Bihar’s Electoral Battleground: A Manufactured Crisis of Disenfranchisement?
As Bihar gears up for the crucial 2025 assembly elections, a familiar narrative of voter disenfranchisement is taking center stage, orchestrated by a network of actors with questionable motives. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an NGO ostensibly focused on electoral reform, is at the forefront of this campaign, echoing talking points disseminated by opposition figures like Rahul Gandhi. ADR, with its documented financial links to globalist networks including George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, has filed a petition in the Supreme Court alleging “mass disenfranchisement” stemming from the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls. This routine procedure, designed to maintain accurate and updated voter lists, has been twisted into a sinister plot to suppress the votes of marginalized communities, a claim that conveniently ignores established legal procedures and the ECI’s constitutional mandate.
The SIR, initiated on June 24, 2025, has become the target of a coordinated campaign involving the opposition Mahagathbandhan, left-leaning intellectuals, and activist lawyers like Prashant Bhushan. ADR’s petition challenges aspects of the SIR, including the exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards as valid identification, the burden of proof placed on voters, and the requirement to prove parental citizenship. These objections, framed as disenfranchisement tactics, disregard the fact that similar procedures have been followed in previous revisions without significant issue. This orchestrated outcry raises serious questions about the true intentions behind the campaign. Is it genuine concern for voter rights or a calculated strategy to disrupt the electoral process and undermine public trust in the ECI?
The opposition’s campaign against the SIR escalated with a call for a statewide bandh on July 9, 2025, spearheaded by Rahul Gandhi himself. Congress leaders have leveled unsubstantiated claims, alleging that 90% of Bihar’s population lacks the necessary documentation for voter verification, a statistic devoid of any empirical basis. This rhetoric is clearly designed to incite public unrest and create a perception of widespread disenfranchisement, further fueling the narrative of a rigged electoral system. The opposition’s strategy of disrupting public life through roadblocks and protests under the guise of protecting voter rights raises concerns about the cynical manipulation of public sentiment for political gain.
Adding fuel to the fire, Prashant Bhushan amplified an alarmist article by Pratap Bhanu Mehta, published in The Indian Express, which characterized the SIR as a “backdoor NRC” designed to disenfranchise millions. Mehta’s piece, echoing ADR’s claims, paints a dystopian picture of bureaucratic overreach and voter suppression, ignoring established legal procedures and safeguards. This narrative of a covert National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise is a thinly veiled attempt to exploit existing anxieties within marginalized communities, further polarizing the electorate along communal lines.
Contrary to the narrative being spun by ADR and its allies, the ECI’s SIR is grounded in legal precedent and well-established procedure. Section 21(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1950, empowers the ECI to conduct special revisions with documented justification. The SIR is not a sudden or arbitrary action, but a follow-up to the Special Summary Revision conducted earlier in 2025. This legal framework is conveniently overlooked by ADR and the opposition, whose aim is to create a perception of illegitimacy and sow distrust in the electoral process. The timing of this campaign, coinciding with the upcoming elections, strongly suggests a politically motivated attempt to undermine the ECI and create an environment conducive to contesting the election results.
This is not ADR’s first foray into influencing the Indian democratic process through the dissemination of questionable information. During the 2019 general elections, ADR played a significant role in amplifying the unsubstantiated Rafale deal controversy. Despite the Supreme Court’s dismissal of all related petitions, ADR continued to raise questions about the deal, effectively perpetuating a false narrative of corruption. Similarly, ADR’s campaign against electoral bonds, alleging the introduction of untraceable black money, employed contradictory claims and selectively presented data to create a misleading public perception. These instances highlight a pattern of behavior by ADR, suggesting a concerted effort to undermine public trust in government institutions and influence electoral outcomes.
ADR’s activism extends to challenging the appointment process of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, even after the Modi government implemented a more inclusive selection process involving the Leader of the Opposition. Despite the Supreme Court upholding the appointments and dismissing ADR’s claims, the organization, through Prashant Bhushan, continued to press the issue. This persistent legal maneuvering reveals a broader agenda that goes beyond mere electoral reform, suggesting a deliberate strategy to weaken and delegitimize key democratic institutions. This raises serious questions about ADR’s true motives and its commitment to strengthening democratic processes in India.
The funding sources of ADR reveal a network of foreign entities with questionable interests in Indian democracy. Organizations like HIVOS, Omidyar Network, and the Thakur Family Foundation, all with links to foreign governments and entities like George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, have provided financial support to ADR. These connections raise concerns about foreign interference in Indian elections and the potential for these organizations to influence ADR’s agenda. The opacity surrounding some of ADR’s donors, such as the digitally invisible Archesh Shah, further underscores the need for greater transparency in the funding of NGOs involved in shaping public discourse and influencing policy.
ADR operates as a key component within a larger network of foreign-funded NGOs, propaganda media outlets, and activist lawyers. This network works in concert to amplify narratives that undermine Indian institutions and promote a specific ideological agenda. The coordinated efforts of this network, from generating “research” to disseminating it through compliant media channels and leveraging legal challenges, raise serious concerns about the potential for manipulation of public opinion and interference in the democratic process.
In conclusion, the campaign surrounding the SIR in Bihar represents a manufactured crisis designed to undermine the ECI and create an atmosphere of distrust in the electoral process. ADR, with its foreign funding and questionable history, serves as a key player in this orchestrated effort. The timing of this campaign, coupled with the amplification of unsubstantiated claims by opposition figures and sympathetic media outlets, strongly suggests a politically motivated attempt to influence the upcoming Bihar elections. The narrative of voter
