)
It is rightly described as the greatest exercise of democratic franchise in human history as many phases of the 2014 general elections roll through the country. Out of India's billion-plus population, some 815 million are eligible to vote. Yet, a story less told is of the many Indians who are legally entitled to vote yet are, in practice, disenfranchised.
While non-resident Indians (NRIs) who remain Indian citizens now legally have the right to vote, they actually have to come to their polling booth in person to cast their ballot. Sure, if you're a heart surgeon in Houston or an investment banker in New York, you could plan a mini-vacation around the election date in your state and come home and vote. In fact, I know a few people who are actually doing this.
However, suppose you're one among the seven-million-odd migrant workers - many of them slogging away at low-paying jobs - in the Gulf? Even if your employer gave you time off, which is unlikely, the cost in forgone wages of coming back to India makes the exercise prohibitively expensive.
Likewise, if you're studying abroad - there are close to a 100,000 in the US alone - elections could fall at the end of term and exam time for those on the semester system and again it would be impractical to come home and vote even for those who could afford it. Surprisingly, given how vocal many NRIs are about Indian politics and society on social media and elsewhere, only a little over 11,000 are registered to vote in these elections, most of whom are from Kerala working in the Gulf.
Of course, if it becomes easier to vote from abroad, more people will likely register. In response to a petition filed by an NRI doctor, the Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission (EC) to examine the possibility that NRIs could be allowed to vote at Indian missions abroad exactly as the staff working in those missions do.
The EC says it's considering constituting a committee to study whether NRIs could vote over the internet or in some other way. Back home, millions of migrant workers live in Mumbai and the numbers are comparable in other major metros. An admittedly unscientific poll in my own Mumbai neighbourhood found a dozen or more migrants, on my street alone, from North India, mostly Uttar Pradesh and Bihar working as building watchmen, drivers, construction workers, maids, etc. People such as these find themselves in a bind. Most of them are still registered, if they're registered at all, in their home state. Yet, few, if any, can afford the time and lost wages to go home and vote.
On the other hand, many of these workers lack the documentary support (such as proof of address) necessary to get re-registered where they actually live and work. Chander from Uttar Pradesh, a watchman, and Arjun from Bihar, a driver, are following the elections avidly and debating it passionately but rue that circumstances won't permit them to go home and vote. And contrary to the way average voters are often stereotyped, these individuals have a sophisticated and nuanced view of the parties, candidates and issues at stake.
Contrast this to a few privileged people - professionals in Mumbai, Delhi, and Bangalore - who say they will go home and vote. But these are a tiny percentage of the total number of migrants around the country.
The numbers involved are far from trivial. According to 2001 census data, in the preceding decade, some 1.57-million migrants from outside the state came to Mumbai. And nationwide, there were more than 41 million people who had migrated outside their state. This number likely overstates the disenfranchised, because it includes those not of voting age nor does it account for those who've either managed to register themselves where they now live or able to go home and vote. Still, the number of people who would be affected and become effectively disenfranchised is surely large.
There's no easy solution to the problem. The reason for such stringent documentary requirements isn't just the Indian love of bureaucracy and paperwork, but the fact that this reduces the probability of fraudulent voting. If a migrant from UP, for instance, could easily register to vote in Mumbai, what would prevent unscrupulous political fixers from having these people cast a ballot both in Mumbai and their home constituency?
Likewise, allowing postal or internet ballots - as are allowed in some Western countries - would also obviously create a real possibility of large-scale fraud, given the daunting logistical and database challenges necessary to ensure that someone isn't double-counted.
So while most of us rightly revel in this festival of democracy, don't forget the many migrant workers, most of whom at the bottom of the socio-economic totem pole. In a sense, they have an even bigger stake in the election outcome than the middle class or the rich, because government policy will very directly affect not only their livelihoods but their families' prospects of upward mobility. For someone at the margin of subsistence, after all the difference between a five per cent and 10 per cent growth rate or corruption-free welfare schemes that deliver what they're supposed to, could well have an existential impact.
Regrettably, it appears that many are going to be forced by circumstance to be mere spectators of this important election contest.
