Shikha Mukerjee | Amid UN Query, Can Govt Uphold Credibility Of SIR?

An imperious denial to three special UN rapporteurs seeking answers to a set of seven questions on the process of the EC’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is neither reasonable, responsible, transparent and accountable. Calling the questions “unfounded” and “unwarranted”, and hiding behind the Supreme Court’s judgment upholding the EC’s power to conduct the SIR is neither suitable nor appropriate.

The three special UN rapporteurs -- Nicolas Levart on minority issues, Irene Khan on promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and Nazila Ghanea on freedom of religion or belief -- asked seven questions and urged the Narendra Modi government “that all necessary interim measures be taken to halt the alleged violations and prevent their re-occurrence”.

The letter, dated May 1, 2026, set a 60-day time limit for providing explanations. More significantly, the letter made it clear the report would be submitted to the Human Rights Council. The rapporteurs believed publicly expressing their concerns was appropriate and necessary because “the information upon which the press release will be based is sufficiently reliable to indicate a matter warranting immediate attention”. Also, “the wider public should be alerted to the potential implications of (these) allegations”.

The global community aren’t interfering old busybodies. A verbal fusillade by unnamed EC officials isn’t enough to uphold India’s integrity and its commitment to democracy and its processes.

There is a dissonance between the EC’s parading of its credentials as posted on its website that India is “the largest practising democracy in the world and with over 75 years’ record of holding effective, transparent and credible elections, playing a leading role in promoting participatory democracy and election administration worldwide”, and its response to the UN rapporteurs’ questions. By failing to answer and explain, as any responsible institution must when its integrity is questioned, the EC has failed to be accountable for its actions.

It is thus bizarre that the EC says it’s a founding member of the Association of World Election Bodies and member of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in Stockholm.

Why would clients come to the EC in future, from 141 countries for training of election officials, if it feels it is not answerable to the global community. Why would the EC be invited to provide “experts and observers for elections to various countries (like) Fiji, Cambodia, Thailand, Nepal, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka”?

These declarations on holding effective, transparent and credible elections have been challenged by the UN rapporteurs. The letter from then is seeking answers to why there were “the large-scale removal of millions of names” and why “these removals affected members of minority groups”.

The letter expresses its grave concern that “senior government officials, including the Union home minister, have reportedly publicly framed the deletion of voter names as targeting ‘illegal Bangladeshi immigrants’ -- rhetoric that conflates legitimate Indian Muslim citizens with foreign nationals. It is reported there has been repeated invocation of this framing by the highest levels of the executive, including the characterisation of the SIR as a mechanism to ‘purify’ electoral rolls of Infiltrators”.

The EC’s infantile reaction is, to say the least, inadequate and inappropriate. The EC, however, is not alone in adopting the imperious-dismissive option.

In 2021, before the SIR, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar hit back at critics for calling India an “electoral autocracy”, and said it was “hypocrisy”, adding that India wasn’t “looking for their approval”.

The Modi government is within its rights to sound affronted, but it doesn’t prevent anyone from tearing apart what the Indian government does.

In a recent interview, former external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha, once a BJP member, said of India’s current foreign policy that it was more “event management” then diplomacy. He added that the country had become a “subordinate nation” to the United States. He may have his reasons. He virtually echoed the Opposition Congress line on the Modi government’s response to the West Asia and Iran crisis, especially the PM’s visit to Israel, hours before the war erupted with Iran, about which he appeared clueless.

It’s true that the world, except India’s South Asian neighbours, seem happy to host the Prime Minister, as Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Seychelles and earlier the UAE, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, France and Slovakia did in May, June and July. It’s equally true that NGOs like Sweden’s Varieties of Democracy Institute and US based Freedom House, which downgraded India from being “free” to “partly free”, have been closely monitoring India’s democratic processes.

The free trade agreements are strictly business; signing 16 FTAs has nothing to do with internal assessments of various foreign governments and civil society outfits about India’s democracy, its secular credentials and restrictive practices that have reconfigured rights and freedoms. In Norway, the PM was asked by journalist Helle Lyng why he doesn’t take questions. She also asked Indian diplomats at a press conference later: “Why should we trust you (India)? Can you try to stop the human rights violations in your country?” For the record, Lyng was trolled and received death threats for her temerity.

All questions, even unwarranted ones, deserve reasonable replies. Actually, the more unwarranted and unfounded the questions are, the more detailed and patient the replies ought to be. Arrogance is not a reasonable position. It merely invites more and more searching questions by the persistent.

The habit of neither taking questions nor answering them with patience and courtesy is bad for India’s credibility on the one hand and damaging for democracy and value-based politics, on the other. Some situations, like the theft inside the Ram Mandir complex in Ayodhya that was consecrated by the Prime Minister, need explanations. At the temple’s consecration, Mr Modi declared it was a moment when a new time cycle (Kaal Chakra) begins and slavery ends; when “Dev se Desh, Ram se Rashtra (deity to country and Ram to nation) is ushered in”.

The explanation, to be credible, needs to come from the Prime Minister; not from the trustees of the Ram Mandir Janmabhoomi Teerth trust, who failed in their duty to prevent the theft.

Explaining why the SIR as a process is entirely credible is also the Prime Minister’s job; especially so, when the UN rapporteurs have named “senior government officials” for reportedly framing the deletions as a witch-hunt, by conflating the identity of Indians who are Muslims with illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators.

Explanations, taking the people into confidence, are a necessary part of the Prime Minister’s job. Ducking it will not stop the questions; answering them will certainly invite more. That, too, is part of the job.