The great revision: Citizenship anxiety returns to Assam’s electoral rolls

 Chandan Kumar Nath 

(chandankumarnath7236@gmail.com)

The political landscape of Assam is once again poised for a major shake-up, not on the streets, but on the delicate pages of its electoral rolls. As the nation’s attention focuses on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists, a rigorous, ground-up cleansing exercise, Assam finds itself at a unique, precarious juncture. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has carved out a separate, special order for Assam’s SIR, a decision that underscores the state’s unparalleled challenge in balancing democratic rights with complex citizenship adjudication.

This impending revision is more than a bureaucratic cleanup; it is a profound political and social statement, one that forces a difficult question upon the state: Is this an essential democratic upgrade or a catalyst for renewed demographic anxiety and potential disenfranchisement? The answer, like most things in Assam, is layered, complex, and deeply rooted in its tumultuous past. At its heart, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a democratic imperative. Electoral rolls, over decades, accumulate significant discrepancies: deceased voters remain listed, migrants are often duplicated across constituencies and, most critically for Assam, the persistent spectre of “ineligible electors” casts a shadow. For a state that has grappled with the issue of illegal migration for generations, the promise of a “clean” electoral roll is a powerful political aspiration. The core objective of SIR is to restore the integrity of the universal adult franchise. When rolls are bloated with ‘ghost voters’ or duplicates, genuine votes are diluted, and the election results can be skewed. Proponents, including the state government, argue that the SIR is vital for weeding out these anomalies, particularly in historically vulnerable areas like the riverine ‘sar’ areas that have long been cited as hubs for suspicious voting patterns. The process mandates Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to conduct detailed house-to-house verification, a level of scrutiny that goes far beyond routine annual revisions. This meticulous exercise aims to ensure the principle of ‘one person, one vote’ is upheld in its truest sense. Crucially, this revision follows the 2023 constituency delimitation exercise, which redrew the boundaries of all 126 Assembly seats in Assam. A comprehensive revision is now essential to align the voter data with the new geographical and administrative realities. Without a thorough SIR, the new constituencies would be built upon a foundation of outdated and inaccurate data, potentially undermining the rationale behind the politically contentious delimitation itself.

Assam’s electoral list is unique because of the category of ‘Doubtful’ or ‘D’ Voters, whose citizenship status is pending before the Foreigners’ Tribunals. The ECI’s decision to issue a separate revision order for Assam is a direct acknowledgement of the state’s pending National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise, which remains unvalidated by the Supreme Court. The ECI is expected to issue a special format that will specifically address the issue of ‘D’ voters. A definitive, legally compliant revision holds the potential to provide clarity on the voting rights of these individuals, a step crucial for their humanitarian and political stability. While the importance of an accurate electoral roll is undeniable, the very nature of a ‘Special Intensive Revision’ in a state scarred by the NRC process is laden with potential trouble, raising profound concerns about disenfranchisement and the politicisation of citizenship verification. The primary fear is that the SIR will become a ‘mini-NRC’ by another name. The pan-India SIR, as seen in its pilot phase in Bihar, requires voters whose names do not appear in the last intensive revision roll (often from the early 2000s) to submit an array of documents to prove their eligibility. In Assam, where a large number of people, particularly the poor, the illiterate, and those from socio-economically disadvantaged communities, struggle to produce legacy documents, this shift in the ‘burden of proof’ is a monumental hurdle.

The 2019 NRC exercise demonstrated how even minor clerical errors in documents could lead to exclusion. The SIR’s goal of identifying and removing ‘ineligible non-citizens’ risks conflating voter verification with nationality determination, a domain that legally belongs to the Foreigners’ Tribunals. Critics fear that without robust safeguards, the process could be discriminatorily applied, leading to the deletion of thousands of names, especially from minority-dominated riverine belts and communities with weak documentary evidence. Assam is slated to hold its Assembly polls by May 2026. If the ECI opts for a full-scale SIR, it must be completed with the publication of the final electoral roll well before the poll announcement, likely by early March 2026. This tight timeline adds enormous pressure on the Booth Level Officers (BLOs), often schoolteachers or government employees who are already overburdened. Rushed verification, administrative fatigue, and insufficient training dramatically increase the potential for arbitrary or wrongful deletions, turning a necessary revision into a process of exclusion. The revision cannot be divorced from Assam’s volatile political climate. The ruling dispensation views the SIR as a tool to ensure a “purer” demographic in the voter list, while opposition parties and civil society groups perceive it as a tactical move to undermine minority voting strength. This polarisation means every administrative step, every deadline, and every deletion is viewed through a suspicious, political lens. The SIR, therefore, risks becoming a weapon in the political arena, potentially eroding public trust in the ECI’s constitutional impartiality.

The Special Intensive Revision in Assam is a classic example of walking a razor’s edge of governance. It is undoubtedly important for the health of a democracy to have an accurate, up-to-date electoral roll. The outdated nature of the existing lists makes a comprehensive overhaul a legitimate, pressing need, especially post-delimitation. However, the context of Assam with the shadow of the NRC, the unresolved status of millions, and a history of ethnic-political tension makes this necessary overhaul a potential source of major trouble. The ECI’s decision to handle Assam separately is commendable, acknowledging the state’s unique complexities. The success of the forthcoming SIR will hinge entirely on the transparency, fairness, and sensitivity with which it is executed. The ECI must implement explicit, clear guidelines that strictly adhere to Supreme Court precedents; prior inclusion in the roll creates a presumption of citizenship, and no deletion can occur without a proper notice, hearing, and a reasoned order.

If the revision is conducted meticulously, with an emphasis on inclusion over exclusion and a simplified documentation process, it can deliver a more robust democratic framework. If it descends into a document-intensive, politicised witch-hunt, it will only serve to reignite the flames of demographic strife, making the pursuit of electoral integrity an unmitigated humanitarian crisis. Assam holds its breath, hoping the promise of a purer democratic list does not come at the cost of its citizens’ fundamental rights.