In the late seventies, I was in Bhopal as a reporter with The Hitavada. I had the opportunity to cover two elections — in 1977, when the Congress was routed, and in 1980, when the Congress returned to power. I have subsequently covered several elections, but I never saw the same voter enthusiasm as in 1977.

The voter turnout was huge. However, one booth recorded the lowest percentage of voting. It was less than 30 per cent. The booth catered to a particular area in the BHEL Township, where all the top officials of the public sector company, including the Executive Director, stayed.

The point I wanted to highlight is that the more educated and affluent a person is, the less interest they have in voting. Why? Because they do not need government services. Their children will not attend a government school; their family has the benefit of medical insurance, allowing them to be treated in a five-star hospital; they do not travel by public transport; and they reside in a gated area where security is also private.

The reverse is true about the poor who depend on government services for everything — from food to education to health to burial or cremation. Is it any wonder that they take more interest in exercising their franchise? Voting is one occasion when a poor person feels that they have a stake in the system.

This was not the case during the British days when a semblance of democracy was first introduced. Only those who paid a certain amount or more as income tax or owned several acres of land had the right to vote. The right to vote was a matter of privilege for them.

One great thing that the Founding Fathers of the Constitution did was to introduce the concept of universal adult suffrage. This meant that everyone — rich or poor, educated or illiterate, man or woman above 21 (now 18) — could vote. In 1950, when the Constitution came into being and the first elections were held in 1952, women did not enjoy voting rights in many countries, including some even in Europe.

When a voter enters the polling booth and exercises their vote, they are all alone. Nobody in the world can control them. They are free to choose any candidate or reject all of them. They also know that nobody can punish them for their action. For less than a minute that they stay in the booth, they are a totally sovereign person.

Until recently, the Election Commission would urge people to enrol themselves as voters and cast their votes. It would even ask people of eminence to make such appeals. On the day of polling anywhere, social media are full of pictures of people and families showing the indelible mark on their fingers — proof that they voted.

The situation is undergoing a metamorphosis about which political parties do not even appear to be aware. If the Election Commission — I mean the Modi government — is allowed to have its way, tens of millions of people in this country would be disenfranchised. If Gujarat was the laboratory of Hindutva, Bihar is the laboratory of Disenfranchisement.

As everyone knows, Bihar will go to the polls in October to elect a new Assembly. The Election Commission has set in motion an "intensive revision of electoral rolls" in the state. There is nothing per se wrong with this exercise, as those who died need to be deleted from the rolls and those who reached the age of 18 need to be included.

Revision of electoral rolls is a prelude to the holding of elections. Bihar, like every other state, went to the polls in 2024 to elect a new Parliament. And that is how Narendra Modi is the Prime Minister for a third time! He did one thing very dramatically.

The selection committee to choose the Chief Election Commissioner and other commissioners used to be headed by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. He cleverly removed the CJI from the committee. Instead, a Cabinet member, who is there at the mercy of the PM, was included. This allows the PM to appoint any Tom, Dick or Harry as an election commissioner. Do you know who that Cabinet Minister is? He is Amit Shah, whom some call the alter ego of Modi, while others describe as his Sancho Panza.

When the selection process started, a friend of mine wanted to try his luck. He was told that it was pointless to try, as Shah wanted his own trusted person in that post. That is how Gyanesh Kumar holds the post of CEC. He has served under Shah for a long time.

It was during TN Seshan's tenure as CEC that the government appointed two election commissioners, essentially to curb his authority. But within a few days, Seshan showed the government that even if it appointed 100 ECs to control him, it was his word that would ultimately prevail. Shah and Gyanesh Kumar know only too well what Seshan demonstrated indisputably — the ECs are expendable.

When Bihar went to the polls in 2024, there was an electoral roll. The people of Bihar knew whether they were on the rolls or not. If they were not included in the rolls because they had not yet attained the age of 18 at that time, they should have applied for enrollment. Similarly, many would have died during the interregnum. Their names need to be deleted from the rolls.

That is why, before every election, there is a review of the voters' list. Logically, the electoral rolls of 2024 should have been revised. After all, it was on the basis of these rolls that Modi was elected a third time. Their validity could not be questioned.

The EC does not simply refer to the revision as 'revision.' They call it intensive revision. And they say that the last time "intensive revision" of electoral rolls happened was in 2003 — that is, over two decades ago. Anyone whose name appears on the list does not need to provide any certificate or proof to be included in the new rolls.

Who keeps an extract of the 2003 voters' list? When this issue was raised, the government responded with a clever stratagem. They made the 2003 list available in the public domain. Everyone in Bihar can check the list and ascertain their status. The Commission also mentioned that the draft electoral roll as of today had 7.96 crore voters.

As per the 2003 rolls, there were 4.96 crore voters in Bihar. They do not have to show any proof, except an extract from the rolls, to prove their status. Many people thought that only about 3 crore (7.96 - 4.96 = 3 crore) have to show proof.

What was carefully overlooked or forgotten was that out of the 4.96 crore voters in 2003, at least 2 crore would have died or migrated from the state during the last 22 years. Life expectancy is one of the lowest in Bihar. Equally important, the people of Bihar are migratory in nature. They can be seen in large numbers in Delhi, Punjab and Kerala, for instance. This means that about 5 crore people will have to show proof of identity and residence to get enrolled.

The revision process began a week ago. Only three weeks are left to complete the process. How can the cases of such a large number of people be verified in such a short time? The answer is "impossible" unless the EC is using the whole exercise to hoodwink the people.

A person born after 2003 who is now over 18 wants to be enrolled as a voter; what should they do? The government says that they can produce one of 11 documents. What are those documents? An identity card issued by the state or central government, like the one issued to Members of Parliament or members of the State Assembly. Even ordinary government employees, such as peons, clerks, and officers, not to mention IAS and IPS officers, can show their identity cards. They will be accepted.

For others, a copy of a valid passport, proof of residence or property in the applicant's name, a school leaving certificate, a copy of a degree certificate, and a driving licence, among others, can be provided. Birth certificates of parents or self are also valid.

Bihar is one state where delivery at home is a common practice. How can they have hospital records of birth? Illiteracy is rampant. How can they produce a certificate to show that they passed any state board examination? I have travelled extensively in Bihar. There are many places where people live on the roadsides when the rivers get flooded. How can they be expected to carry certificates when they run away to safety from flood waters?

There are millions of people who do not own any land or a house. They live in makeshift houses and huts. How can they produce any of these documents?

Two documents that most of the poor can produce are their Aadhaar Cards and current ration cards. They were required by the government to obtain Aadhaar cards, which are necessary to receive payments under the Mahatma Gandhi Employment Guarantee Scheme. Even to avail of the midday meal in government schools, an Aadhaar card is necessary.

By the government's own admission, tens of millions of people live availing of subsidised food grains made available through fair price shops. Alas, neither the Aadhaar Card nor the ration card is recognised as any proof to be enrolled as a voter in Bihar.

When the Aadhaar card was conceptualised and introduced in 2009, it was touted as the poor man's passport. It was claimed that the 12-digit unique identification number for a person cannot be duplicated and will serve all purposes except for travelling abroad. Now the government says the Aadhaar card is nothing but a certificate of residence. To buttress its argument, it says even a foreigner who lives in India can have it.

Such an argument is advanced to mislead the people. There are tens of thousands of Biharis who work in far-off places with their families. They will not be able to visit Bihar and ensure that their names are enrolled in the voters' list. The result is that a large number of people will be left out of the list. They are invariably poor. Among them will be a large number of Muslims who will have great difficulty in enrolling themselves because of the prejudices against them, fanned by the Hindutva forces.

We all know how a large number of people in Assam had to go from pillar to post to prove their identity when the first National Register of Citizens was created in the state. There too, the poor were asked to submit such "easy-to-obtain" documents like a passport, an MP's identity card, Ph.D. degree certificates, etc. Yet, they managed to get some of the valid certificates. Many of them were rejected because the spellings of names on the certificate did not match those given in the application.

Their status as Indians is questionable. They can be thrown out, as had allegedly happened when some Rohingyas in Delhi were taken by ship and asked to swim to safety.

As a result, 19 million Assamese are not included in the register. Amit Shah had famously said that the government would first introduce the Citizenship Amendment Act and then the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Since the voters' identity card is one of the basic documents required for inclusion in the NRC, which will be mandatory, all those not included in the voters' list in Bihar face an existential crisis.

Soon, such intensive revisions will happen in states like West Bengal and Kerala, which will go to the polls in less than a year. The threat is ominous. It is surprising that nobody challenges the ingenious way in which millions of people will be disenfranchised either in the court or in the public sphere. If Shah and his chosen man have their way, we will be back to the days when only the privileged could vote. That would be the death knell of universal suffrage—one of the greatest legacies of our democratic Constitution.