The Election Commission of India (ECI) made an extraordinary claim this Sunday. Asserting that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was proceeding in Bihar as per schedule, it claimed that “documents from 98.2 per cent electors have been received” with eight days left for the deadline to file documents, claims and objections to the draft electoral rolls. Another grand success, just like the collection of enumeration forms. Or so the ECI would like us to believe.Ghalib comes to mind: “Ki khushi se mar na jaate agar e’tibar hota (Happily my life I’d give, if I could but believe).” Yet another incredible claim by the ECI; another piece of data designed to dazzle and conceal. Yet another claim that flies in the face of all ground reporting, including in this paper. The figure invites you to think that the mission is completed, that nearly everyone in Bihar has the documents asked for by the ECI, and that everyone on the draft rolls has made it to the final voters’ list. It hides a critical piece of information: The percentage of those who have submitted the documents required by the ECI and those who may have submitted documents like Aadhaar that the ECI refuses to accept. That is going to determine the final number of deletions or the extent of disenfranchisement.AdvertisementTill the ECI decides to share the full truth, or is made to do so by the Supreme Court, we have to rely upon some rough estimates. The Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan had carried out a second sample survey from July 31 to August 13, immediately after the conclusion of the first phase of the SIR and before the publication of the draft rolls. (A report of the first survey was carried in The Indian Express on July 22.) Our volunteers collected information about 1,439 adults from 494 households in 59 booths of 16 assembly constituencies — all selected randomly from the existing electoral rolls. (The survey could not be completed in eight of the 24 constituencies in the original sample.) This small sample is fairly representative — 42 per cent women, 24 per cent Scheduled Caste, 62 per cent OBC and 13 per cent General.Its findings present a sobering picture of what happened on the ground during the SIR. Only 49 per cent of our sample reported submitting a complete enumeration form — filled in, signed, with a photograph and some documents. A majority had either not submitted forms, at least not to their knowledge, or had submitted incomplete ones. In our sample, 81 per cent of all adults had, directly or indirectly, received and returned the enumeration form (everyone who received it reported submission), complete or incomplete. While 3 per cent were simply told that their enumeration form had been filled, 7 per cent had no idea about the status of their enumeration forms. As widely reported, the acknowledgement receipt provided for in the SIR order proved to be a fiction — less than 1 per cent of those who submitted forms reported getting a receipt on a duplicate form, while 10 per cent received an SMS acknowledgement. The remaining 89 per cent have no proof of submission of their enumeration forms. The Supreme Court has now made it mandatory to provide a receipt of submission of documents, but it may be too late.The remaining 9 per cent were the “missing voters” — those residing in Bihar who should have been on the voters’ list but did not figure on either the previous electoral rolls or the recent draft. Within this category, which could translate into nearly 90 lakh people in Bihar, about one-third used to be on the voters’ list at some point, about one-sixth have tried unsuccessfully to enrol themselves, but well over half have never been on the rolls and have never attempted to be. This finding confirms our hypotheses (Rahul Shastri and Yogendra Yadav, ‘The missing voter’, IE, July 31) that Bihar’s voters’ list was not inflated but deflated as it excluded a significant proportion of “missing voters” that were bypassed in the SIR process. None of these was provided an enumeration form, though the SIR order allowed for a “blank form” to be provided in such an eventuality. Hence the weird outcome of the SIR: Over 65 lakh deletions and not a single addition.AdvertisementBefore we turn to documents, we must first ask: How many were required to furnish one of the 11 eligibility documents listed by the ECI? Sadly, the ECI has kept shifting its position on this crucial question. The original SIR order exempted only those whose own name figured in the 2003 voters’ list. A press release of June 30 extended the exemption to parents who featured in 2003, while insisting that their child would still have to submit his documents. In the Supreme Court, the ECI has expanded it further to say that if any person’s parents, or any relation whatsoever, were in the 2003 list, then they don’t need to submit any documents. Our survey showed that if we go by the original criterion, only 48 per cent of the electors on the earlier rolls possessed the extract of the 2003 list and would thus qualify for exemption. There is a significant group (6 percent) who would qualify for this exemption but who say they cannot access the extracts.The number would go up by another 17 per cent if the exemption is extended to anyone whose parents were on the 2003 list.Finally, let us focus on the real issue of documents that the ECI’s latest claim glosses over. How many of those who do not enjoy exemption have submitted a document that the ECI considers valid? Our survey showed that in this category (who cannot trace their names to the 2003 list and are required to give documentary proof), 59 per cent had attached some document with their enumeration form. Of these, only 18 per cent had submitted one of the 11 documents (mostly matriculation, domicile or caste certificates) on the ECI’s list. The remaining 41 per cent had submitted documents, mainly Aadhaar and ration cards, which do not figure on the ECI’s list.Of those without a qualifying extract of the 2003 rolls, 43 per cent have none of the other 11 “eligibility” documents. Just one in 12 of these have applied for a caste or Aawasiya certificate. Even accounting for this, 35-40 per cent will have no eligibility document to submit. Yet, 97 per cent of this group have Aadhaar cards and 99.5 have Aadhaar or ration cards.most readWhile the Supreme Court’s intervention has checked some of the disenfranchising impulse of the SIR, at least in Bihar, the possibility of any further disenfranchisement depends on the nature of the documents considered admissible. The ECI’s dazzling figure of 98.2 per cent cannot conceal the fact that well over one-third of those who have submitted a document may not have submitted and cannot possibly submit one of the 11 listed documents. Our preliminary caste-wise analysis shows that the proportion of those who face exclusion due to a lack of documents is much higher among Dalits and the EBCs.As we wait for the final picture to emerge, there are only two possibilities. One is that the ECI is made to change the requirements under the SIR order. It could use a sleight of hand to expand the scope of exemption from submission of documents or expand the list of documents to include Aadhaar in the list of 11 valid documents. Otherwise, we are looking at a deletion of over two crore names in the SIR exercise.Swami is state coordinator of Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan, Bihar. Shastri and Yadav work with the national team of Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan. Yadav has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the SIR. Acknowledgements: Professor Pushpendra, Professor Muneshwar Yadav, Zafreen Neha, JJSS youth team, Rishi Anand and field surveyors