Resolve SIR before SSR

The wounds opened by the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) are far from healed. The repercussions of the 13 crore deletions continue to reverberate, and the Election Commission of India’s credibility is under severe strain. Against this backdrop, announcing a Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in 17 States and Union Territories, including poll-bound Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Uttarakhand, seems ill-timed. Even the two Election Commissioners are understood to have raised concerns about the timing. Safeguards such as the cap on Form 7 objections and searchable text PDFs are welcome, but they cannot substitute for trust. Until the controversies surrounding the SIR are resolved, deleted voters accounted for and the Opposition’s concerns addressed, a fresh exercise risks reopening old wounds.

A. Thirugnanasambantham,

Coimbatore

The Election Commission’s decision to undertake an SSR raises an uncomfortable question: why was the far more intrusive SIR necessary in the first place? More intriguing is the conflation of “Special” and “Intensive” in a single exercise, although neither the Constitution nor the statute expressly names this composite procedure. The timing of the SSR is equally intriguing. Does it reflect belated recognition of the need for safeguards against wrongful deletions? The ECI must explain why ordinary revision was sidelined and how eligible voters wrongfully excluded under the SIR will be identified and restored. The ECI must scrap the SIR forthwith across the country, including in States where it has already been completed, and restore the position pending a transparent, lawful and fair revision.

M. Jameel Ahmed,

Mysuru

A ‘fair deal’

The recently approved strategic disinvestment of IDBI Bank invites a question larger than the transaction itself: is the state necessarily the best custodian of every asset it owns? The use of the term “strategic restructuring” instead of conventional disinvestment raises a pertinent question: does a change in terminology alter the economic substance of surrendering control? The real distinction is not public versus private, but ownership versus purpose.

Vijay Singh Adhikari,

Nainital, Uttarakhand