In West Bengal, 65pc Muslim voters excluded in 3rd phase of SIR

Even before the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll began—conducted in a manner resembling a physician prescribing without examining a patient—senior West Bengal BJP leaders such as Suvendu Adhikari had claimed that around 12 million (1.2 crore) “infiltrators” would be removed before elections in the state.

They made no attempt to conceal who they considered to be part of this “infiltration.” They explicitly stated that “all Bangladeshi infiltrators” and Rohingyas would be excluded.

Following multiple rounds of deletions and scrutiny prior to the first phase of polling, the final list reveals that 9.1 million (91 lakh) people are now unable to vote.

Notably, all of them had cast their votes in the 2024 general election just months earlier. In contrast, only about 190,000 new voters have been added.

According to the Election Commission’s own data, the total number of voters in 2024 stood at 76,610,006. After the revision process began, 5,820,899 names were removed in the first phase.

The Commission claims that some of these individuals are deceased, some have relocated, some were registered in multiple locations, and others could not be found at their registered addresses—thus categorising them as “bogus voters.”

In the first final list published on 28 February, a further 546,053 names were deleted. Subsequently, in the third phase, citing “logical discrepancies,” the Commission removed an additional 6.1 million (61 lakh) names, sparking intense controversy.

A particularly surprising aspect concerns the nature of these “logical discrepancies.” Most objections relate to variations in the spelling of names and surnames.

For instance, surnames such as Bandopadhyay or Mukhopadhyay appear as Banerjee or Mukherjee in older electoral rolls—an issue to which the Commission has objected.

Similarly, discrepancies arise when a woman changes her surname after marriage. Variations in spelling—such as “Mizanur” written with a ‘J’ in one document and a ‘Z’ in another, or slight differences in the spelling of “Rahman”—have also been flagged.

The Commission has stated that those excluded in the third phase must undergo legal adjudication.

Following litigation, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals unable to resolve doubts through adjudication must approach judicial tribunals.

After this legal process, it emerged that out of the 6.1 million (61 lakh) cases, 3,268,119 individuals were deemed valid, while 2,716,393 were classified as invalid.

In effect, within just a year and a half since the 2024 election, approximately 9.1 million (9.1 lakh) previously eligible voters have vanished from the rolls.

Among these are deceased individuals, those who have migrated, those with duplicate registrations, and those deemed “invalid.”

These “invalid” individuals retain the right to reapply through tribunals, but they will not be able to exercise their democratic rights in the current election.

This has become the central point of controversy and criticism. Had the Election Commission conducted the SIR process more carefully and with sufficient time, these 2.7 million (27 lakh) individuals would not have been left in such uncertainty.

The law holds that while the guilty must not escape, it is equally essential that no innocent person is punished.

If, after the election, even 5000 to 10,000 or 500000 to 10,00000 among these 2.7 million (27 lakh) are ultimately declared “valid” by tribunals, the responsibility for depriving them of their constitutional democratic rights will squarely fall on the Election Commission. Yet, the question remains: who will hold the Commission accountable for such a failure?

Opposition parties have alleged that the Election Commission is acting as an ally of the BJP in its attempt to capture Bengal.

Whether or not this claim is entirely accurate, the Commission’s neutrality has come under serious scrutiny for multiple reasons.

Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has, in this regard, failed to provide a convincing explanation.

Mamata Banerjee has consistently maintained from the outset that, having failed to defeat her in elections, the BJP is now attempting to strike at the very root of the electoral process by using the Commission. Following the publication of the final electoral roll, the data suggests that this suspicion and allegation may not be entirely unfounded. Of the 6.1 million (61 lakh) cases listed under adjudication, as many as 65 per cent are Muslims.

Among the 12 per cent of voters declared “invalid” after the SIR process, 5 per cent are Muslims. The figures in Murshidabad, Malda, and North Dinajpur are particularly striking.

The highest number of deletions has occurred in Murshidabad district, where nearly 67 per cent of the population is Muslim.

In the Samserganj constituency of this district alone, 74,775 names have been removed.

In constituencies such as Lalgola, Bhagawangola, Raghunathganj, Farakka, Suti, and Jangipur, deletions range from a maximum of 55,000 to a minimum of 36,000 voters.

In Metiabruz—often referred to as the “mini Lucknow” of Kolkata—40,000 names have been removed.

The Bhabanipur constituency in Kolkata has attracted nationwide attention. In the previous election, BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari defeated Mamata Banerjee in Nandigram by approximately 1,500 votes (the case remains sub judice).

He now challenges the Chief Minister in Bhabanipur. Amit Shah has already conducted a roadshow there, and Narendra Modi is also expected to campaign. In this constituency, 51,000 voters have been removed from the rolls.

In most of these areas, a significant proportion of the excluded voters are Muslims, who have traditionally demonstrated strong electoral support for the Trinamool Congress.

The extent of this support was evident in the 2021 Assembly elections: out of 89 constituencies with 30 per cent or more Muslim voters, the Trinamool Congress won 87.

Among the 112 constituencies with at least 20 per cent Muslim voters, the party secured victory in 106 in the last election.

Mamata Banerjee has stated unequivocally that, acting on BJP’s instructions, the Election Commission has selectively targeted these constituencies.

After 65 per cent of those removed from the consideration list were found to be Muslims, an aggrieved Mamata remarked that Murshidabad, Malda, North 24 Parganas, North Dinajpur, and even Bhabanipur have been “completely ruined.”

She further alleged that the BJP aims to capture the state through “vote robbery.”

While the exclusion of Muslim voters may have pleased sections of the BJP, developments concerning the Matua community have raised concerns within its ranks.

Millions of Hindu migrants from across the border—most of whom identify as Matua followers of Harichand Thakur and Guruchand Thakur—have also seen their names removed in large numbers.

During his visit to Bangladesh, Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid respects at their temple in Orakandi, Gopalganj. Despite his long-standing assurances of granting them citizenship, many still await formal recognition.

With names now being struck off despite the existence of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), there is growing speculation over whether sections of the Matua community may turn away from the BJP.

This concern has intensified in constituencies such as Krishnanagar and Ranaghat in Nadia district, as well as Gaighata, Bongaon, and Thakurnagar in North 24 Parganas—areas where the BJP faces increasing uncertainty.

The current contest is therefore not merely between the Trinamool Congress and the BJP; it has also evolved into a sharp confrontation between political forces in Bengal and the Election Commission itself.

For the first time in independent India, the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, has effectively become a central figure in the political contest.

Even after publishing the final electoral roll, the Commission has not disclosed how many “Bangladeshi infiltrators” or how many “Rohingyas” it has removed from the list.