Supreme consent on improvement in voter list is commendable

The Supreme Court’s green signal on voter list reform in Bihar is not just a judicial decision, but a historic and relevant decision to confirm the value of democracy. The Supreme Court has tried to solve the difficulty of the common people by suggesting the Election Commission to recognize Aadhaar, ration and voter cards to review the voter list in Bihar. This will make the process easier and will help reduce the apprehensions. Of course, fake names should not be in the voter list, but during such campaigns, instead of extracting more and more names from the voter list during such campaigns, it should be on that not a single citizen is deprived of joining the election process. The opposition should not accept this decision as a political defeat, but to consider it an opportunity, to earn public confidence, to increase faith in democracy and most important to keep the national interest above politics. The work of special intensive revision (SIR) in the voter list should be started not only in Bihar, but in other states of the country on priority basis.

The decision of the Supreme Court is paramount in Indian democracy. If the Election Commission is ready to hold elections, and there is any error or flaw in any processes related to it, then it is constitutional to improve it, then no political party should have the right to question it. But the question which raises the psyche of the public, is that the opposition repeatedly opposed the issues related to electoral processes, national interests or security, why? One of the main arguments that came out about the SIR in Bihar about SIR was that the time is not suitable, the government is unstable, or social equations are not ready. But the Supreme Court clarified that the right to represent the public is the best. But getting elections from flawed or fake voter list is also an insult to democracy. The court also indicated that it is necessary to perform constitutional duties on time, not delay.

The court has not given any order on SIR, but has pointed to its intentions. The question raised by the court about timing seems appropriate. Assembly elections are to be held in Bihar by the end of this year. In such a situation, it may not be as much time for such a detailed exercise as it should be found. One of the reasons for the SIR in Bihar is certainly a timing. Those who do not have the necessary documents, they will not be able to arrange them so soon. However, the Commission has assured that no person will be excluded from the voter list without giving them a chance to speak. In view of the elections in Bihar, the number of fake voters increased or the so -called political parties have increased these fake voters. In such a situation, action on these fake voters is expected. This case should not be limited to Bihar only. How the voter lists will be reviewed in other states will depend on the process adopted in Bihar. In such a situation, natural eyes are fixed on the fact that in the Supreme Court, what kind of form is decided in the Supreme Court?

The opposition’s job in Indian politics is to monitor the policies of the government, criticize, but that criticism should be creative, not anti-national. Today we are seeing that Article 370 is to be removed, the Citizenship Amendment Act-CAA, the National Citizen Register-NRC, the Agneepath Yojana, or the Ram temple construction-the opposition has unanimously opposed every issue. Whether there are sensitive issues related to China or Pakistan, or the decision of national security, the opposition often opposed the government in unison at those points, while the opposition should show solidarity with the government and the country on such nationality issues. This is not a coincidence, a contaminated political strategy is being made that ‘oppose the government, even if the issue is of the national interest. In these situations, there is a big question of the general public whether the opposition is with the country or only with the hunger for power? Is it not a mockery of democracy to oppose the election process? Is it not just the politics of selfishness to challenge the decisions of the judiciary? Will the politics of opposition be weakened by standing with the government on national issues? When the opposition protests only to protest, its moral force is weak, and the public’s confidence breaks.

Indian politics now needs a creative opposition, such an opposition that is not in power, can still stand with power for the nation. Which can understand that democracy runs from both the government and the opposition, but the nation is at the top. The Supreme Court’s permission to the Election Commission in Bihar symbolizes that institutions are still protecting justice and constitutionalism. But if the opposition also adopts a negative attitude on this decision, then it will be against the aspirations of the public, democratic values and the direction of developing India. The opposition should connect his politics with public interest, not by protests. If the opposition does not change itself towards thinking in the national interest, it will gradually lose relevance.

The foundation of Indian democracy rests on fair, transparent and inclusive elections. In order to strengthen this democratic process, the voter list reform campaign launched by the Election Commission in Bihar recently became the center of national debate. But the thing that attracted the most attention is that during this entire exercise, the opposition once again appeared unitedly opposing it, even if the matter is related to the strength of national interest and democracy. The work of correcting voter lists in Bihar, trimming fake voters, and linking new qualified voters was not a general administrative work, but a democratic purification. This improvement not only makes elections transparent, but also protects civil rights. But some political parties objected to this process and made the court stand with ethnic figures, political balance and electoral mathematics.

The Supreme Court clearly stated that purification of voter list is a constitutional process and cannot be interrupted. The court not only termed the action of the Election Commission as valid, but also called it necessary for democracy. This decision also shows that now the time has come when electoral honesty cannot be suppressed in the noise of political noise and vote bank politics. The opposition’s response is almost automatic, whether it is the issue of economic reform, defense policy, of foreign policy, or now of voter list. The question arises whether every reform process, no matter how democratic or transparent, is just a political threat to the opposition? This attitude of the opposition shows that it has less trust in constitutional institutions and more trust in its political calculations.

 

Voting is the biggest right for an ordinary citizen. If any reform process ensures that not a single fake voter list, no eligible voters are left out, rising above caste, religion or politics and voter list is made on the basis of citizenship, then why is it opposed to it? The opposition is prone to fear that if the voter list becomes clean, their alleged traditional votes can weaken. They fear that caste and regional equations may change. But this argument is against the basic principle of democracy. Democracy ‘reflect what is, not’ what is needed ‘.

– Fine Garg

Writer, journalist, columnist