In the politically vibrant Bihar landscape — a state that is synonymous with intricate social hierarchies and grassroots democracy — an administrative exercise has recently stirred deep uneasiness. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the election rolls, conducted by the Election Commission, was intended to be a run-of-the-mill voter list update. Nonetheless, the timing, scale, and character of its implementation have invited parallels with the politically contentious comparisons. Is it simply a bureaucratic rectification of election records, or a clandestine bid at demographic engineering? This article deconstructs the politics, society, and economics of Bihar's voter authentication initiative and its extensive implications nationwide.

Electoral roll updates are not uncommon. They are statutorily required procedures to ensure clean, current voter lists. But the current push in Bihar is different. It targets areas with "abnormal" increases in voters, precipitating house-to-house document checks and intensive checks on voters' credentials. The Election Commission has highlighted the requirement of eliminating bogus or duplicate voters, but the rapidity and criteria of this exercise have sent shivers down many spines.

In those parts of the country with large concentrations of downtrodden populations or large migrant populations, this verification is coming to be perceived less as an administrative process and more as an exclusionary screen. The procedural subtlety and absence of clear public explanation have merely increased these anxieties.

Adding to the worry is the state of areas like Kosi and Mithilanchal region, where they are perennially hit by flash floods that leave thousands homeless. In such disaster zones, where people usually manage not even to save their lives, never mind their homes, it is heartlessly utopian to expect them to preserve sensitive documents such as birth certificates, marksheets, or any such valid yet important documents. Not only does this reflect a disconnect in administrative thinking, but it also threatens to disenfranchise bona fide citizens from the democratic process.

A more profound constitutional concern also emerges: 

Who has the authority to delegate the power to the Election Commission to determine citizenship?

 Under the Constitution, deciding on citizenship comes under the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) under 

While verifying and authenticating voter eligibility is the duty of Booth Level Officers (BLOs), giving them the authority to determine or revoke citizenship or take legal action under the Citizenship Act amounts to grave overreach— one that goes against the very motto of the ECI: 

Politics of Numbers: Realignment in the Making

Bihar has experienced caste arithmetic and vote bank politics before. As the elections draw near in 2025, critics contend that the SIR can be an astute step taken to quietly change the voter base demography.

Political implications may be weakening communities that have always voted for opposition parties, strengthening the image of "clean elections" under the reigning regime and utilizing electoral legitimacy as a cover for more profound ideological goals. While the Election Commission remains an autonomous body, selective scrutiny by the optics thereof can undermine the credibility of the institution in the public perception.

One of the most unsettling consequences of this process is the fear that it generates — not in criminals or scammers, but in regular citizens. For landless workers, casual laborers, and intra-state migrants, the on-demand requirement of documentary evidence of domicile or lineage is simply existential. They are scrambling to seek electricity bills, Aadhaar cards, or ration documents to establish what they have always assumed — that they belong.

This deepens the urban-rural divide as urban residents, equipped with digital literacy and access to paperwork, glide through the process, while vulnerable rural populations struggle with paperwork, language issues, and bureaucratic red tape. The outcome? An increasingly large part of society now feels unsure about a right as basic as voting.

What It Means for India: A Dangerous Precedent?

If Bihar's model is approved, the same can be replicated in other politically sensitive states — such as Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, or Assam — with the same incendiary results. These measures could lead to the systematic harassment of marginalised communities under the guise of electoral reform, resulting in bureaucratic overreach into core democratic rights.

Bihar's Special Intensive Revision could have been just another routine electoral exercise, unifying as well as including the people, but it has turned out to be a political litmus test — one that exposes the cracks in India's democratic machinery. Politically, it creates opportunities for those who wish to manage votes strategically. Socially, it excludes the undocumented and poor. Economically, it levies a silent tax on the poor — one paid in fear, time, and lost opportunity.

Its implications are not just Bihar-specific. Normalized, these practices could redefine the state-citizen relationship, bringing democratic participation down to a paperwork hunt. The bigger question is whether our democracy can weather such surreptitious underminings without abandoning its very inclusive heart. This process should be carried out to smoothly facilitate the electoral process, but the timing and the character of its implementation undermine the democratic values of the process. As suggested by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its recent proceedings on this matter, the Election Commission should consider increasing the time span given to the voters to show the required documents for verification, as well as consider accepting the Aadhar Card, Voter ID, and Ration Card also as documents for verification.

Ultimately, the soul of a democracy lies not merely in clean voter rolls but in how it cares for its weakest voter. Today, in Bihar, that soul stands at a crossroads and we can only hope that in the times to come, it chooses a path of inclusion— not exclusion of its voters, nor the democratic values instilled at its core.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.

 SIR: Decoding Bihar's Voter List Verification Drive

The Iran-Israel conflict escalated on June 13, 2025, with Israel’s ”Operation Rising Lion,” targeting Iran’s nuclear and military sites, killing key figures, and causing significant damage. Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities, leading to civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. The conflict intensified over days, with Israel striking Tehran’s infrastructure and Iran launching over 400 missiles. Global reactions urged restraint, while oil prices surged 15%. India advocated for diplomacy, monitoring energy supply risks.The conflict risks nuclear escalation and regional instability, with proxy groups like Hezbollah involved. Diplomatic intervention by neutral mediators is critical to prevent a broader war, balancing the fine line between escalation and de-escalation.

The Iran-Israel conflict, reignited on June 13, 2025, heightened tensions in the Middle East, drawing global concern due to its intensity, rising casualties, and potential for broader escalation. This report examines the conflict’s origins, military developments, global reactions, and strategic implications.

following intelligence reports of Iran accelerating uranium enrichment beyond 60%. The operation involved airstrikes on 200 Iranian sites, including Natanz and Fordow nuclear facilities and the 

. Over 200 aircraft were deployed, killing senior Iranian military leaders, including Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh and six nuclear scientists. Iran reported 56 deaths, with unofficial estimates exceeding 100, including civilians. The Natanz facility’s above-ground sections were destroyed, though radiation levels remained stable per IAEA reports.

Day 1: June 13, 2025 – Operation Rising Lion

Israel’s preemptive strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, hitting Natanz, Fordow, and IRGC missile sites. Cyber operations disrupted Iranian communications. The U.S. repositioned aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf as a precaution, while Russia warned against escalation.

Day 2: June 14, 2025 – Iran’s Counteroffensive

Iran retaliated with 150 ballistic missiles and 60 drones targeting Tel Aviv, Haifa, and other Israeli cities. Israel’s 

 intercepted 85% of missiles, but some caused damage, killing 11 civilians and injuring over 120. A high-rise in Tel Aviv was hit, and a diplomatic consulate was damaged. The 

 called for dialogue, while the Arab League condemned the violence without taking sides.

Day 3: June 15, 2025 – Escalation Intensifies

Israel expanded strikes to Tehran’s infrastructure, including oil depots, and sabotaged missile sites via 

. Iran launched 200 missiles and cyberattacks targeting Israeli financial systems. Hezbollah mobilized along the Israel-Lebanon border, raising multi-front concerns. China and Turkey urged de-escalation, with Turkey calling for an 

Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

Day 4: June 16, 2025 – Ongoing Conflict

Israel struck Quds Force centers in Tehran, prompting the evacuation of 330,000 residents. Iran launched 65 missiles and drones, targeting Israeli urban centers. Cumulative casualties reached over 400 in Iran and 24 in Israel. Hamas fired rockets from Gaza, complicating Israel’s defense strategy. Global media highlighted the humanitarian toll.

Day 5: June 17, 2025 – High-Profile Assassination

Israel assassinated IRGC General Ali Shadmani and struck Fordow’s perimeter. Iran fired over 400 missiles, targeting Israeli military and civilian sites. Two oil tankers collided near the Strait of Hormuz, possibly due to electronic jamming. Israel’s cyber operations disrupted Iranian missile systems. 

Israel’s airstrikes targeted Tehran’s state TV headquarters and Farabi Hospital in Kermanshah, causing civilian casualties. Iran launched approximately 370 missiles and hundreds of drones, hitting the Bazan oil refinery and the U.S. Embassy building in Tel Aviv. Israel claimed to have destroyed one-third of Iran’s missile launchers, though evidence is unverified. Cumulative casualties include 450+ in Iran and 24 in Israel, with thousands displaced in both nations.

Global crude oil prices surged 15%, with Brent crude reaching $95/barrel due to supply fears. Proxy groups in Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria are on high alert, threatening regional stability. A humanitarian crisis is unfolding, with UN agencies mobilizing aid for displaced populations in both countries.

Iran’s potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) could accelerate its nuclear program, prompting regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to pursue similar capabilities. Increased proxy involvement risks a multi-front war.

A ceasefire mediated by Russia or China, coupled with United Nations-supervised nuclear negotiations, could stabilize the region. Confidence-building measures, such as halting strikes and resuming dialogue, are critical to averting catastrophe.

India has urged restraint and dialogue, maintaining open channels with both Tehran and Tel Aviv. Concerned about energy supply disruptions, New Delhi is monitoring the situation closely, positioning itself as a potential mediator while adhering to its non-alignment policy.

The Iran-Israel conflict is a high-stakes confrontation with global implications. Immediate diplomatic efforts are essential to prevent a regional war and address underlying tensions. Both nations stand at a crossroads: continued escalation risks catastrophic consequences, while dialogue offers a fragile path to peace. The international community must act decisively to avert a broader crisis.

Articles by Arsalan Zahir Khan

SIR: Decoding Bihar's Voter List Verification Drive

Iran-Israel Conflict: A Delicate Balance of Power

SIR: Decoding Bihar's Voter List Verification Drive

Iran-Israel Conflict: A Delicate Balance of Power