BY MOHAMMAD TARIQUE SALEEM
Uttar Pradesh is launching a major cleanup of its voter lists which starts from November 4, covering more than 154 million people at over 162,000 polling booths. The goal is straightforward: remove duplicates, add new names, and prepare for future votes. But opposition groups are sounding warnings, fearing the process could quietly erase thousands from underrepresented groups, turning a routine update into a battle over fairness.
The Samajwadi Party, led by its chief Akhilesh Yadav, is at the forefront, claiming the state’s BJP leaders are stacking the deck by choosing overseers based on their social backgrounds. In a formal letter to the state’s top election official, SP leader Shyam Lal Pal pointed to favoritism in selections, saying it undermines impartiality. He referenced troubles in last year’s local contests in places like Sisamau and Katehari, where complaints about unfair removals went unanswered by the national Election Commission.
Akhilesh Yadav took it further in a Lucknow media briefing, insisting the commission has turned a blind eye to grievances for years. “This isn’t oversight—it’s influence,” he said, highlighting how around 18,000 names, mostly from lower castes and religious minorities, vanished in recent polls. To fight back, the SP is stationing dedicated watchers at every polling site, focused on safeguarding backward classes, Dalits, and minorities—groups they call the PDA alliance.
Congress isn’t staying silent either. They’re upset about a sudden shuffle of high-level administrators right after the revision was announced, moving 46 senior civil servants, including a dozen district heads. Party voice Anil Yadav called it a direct breach of election rules that bar such changes during sensitive periods. Spokeswoman Anshu Awasthi pushed for full breakdowns showing who gets added or cut by community, arguing without it, the whole effort looks suspicious. “They’re using this to steal votes before urban elections even start,” she charged, seeing patterns of targeted erasures.
The ripples have reached other states. In Tamil Nadu, the DMK government is challenging a rule allowing a summary from Bihar’s own voter revision as proof of identity for new enrollments there. Lawmaker N.R. Elango labeled it absurd—how can someone be registered in one state mid-year and suddenly qualify elsewhere? Allies like the VCK and NTK agree, suspecting a ploy to sneak in workers from the north and tilt local balances.
Election authorities brush off the criticism, explaining the Bihar document is just one option among many and only for those who’ve truly relocated. They insist checks will catch any abuse. Still, the outcry grows, pulling in questions about caste in bureaucracy, timing of transfers, and whether migrations are being exploited.
What began as a technical refresh has exposed deep cracks in trust. Parties on the outside are mobilizing grassroots defenses, while officials vow strict neutrality. In a country where every vote counts, this Uttar Pradesh exercise could set the tone for elections nationwide. If mishandled, it risks fueling doubts that India’s democratic machinery is rigged against the vulnerable. The next few weeks will test whether the system can prove its even-handedness or if the accusations will harden into lasting skepticism.
