6 min readMay 1, 2026 06:18 PM IST First published on: May 1, 2026 at 06:18 PM ISTUnder normal circumstances, an increase in voter turnout is considered an indication of democracy’s vibrancy. Over the past four decades, as electoral data became increasingly available in the public domain, turnout was seen as a ready indicator of the likely verdict; the drawback being that the same figure could be, and was, used to justify contrasting forecasts or assessments.Higher turnout has often been seen alternatingly as a mandate against the incumbent government or an endorsement of the ruling party. There was also at least one instance when a rise in turnout was interpreted as voters choosing political continuity in the face of a threat to “national” security, coupled with a “sympathy” vote for the ruling party. This was in 1984, after Indira Gandhi’s assassination, when 63.56 per cent of voters lined up, as against 56.32 per cent in 1980 and thereafter declining to 61.95 per cent in 1989.AdvertisementHigher turnout, however, never came under the public glare as it has in the just-concluded polls in four states and one Union Territory. The decision of the Election Commission of India to conduct the Special Intensive Revision posthaste, with the politically driven objective of “purifying” the electoral rolls for all five assemblies, was the singular reason for this. But of these, the SIR in West Bengal was most politically contentious, not just for its comparatively extended timeline, but also for a past associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party.By mid-2025, as the state entered the politically charged pre-poll period, it had already been three-and-a-half decades since the BJP launched its political campaign against “foreigners” or “infiltrators” from Bangladesh, allegedly entering India illegally and altering the demography of places they settled in. This campaign was neatly timed with the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation in the late 1980s, and enabled the widening of the nascent Hindutva plank.By that time, the Assam agitation had run its full course, during which then-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief M D Deoras made a politically indicative assertion: Hindus from Bangladesh must be treated as refugees, while Muslims should be treated as infiltrators. In 1993, during Delhi’s first assembly election after being granted partial statehood, the BJP made the repatriation of Bangladeshi “foreigners” a central plank of its successful campaign.AdvertisementThe BJP continued to espouse this issue, although it petered out somewhat after 2004. It was majorly revived during the Lok Sabha elections in 2014 with slogans and assertions that are now part of India’s political lexicon. Over the past 12 years, this campaign not only turned ceaseless but became more virulent. As events in the National Capital Region and several other states in north and west India in recent years show, survival has become hazardous for even genuine Bengali Muslim citizens of India if they live outside the state. Despite accounting for almost 27 per cent of the state’s population, they were collectively cast, along with “actual” illegal immigrants, as Bangladeshis. This campaign against them is neatly coupled with the campaign to “invisibilise” all Muslims: For example, by preventing them — forcefully, and through administrative orders — from offering Friday namaz on public grounds.Also Read | In a system where even dignity requires documentation, who’s the real villain of Jitu Munda’s story?The opacity, hurriedness and insensitivity with which the SIR was conducted in West Bengal was one of the biggest reasons for the unprecedented turnout in the two phases. The figures spoke for themselves, but ironically, they were of use to both the Trinamool Congress and the BJP. The entire SIR process, the extraordinary number of deletions, the Supreme Court contributing with its injudicious order not permitting 2.7 million people to vote, was of use primarily to the TMC. The BJP, on the other hand, sought votes on the basis of its “success” in “cleaning” the rolls by eliminating dead or phantom/ghost voters, those who had multiple votes across different locations in their names, and of course, those who simply had no right to vote due to being illegal immigrants or “ghuspaithiyas”.you may likeThe TMC’s campaign against the SIR enhanced the fears of previously uninterested voters who concluded that being on the electoral rolls was essential for them to be considered legitimate residents. Migrant workers and other professionals outside the state also rushed back at enormous cost; they thought voting this time was essential to remain on the voters’ list and that this in turn was necessary to remain citizens on paper. For them, the vote and their name in the voters’ list became a synonym, maybe even more than the Aadhaar card or passport. Neither is now considered by its holders as being sufficient for seeking what is rightfully theirs. It is too early for a detailed post-mortem on the SIR in West Bengal. Undeniably, the process remains questionable, especially because it was politically driven, thus raising worries over the ECI’s impartiality and whether people can continue having faith in the electoral process.The BJP stoked the fears of those who had faced harassment from the TMC’s cadre over the past 15 years. Central police forces in large numbers and polling staff from outside the state made these people confident of voting without risking safety. The other major issue that propelled turnout was that of identity, as framed differently by the two parties. The BJP fanned the communal and exclusivist Hindu identity by claiming it was under threat from Muslims and those appeasing them, while the TMC framed the inclusivist Bengali identity as facing a threat from the BJP, driven by “outsiders”. These two conceptualisations of the Indian nation and nationhood remain as they have been since the late 19th century, but more pronouncedly from 1925, when the RSS was established. Though surviving as different streams within the national discourse, this is the first time that the “secular-versus-cultural nationalism” divergence has manifested itself so starkly in an election and boosted electoral turnout in an unprecedented manner.Mukhopadhyay is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times and The RSS: Icons of the Indian Right