The accuracy of India’s electoral roll is a foundational requirement of its democratic process. Every year, the Election Commission undertakes a Summary Revision to add new voters, remove the deceased or relocated, and correct errors.
Currently, a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll is underway across 12 states and Union Territories—including West Bengal. According to the Election Commission, the second phase of this SIR process covers 510 million citizens across Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.
India’s first electoral roll was prepared in early 1951 for the first general election, and even then it underwent a preliminary revision the same year. The Election Commission uses three methods of revision: Regular, Summary, and Intensive (House-to-House). Intensive Revision—door-to-door verification—began regularly in the 1960s, and since independence has happened only around eight times.
Today, the SIR is mired in controversy, political friction, and conflicting allegations. Accusations of targeted deletions, political motives, and voter manipulation are being made, while others claim it is a necessary purification exercise. The Election Commission maintains that SIR is a routine process. Notably, the last nationwide intensive revision took place between 2002 and 2004, during the BJP-led Atal Bihari Vajpayee government.
But critics argue that the 2025 SIR is fundamentally different—leading to allegations of political intent and foreseeable consequences. The opposition raises four central concerns:
- SIR is being used to conduct citizenship verification, a function not constitutionally vested in the Election Commission.
- The central government is allegedly indirectly implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 through SIR.
- SIR may be laying the groundwork for a National Register of Citizens (NRC), aligning with the BJP’s political agenda.
- It could enable disenfranchisement of valid citizens based on religion or language, using state machinery to brand some as “illegal.”
ALSO READ: ‘I wanted to live…but…’: Another BLO dies by suicide, note alleges SIR pressure
India—the world’s largest democracy—is passing through a strange and unsettling phase. Citizens are scrambling to gather documents to “prove” their citizenship, caught in a narrative of “valid vs invalid” voters, “legal vs illegal” residents. Identity politics has become tangled, and an invisible fear looms: Why must ordinary citizens be afraid? Opinions on citizenship verification have sharply polarized public discourse— from office gatherings to Facebook debates to roadside tea stalls.
Two theoretical frameworks help us understand this moment: jingoism (aggressive, emotional nationalism) and homo sacer (a person stripped of legal protections).
The Concept of Homo Sacer
Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben’s idea of Homo Sacer explains how power and the modern state can reduce individuals to “bare life”—living beings without political protection.
Originating from Roman law, a Homo Sacer is someone who: has no legal protection, yet can be killed without punishment, existing outside both crime and citizenship.
Agamben argues that modern states use this logic in refugee camps, anti-terror regimes, emergency laws, and unregistered migrant zones—where individuals become legally suspended, politically invisible.
Examples today include stateless Rohingya, Syrian refugees, and detainees in Guantanamo Bay—people living in law’s shadow, not under its shield.
Linking it to India’s Voting Roll Debate
The current SIR process, the Election Commission’s role, and the central government’s intentions have pushed ordinary citizens into deep suspicion. Identity becomes the battlefield. Some political groups allege deliberate deletion of their supporters; the other side claims illegal entrants are being added.
ALSO READ: West Bengal BLO Shantimoni Ekka dies by suicide, kin allege SIR pressure; CM reacts
Administrative gaps, political pressure, and micro-level mobilization have fuelled uncertainty and fear—turning the electoral roll into a site of emotional politics.
Jingoism in Play
Jingoism thrives on emotion over reason, conflict over dialogue, slogans over facts. Opposing views are painted as anti-national.
In this climate:
- Some communities are labelled “illegal.”
- Slogans seek to differentiate “real citizens” from “infiltrators.”
- The act of being included or excluded from the voter list becomes a matter of national loyalty.
A standard administrative process turns into a politically charged confrontation. As polarization sharpens, political parties benefit—but citizens become targets rather than participants.
Many who lack documents or political strength risk slipping into a Homo Sacer–like condition, where their rights become uncertain. Jingoistic rhetoric only deepens this vulnerability.
The Long-Term Danger
In a functioning democracy, excessive suspicion around electoral roll revisions, communal accusations, and nationalist divisions threaten the stability of the system itself. Over time, it corrodes democratic trust and weakens social cohesion.
The voter list—meant to empower citizens—risks becoming an instrument of identity politics, exclusion, and fear.
