that was introduced by the EC to deal with it; second, by an account of how real people experienced this Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

For starters, the expectations was that after Bihar, it was assumed that the teething problems of the beta version of SIR had been removed and the SIR in phase two, in nine states and three Union Territories, would be structured and systematic. That is not how it worked out in West Bengal; in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, things were different and for a good reason.

The Special Intensive Revision and its haphazard implementation, endless brawling and continuous tinkering with the process to get a so-called “infiltrator” excluded is a work in progress in West Bengal. Special to the state is a two parallel-channel structured division of labour to delist and enlist voters. One is operated by the EC, under its usual rules; the other functioning under the orders of the Supreme Court, pertaining to listed voters who are “under adjudication” is being run by the judiciary, with the Calcutta high court in the saddle. This includes the adjudication process itself and the submissions to tribunals, not as yet functional, by adjudicated and deleted voters for inclusion.

In the regular track, run by the EC, under SIR, there were voters marked “unmapped” when the draft list was published. These were about 58 lakh voters whose names were not adequately connected to the benchmark 2002 voters list, when the state underwent a different version of the SIR. Now, there are voters marked “under adjudication” after the final electoral rolls were published on February 28, on account of “logical discrepancies.”

The Supreme Court had observed during the hearing on petitions complaining against the ECI that “in a State the fundamental and constitutional rights to participate in an election is to be protected. That is the bottom line for us.” Former foreign secretary Krishnan Srinivasan and his wife, Brinda Srinivasan were asked to explain why they were missing from the 2002 SIR. As a serving foreign service officer, Srinivasan had to explain that he was out of the country then, serving his country. He reportedly questioned the “common sense” of the system and said,“I see the fault as being with the three wise men in the EC in Delhi. The local officers are just following the rules and have no discretion.”

The apex court had said that EC officials ought to be familiar with the notables of the booth and polling stations, when it dealt with the complaint by Sahitya Akademi awarded poet and author Joy Goswami. Goswami’s name was on the 2002 votes list, which is being used by EC to “map” voters and categorise them as “unmapped” if their names are missing from this old tally. On the draft voters list, his name was there. And then he was called for a hearing. As it happens, he was born in Kolkata and raised in the city too. The EC wasted his time, his money and his patience by making a mess of the SIR process.

That is why Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s grand nephew, Chandra Bose, twice nominated by the BJP as a candidate for elections in West Bengal, had to make his way to a hearing to confirm his identity. The question is what identity was Bose required to defend? His identity as a resident in Kolkata? His identity as a citizen and eligible voter?

Suparna Pathak and his wife, Shubha Pathak were voters in 2002. When the final list was published, he found his name and that of his wife, missing. “There were two blank slots on the page,” he said. A few days later, the Booth Level Officer, who happens to be his next door neighbour, informed him that his name had reappeared on the final list. His name and his wife’s name had indeed reappeared; but, his name was spelt “Suparn” and his wife became “Suba.” So, Suparna and Shubha have filled in Form 8 and are waiting for EC to correct its own mistakes. Suparna pointed out the clerical error should have been avoided by checking with the verification form he filled. Clearly, there was no fool proof system in place, making the EC’s claim of a pure voters list entirely ridiculous.

There were two sets of voters who waited for the SIR process to begin; the first set, were the majority, sanguine voters who had no Partition or post-Partitition histories of migration; the second set were of course the minority, persons with histories linked to Partition, that is Pakistan and, later Bangladesh. There is another minority that is defined by its religion, namely Muslims, who the BJP theory maintains are “infiltrators” masquerading as citizens, enabled by political parties intent on creating “vote banks.” Given the almost exclusive use of the term “ghuspaithiya” and the narrative/conspiracy theory by the BJP, it is reasonable to assume that the BJP has one view of the facts and others – the Left, the Congress and the Trinamool Congress – have different but similar views.

Those who found themselves under adjudication and then deleted include a retired judge of the Calcutta high court, Sahidullah Munshi, chairperson of the Waqf Board of West Bengal. The former judge is reported to have said after his name was deleted following adjudication, “It is very humiliating and painful…a lot of harassment. The unfortunate part is that they took the documents and said they would upload them, but no receipt was given.” His wife and elder son are waiting for the adjudication verdict, while his younger son has applied with a Form 6 as a new voter. The wait is on; his, to file an application to the tribunal to rectify the error, while his family lives with the uncertainties and the erratic SIR process.

History has been overturned by SIR; it has deleted, after adjudication, Syed Reza Ali Meerza and nine members of his family, including a municipal councillor, descendants of Mir Jafar, a fateful figure in India’s history of colonisation, famous for his role in the Battle of Plassey in 1757, linked to the rise of the East India Company and the defeat of Nawab Siraj Ud Daula. Along with them,  some  346 people, all descendants of Mir Jafar, have been put on the under adjudication list in Murshidabad. Locally known as “Chhote Nawab,” Meerza must submit new appeals to a tribunal that is not functional as yet, to correct what is a spectacular historic blunder.

The EC’s incompetence is a blot on the reputation of India’s rickety  structure but reasonably professional bureaucracy. Public intellectual and former Rajya Sabha MP, Jawhar Sircar emphasised that experienced bureaucrats possessed institutional memory and domain knowledge; the “bucket loads” of transfers by the EC for the purpose of running a “free and fair” election created “mayhem.” That is why Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen was required to explain his early history, as the son of his mother, Amita Sen.

There is always a hierarchy of persons whose stories are told; West Bengal minister Shashi Panja found herself under adjudication, though her name was cleared after the hearing and published in the supplementary list. The married daughter living in Sundarban in South 24 Parganas finds her eligibility as a voter is under adjudication. She is the daughter of a Muslim woman-headed household. Her mother is an eligible voter post the publication of the final list; her maternal grandmother and paternal grandmothers are also eligible voters. Her newly enrolled voter younger sister is also a voter. She is in no man’s land, till all the supplementary lists are published and her fate decided as an eligible/ineligible voter.

Aveek, the manager of a retail store in Bhabanipur, this election’s most watched constituency because Mamata Banerjee and Suvendu Adhikari are pitted against each other, is yet another anomaly. His mother, his brother and sister-in-law are all eligible voters according to the final list. He is not.

The EC has not clarified how many names have been deleted from the 60 lakh “under adjudication” category. It has not clarified how many unmapped voters have been put back into the voters list after hearings and verification and filling up of Form 6, or for that matter excluded after other people have filled up Form 7 demanding they should be deleted.

The EC has not set a deadline for the last date of submission of Form 6 applications by voters registering as new voters. This is even as nominations for the first phase, scheduled on April 23 have started and the second phase nominations are getting underway. In Kerala which goes to the polls on April 9, the last date for submission of Form 6 was March 15. On March 23, submission of nominations began in Kerala. The only deadline for the supplementary lists released after disposal of under adjudication cases set by the Supreme Court is that these lists will be “deemed” to have been released on February 28, the date when the final voters list was published.

© The Wire