Identity Politics: The SIR and NRC Debate

The ongoing implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has sparked controversy, with critics like AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi alleging it is a backdoor attempt to introduce the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The concern stems from fears that SIR, which involves door-to-door verification, could disproportionately target marginalized communities, particularly Muslims, under the guise of cleaning up voter lists. While the Election Commission maintains that SIR is a routine exercise to ensure accurate voter data, the timing and political context have raised suspicions, especially given the BJP’s push for NRC and Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in recent years.

The NRC, first implemented in Assam, was designed to identify undocumented immigrants, but its execution led to widespread chaos, with over 19 lakh people excluded—many of them poor and lacking
proper documentation. Critics argue that a nationwide NRC, combined with the CAA—which fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from neighboring countries—would effectively render many Indian Muslims stateless if they cannot prove their ancestry. Supporters, however, contend that NRC is necessary to curb illegal immigration and protect national security. The BJP’s rhetoric around NRC has often conflated illegal migrants with religious identity, deepening anxieties among minorities.

Proponents of SIR argue that updating electoral rolls is essential to prevent voter fraud and ensure fair elections. A clean voter list strengthens democracy by eliminating duplicate or fraudulent entries. However, the lack of transparency in the verification process and past instances of bureaucratic overreach—such as in Assam’s NRC—have eroded trust. If SIR is conducted fairly, it could enhance electoral integrity, but if misused, it risks disenfranchising vulnerable groups. The challenge lies in ensuring that such exercises are neutral, non-discriminatory, and free from political agendas.

The debate over NRC and SIR ultimately reflects a larger tension between national security and civil liberties. While identifying illegal residents is a legitimate state function, any such measure must be implemented with safeguards to protect genuine citizens from undue hardship. The Assam NRC experience showed how poorly designed policies can create humanitarian crises, with many lifelong residents struggling to prove their citizenship. A nationwide NRC without robust documentation infrastructure and legal support would repeat these failures on a larger scale.

India’s pluralism demands policies that unite rather than divide. Electoral reforms like SIR must be pursued with caution, ensuring they do not become tools of exclusion. Similarly, the NRC debate requires a balanced approach—one that addresses security concerns without undermining the citizenship rights of legitimate Indians. The government must prioritize fairness, transparency, and inclusivity to prevent these initiatives from deepening societal fissures. The real test lies not in identifying outsiders but in securing the rights of those who belong.