View previous stories
	Holding power to account for the common good by OHCHR, Transparency International, agencies   Feb. 2026   Corruption is worsening globally, with even established democracies experiencing rising corruption amid a decline in leadership, according to Transparency International’s 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), published today. This annual index shows that the number of countries scoring above 80 has shrunk from 12 a decade ago to just five this year.   Our data show that democracies, typically stronger on anti-corruption than autocracies or flawed democracies, are experiencing a worrying decline in performance. This trend spans countries such as the United States (64), Canada (75) and New Zealand (81), to various parts of Europe, like the United Kingdom (70), France (66) and Sweden (80).   Another concerning pattern is increasing restrictions by many states on freedoms of expression, association and assembly. Since 2012, 36 of the 50 countries with significant declines in CPI scores have also experienced a reduction in civic space.   2025 saw a wave of anti-corruption protests led by Gen Z, mostly in countries in the bottom half of the CPI whose scores have largely stagnated or declined over the past decade. Young people in countries such as Nepal (34) and Madagascar (25) took to the streets to criticise leaders for abusing their power while failing to deliver decent public services and economic opportunity.   Transparency International is warning that the absence of bold leadership in the global fight against corruption is weakening international anti-corruption action, and risks reducing pressure for reform in countries throughout the world.   François Valerian, Chair of Transparency International said:   “Corruption is not inevitable. Our research and experience as a global movement fighting corruption show there is a clear blueprint for how to hold power to account for the common good, from democratic processes and independent oversight to a free and open civil society. At a time when we’re seeing a dangerous disregard for international norms from some states, we’re calling on governments and leaders to act with integrity and live up to their responsibilities to provide a better future for people around the world.”   Transparency International is calling for:   Renewed political leadership on anti-corruption, including the full enforcement of laws, implementation of international commitments, and reforms that strengthen transparency, oversight and accountability.   Protection of civic space, by ending attacks on journalists, NGOs and whistleblowers, and stopping efforts to restrict independent civil society work.   Close the secrecy loopholes that let corrupt money move across borders, including by reining in professional gatekeepers and ensuring transparency on who really owns companies, trusts and assets.   In many European countries, anti-corruption efforts have largely stalled over the past decade. Since 2012, 13 countries in western Europe and the EU have significantly declined, and only seven have significantly improved.   In December 2025, the EU agreed its first Anti-Corruption Directive to harmonise criminal laws on corruption. What could have been a zero-tolerance framework was watered down by some member states, including Italy (53), which blocked the criminalisation of public officials’ abuse of office. The result: a framework that lacks ambition, clarity and enforceability.   The United States (64) sustained its downward slide to its lowest-ever score. Although 2025 developments are not yet fully reflected, actions targeting independent voices and undermining judicial independence raise serious concerns. Beyond the CPI findings, the temporary freeze and weakening of enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act signal tolerance for corrupt business practices, while cuts to US aid for overseas civil society have weakened global anti-corruption efforts. Political leaders elsewhere have taken this as a cue to further restrict NGOs, journalists and other independent voices.   High CPI scores do not guarantee that countries are corruption-free, as several top-scoring nations enable corruption in other countries by facilitating the laundering and transfer of proceeds of corruption across borders, which the CPI does not cover. For example, Switzerland (80) and Singapore (84) are among the top scorers, but have faced scrutiny for facilitating the movement of dirty money.   In the last decade, politicised interference with the operations of NGOs has scaled up in countries such as Georgia (50), Indonesia (34) and Peru (30) where governments introduced new laws to limit access to funding, or even weaken organisations that scrutinise and criticise them. Such laws are often paired with smear campaigns and intimidation.   In countries like Tunisia (39), civic space is shrinking through administrative, judicial and financial pressures that constrain NGOs, even without new restrictive laws.   In these contexts, it is harder for independent journalists, civil society organisations and whistleblowers to speak out against corruption and more likely that corrupt officials can continue misusing their power. Transparency International chapters in Russia (22) and Venezuela (10) have been forced into exile due to repression of civil society.   Such restrictive environments not only silence critics and watchdogs but also create real dangers for those who dare to expose wrongdoing.   Since 2012, 150 journalists covering corruption-related stories in non-conflict zones have been murdered – nearly all of these in countries with high corruption levels.   The CPI ranks 182 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption on a scale of zero (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The global average score stands at 42 out of 100, its lowest level in more than a decade, pointing to a concerning downward trend that will need to be monitored over time.   The vast majority of countries are failing to keep corruption under control: more than two-thirds – 122 out of 180 – score under 50.   For the eighth year in a row, Denmark obtains the highest score on the index (89) and is closely followed by Finland (88) and Singapore (84).   Countries with the lowest scores overwhelmingly have severely repressed civil societies and high levels instability like South Sudan (9), Somalia (9) and Venezuela (10).   Since 2012, 50 countries have seen their scores significantly decline in the index: those which dropped the most include Turkiye (31), Hungary (40) and Nicaragua (14). They reflect a decade-long, structural weakening of integrity mechanisms, fuelled by democratic backsliding, conflict, institutional fragility and entrenched patronage networks. These declines are sharp, enduring and difficult to reverse, as corruption becomes systemic and deeply embedded in both political and administrative structures.   Since 2012, 31 countries have significantly improved their scores on the index: among the biggest improvers were Estonia (76), South Korea (63) and Seychelles (68). The long-term improvements in democratic countries like these reflect sustained momentum with reforms, strengthened oversight institutions and broad political consensus in favour of clean governance.   http://www.transparency.org/en/press/corruption-perceptions-index-2025-decline-leadership-undermining-global-fight http://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2025 http://www.transparency.org/en/blog/corruption-united-states-global-leader-trump-first-year http://www.fidh.org/en/issues/corruption/report-the-human-impact-of-corruption-in-latin-america http://www.transparency.org/en/our-national-chapters   UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk at 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council (Extract):   "Inequality is the quiet force deciding the fate of millions. It dictates who eats, who learns, who gets housing and healthcare – and who does not.   Around the world, one in four people face food insecurity, and one in three lack adequate housing.   Over half the world’s population work in the informal economy, without access to paid sick leave, maternity leave, or other forms of social protection. This is particularly true for women. Nearly 60 percent of employed women work in the informal economy.   The 2030 Agenda is alarmingly off track, with many goals now slipping into reverse. Severe cuts in international development aid are projected to lead to more than 22 million avoidable deaths by 2030.   Faced with these realities, people — especially young people — have taken to the streets to demand their rights to work, to health, to education, and to be free from corruption. They are calling for economic systems that are fair, transparent, and accountable.   Their frustration reflects deep structural failures in the global economy, which continue to deepen inequalities within and between countries.   In 2024, developing countries paid a record 415 billion US dollars in interest, more than double what they paid a decade earlier.   Interest payments trap states in a spiral of under-development and shrink the resources available for health, education, social security, and other economic and social rights.   Many developing countries face the worst climate impacts despite contributing least to the crisis. Yet, those labelled as middle-income economies – including most small island developing states - are denied the concessional financing needed for climate adaptation and recovery.   Low-income countries often receive inadequate levels of debt relief, grants and concession-based finance that they desperately need.   Meanwhile, many of the richest countries under-invest in economic, social and cultural rights. Their tax systems reward the wealthy while failing to protect those who struggle.   Over the past 20 years, the richest one percent have captured 41 percent of all new wealth, while the bottom 50 percent receive just 1 percent. Last year alone, billionaires amassed enough wealth to eliminate extreme poverty twenty-six times over.   The consequences of deep inequalities within countries are devastating. Poverty, unemployment, and the lack of social protection, make people vulnerable to brutal exploitation. A recent report from our office highlighted for instance grave abuses against people trafficked into scam centres across several regions.   Commitments on financing for development need to be backed by action to enable countries to access the resources needed for sustainable development. Reform of the international financial architecture, including debt restructuring is desperately needed.   Debt servicing must not compromise international human rights obligations. States and international financial institutions should integrate human rights impact assessments systematically into their decisions on debt, in order to safeguard the fiscal space needed to realize the rights to health, education, a healthy environment, and social protection, among others. Stronger representation of developing countries in international decision-making is also crucial.   It is high time to move beyond gross domestic product as the main metric for progress. The measure of development should be whether the economy is improving people’s wellbeing and whether economic benefits are shared equitably across society.   Economic indicators should capture positive contributions to society – including the unpaid care work largely done by women, and the value added by the informal economy. And they should exclude economic activities that are harmful to human rights, such as burning fossil fuels.   Broader access to social security is a matter of justice. All States need to realise universal and legally protected social protection floors.   It is critical to expand resources for States on the frontlines of environmental damage. In an advisory opinion last year, the International Court of Justice stressed that international cooperation around climate change is a legal obligation. This includes providing enough financial support for climate action.   We cannot accept a future where a few thrive while billions are left behind. Together, we need to build economies that deliver for everyone, and make equality and justice the measure of our progress".   * Forbes March 2026: 3,428 billionaires wealth now a record $20.1 trillion, up $4 trillion from last year. The U.S. has 989 billionaires, including 15 of the top 20. China, including Hong Kong, is next, with 610, and India (229) ranks third.   http://www.unrisd.org/en/activities/news-items/unrisd-at-the-human-rights-council-advancing-dialogue-on-financing-sustainable-development http://www.neep-poverty.org/news/interview-global-economy-must-stop-pandering-to-frivolous-desires-of-ultra-rich-says-un-expert http://www.neep-poverty.org/joint-policy-briefs/ http://www.srpoverty.org/2026/01/27/time-opinion-economic-growth-at-any-cost-fails-us-all/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a80138-far-right-populism-and-future-social-protection-report-special http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/putting-people-balance-sheets-un-expert-calls-rights-centered-global http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-demands-global-action-democratise-water-governance-and-protect   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/development-cannot-be-achieved-dying-planet-un-committee-issues-new-guidance http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-experts-urge-binding-accountability-agribusiness-safeguard-peasants http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a80213-corporate-power-and-human-rights-food-systems-report-special http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/12/kenyas-seed-sharing-ruling-milestone-peasants-rights-and-food-security-un http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5848-right-food-finance-and-national-action-plans-report-special http://ipes-food.org/industrial-food-system-failing-as-un-finds-733-million-still-hungry/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/02/fair-and-effective-tax-policies-needed-advance-economic-social-and-cultural http://www.cesr.org/states-adopt-un-resolution-to-further-rights-enabling-economic-policies http://www.cesr.org/holding-IFIs-accountable   Keynote address by Joseph Stiglitz to the United Nations Economic and Social Council Special Meeting on Financial Integrity 4 February, 2026, United Nations Headquarters, New York:   "As negotiations for a Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation have resumed this week at the United Nations, we stand at a critical juncture in the global fight for financial integrity. The choices we make here—about transparency, accountability, and the fair global taxation—will shape not only the future of international cooperation, but the very capacity of governments to serve their people.   This is a moment that demands both clarity about the failures that brought us here and courage to pursue the systemic reforms our world so urgently needs.   Global finance is currently skewed, as gaps, loopholes and shortcomings in rules, and their implementation, allow tax abuses, corruption, and money laundering to flourish, and financial integrity has become one of the defining issues of our time—not because it is new, but because the costs of its absence have become impossible to ignore.   When vast amounts of wealth can be hidden, shifted, or stolen with impunity, we should not be surprised that trust in institutions erodes, inequality widens, and democracy itself comes under strain. We are living through a moment when, once again, we are reminded of an old truth: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.   In the Trump era, we saw how disdain for transparency, the normalization of conflicts of interest, and the open encouragement for tax evasion and corruption at the top corrode governance from within. The recent OECD/G20 agreement exempting US multinationals from the 15% minimum tax is a blunt example of this kind of coercive power in action. But this problem is far bigger than any one country or any one leader.   The diagnosis is by now clear and well documented. Illicit financial flows, aggressive tax avoidance, money laundering, corruption, and secrecy are not accidents or marginal abuses. They are the predictable systemic outcomes of a global financial system designed with loopholes, opacity, and asymmetries of power at its core.   Weak financial integrity fuels extreme inequality by allowing those at the top to escape taxation, steal public resources, hide assets, and launder money while ordinary citizens pay the price.   It undermines climate action by depriving governments of the fiscal space needed for the green transition. It weakens sovereignty, as states lose control over their natural resources, their own tax bases and policy choices.   And it corrodes democracy, as economic power is translated into political power, often behind closed doors and beyond public scrutiny.   That is why the question before us is not whether we should act, but whether we can afford not to act now. The scale of today’s crises—economic, environmental, social, and geopolitical—leaves no room for complacency.   Financial integrity is not a technical issue to be postponed for better times. It is a precondition for addressing the defining challenges of our age.   We are discussing financial integrity at a moment when multilateralism itself is under attack. Around the world, there are forces seeking to divide us, to weaken international cooperation, and to replace collective problem solving with narrow national or private interests. The Trump administration withdrew from the UN tax talks although the rest of the world continues negotiations as we talk now.   Yet, the irony is obvious: the problems we face today are irreducibly global. Climate change does not respect borders. Financial crises do not stop at customs checkpoints. Illicit financial flows move precisely because borders are porous to capital, even when they are closed to people.   This is why defending multilateralism is not an abstract exercise, rather it is a practical necessity. Financial integrity and transparency cannot be achieved by any country acting alone, no matter how powerful. Unilateral action is important, but without cooperation and coordination, it will always be incomplete and vulnerable to circumvention. The race to the bottom in taxation, the competition to attract hidden wealth, and the tolerance of secrecy jurisdictions are collective action failures. They can only be resolved collectively.   Cooperation on financial integrity is also essential because it enables better policy choices domestically. When countries coordinate on tax rules, exchange information, and agree on transparency standards, they expand—not restrict—their policy space. They make it possible to tax fairly, to regulate effectively, and to invest in public goods without fear of capital flight or retaliation. Financial integrity, in this sense, is not a constraint on sovereignty; it is a foundation for it...   * Joseph Stiglitz is a professor at Columbia University, recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT)   http://www.icrict.com/international-tax-reform/un-ecosoc-a-blueprint-for-financial-integrity http://publicservices.international/resources/news/our-new-research-shows-global-corporate-tax-reforms-would-boost-public-revenues-by-50-?id=16364&lang=en http://ipdcolumbia.org/event/landmark-g20-report-led-by-nobel-laureate-joseph-stiglitz-sounds-alarm-on-inequality-emergency-and-calls-for-international-panel-on-inequality/ http://www.unognewsroom.org/story/en/3054/unrisd-ipi-committee http://www.socialprotectionfloorscoalition.org/2026/02/financing-social-protection-a-matter-of-global-justice/ http://gcap.global/news/gcap-and-147-civil-society-organisations-call-for-stronger-un-tax-convention/ http://www.icij.org/news/2026/03/irs-criminal-referrals-against-big-corporations-and-ultrawealthy-plummeted-during-trumps-first-year/ http://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2025/dec/10/just-0001-hold-three-times-the-wealth-of-poorest-half-of-humanity-report-finds http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/17/un-global-tax-system-undermines-rights-development http://www.taxobservatory.eu/publication/a-blueprint-for-a-coordinated-minimum-effective-taxation-standard-for-ultra-high-net-worth-individuals http://www.equals.ink/p/agnes-callamard-on-rising-inequality http://www.equals.ink/p/the-great-global-wealth-transfer-thomas-piketty-on-inequality http://www.equals.ink/p/the-inequality-emergency-the-case http://www.equals.ink/p/who-pays-when-countries-fall-into http://www.equals.ink/s/podcast http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/wealth-largely-absent-imf-tax-guidance-benefiting-rich   Jan. 2026   World Food Programme calls on business leaders, private sector at Davos to address Global Hunger. (WFP)   The agency estimates that at least 318 million people face crisis levels of hunger or worse this year, with hundreds of thousands already experiencing famine-like conditions.   Current forecasts put WFP’s funding at just under half of its needed USD13 billion budget to reach 110 million people – roughly one-third of the most vulnerable. This funding gap means meals cut, rations reduced, and a deepening hunger crisis that will cost countless lives.   “Hunger drives displacement, conflict, and instability and these not only threaten lives, but disrupt the very markets that businesses depend on,” said Rania Dagash-Kamara, WFP’s Assistant Executive Director for Partnerships and Innovation, who is attending the forum this week. “I’m here to remind everyone that the world cannot build stable markets on a foundation of 318 million hungry people. I come with an intensifying crisis that has a solution in Davos: invest in the global stability your companies need by supporting our proven ability to reduce hunger on the planet.”   "The private sector must keep hunger and food security as a top‑tier priority. We can address hunger at scale and bring economic benefits to local communities everywhere. We know we can,” said Dagash-Kamara. “The question is whether we will have the resources to make it happen. Together we can have unprecedented impact in addressing what is both a humanitarian and economic crisis. The private sector has the resources needed to accelerate our efforts. Now is the time to offer your support.”   http://reliefweb.int/report/world/acute-food-insecurity-2025-global-overview http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/en http://www.fightfoodcrises.net/hunger-hotspots http://humanitarianaction.info/document/global-humanitarian-overview-2026 http://www.nrc.no/news/2025/december/2026-millions-in-need-will-not-get-aid-unless-global-solidarity-revived Visit the related web page
	65 million voters removed from electoral rolls in India by BBC, The Wire, Scroll India, agencies   May 2026   Rigging Indian democracy, by Jayati Ghosh for International Development Economics Associates   India’s citizens are witnessing a remarkable inversion of democracy: a government choosing its voters rather than the other way around. Even as public discontent grows across the country, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has strengthened its grip on power by manipulating the electoral process itself. The result is a stark reminder of what can happen when institutions meant to safeguard democratic integrity instead work to undermine it.   The means by which this inversion was achieved were deceptively mundane. In the run-up to the state elections held in April and May, India’s Election Commission—effectively appointed by the government and already facing accusations of pro-BJP bias—launched a “special intensive revision” (SIR) of voter rolls.   Officially, the exercise was intended to improve their accuracy and integrity. In practice, as the political scientist Gilles Vernier has argued, it amounted to “the greatest disruption of the electoral process India has ever seen.”   Updating voter rolls is not inherently controversial. Democracies, after all, must periodically account for population movements and demographic change. But the SIR’s door-to-door verification process was rushed and implemented unevenly, resulting in an unprecedented voter purge.   By late May, more than 65 million names had been removed from electoral rolls in nine states and three union territories. Some estimates suggest that the final figure could reach 100 million.   Until recently, voters whose names already appeared on electoral rolls were presumed eligible unless officials could establish legally valid grounds for removing them under the 1950 Representation of the People Act and the 1960 Registration of Electors Rules. The SIR process changed that, requiring previously registered voters to prove their eligibility by providing extensive documentation—even their parents’ birth certificates.   The burden of proof was thus shifted onto voters, including many who had cast ballots in many previous elections. For millions of poorer Indians, obtaining the required documentation proved difficult or impossible, leaving their eligibility to the discretion of local officials.   Nowhere were the consequences more apparent than in West Bengal, an opposition-controlled state that the BJP has long sought to capture. More than nine million voters were reportedly removed from the rolls, often for minor discrepancies such as spelling errors or inconsistencies in a parent’s age.   Notably, these strict standards have been applied only in West Bengal. The deletions were concentrated in opposition strongholds and Muslim-majority constituencies and disproportionately affected women, who were more likely to support the opposition.   While roughly 3.4 million West Bengal residents filed appeals within the brief period allowed, only 1,607 names—fewer than 0.05%—were restored, with most appeals remaining unresolved when voting began. At the same time, nearly a half-million new voters were suddenly added to the rolls through an equally opaque process.   The integrity of the voting process has also come under scrutiny. An analysis of voting data from two constituencies, for example, found substantial discrepancies between reported turnout figures and the number of votes that could have been cast during polling hours.   It is hardly surprising, then, that the BJP secured its first-ever victory in West Bengal, enabling it to form the state government. The incumbent chief minister lost her own constituency by roughly 15,000 votes, a margin smaller than the number of around 60,000 voters reportedly removed there. While BJP supporters hailed the outcome as an “electoral tsunami,” it could simply reflect the cumulative effect of multiple forms of electoral fraud.   The consequences are not limited to the ballot box. In West Bengal, the new government has declared that individuals removed from voter lists will be ineligible for welfare benefits, including food and housing assistance, health care, and cash transfers. What began as a voter-verification process is now being used to determine who is entitled to public services.   India’s Supreme Court has failed to check these abuses. One justice even suggested that excluded voters could simply vote in the next election. The Court has taken no action in cases where the BJP’s margins of victory were significantly smaller than the number of voters removed from the rolls, nor has it intervened when voter-roll exclusion has been used to deny people their basic rights.   Meanwhile, Prime Minister Modi’s government is setting its sights on redrawing constituency boundaries, a move that could further cement its electoral dominance. As Vernier notes, the danger is not simply that elections may be manipulated, but that the rules governing them are “set unilaterally by the very actors who stand to gain from them.” When that happens, he warns, elections “cease to be the mechanism by which power is contested and instead become the mechanism by which power gets entrenched..”   Legal experts say linking government welfare schemes to electoral roll status raises serious constitutional concerns.   Last week, the Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, an agricultural workers’ union in West Bengal, approached the Supreme Court, challenging the state government’s orders linking welfare benefits to SIR and arguing that the move risked deactivating the ration cards of 3.5 to six million people.   The Supreme Court declined an urgent hearing on the matter and asked the union to approach the Kolkata High Court instead.   But lawyer and rights activist Sanjay Hegde told news agencies there was no legal basis for linking voter rolls to state welfare.   “Under Article 14 [of the Indian Constitution], the state cannot deny equality before the law. Welfare benefits have no nexus with electoral rolls,” he said. “There will be many legal residents of India who are not on electoral rolls, for instance, children below the age of 18. Can you deny them welfare benefits? How can you say that if you don’t exist as a voter, you don’t exist for the state?”   Hegde warned that using electoral status as a basis for welfare eligibility could create a dangerous precedent.   “The implications of using electoral status for welfare simply means governments are responsible for voters only. The greater danger is governments threatening voters and communities who vote against them,” he said.   Kolkata-based advocate Asif Reza, who is representing people who have appealed before different tribunals for the reinstatement of their names on voter rolls, said many of them are losing faith in the appeals process itself.   “People approached the tribunals saying they were eligible voters, but many cases were disposed of without proper evaluation or hearings,” he told reporters, adding that the “slow pace of hearings makes justice uncertain”.   “Only five or six cases are heard every day. When 200,000-300,000 voters are deleted in a single district, it will take centuries to hear all the cases. By then, many of the applicants will be dead, and their great-grandchildren will be fighting for their voting rights.”   Prominent Indian welfare economist Jean Dreze described the SIR as a “clumsy, unreliable and authoritarian exercise”.   “We know for a fact that it has led to the unfair exclusion of millions of people from voters’ lists. Transferring these exclusion errors to the public distribution system [PDS] would be rubbing salt on their wounds,” Dreze said.   Sagarika Ghose, a member of parliament from the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), the party that lost to the BJP in West Bengal, said that denying government benefits to people excluded through SIR is “highly inhuman and shocking”.   She said such a move would unfairly punish people and was not just a denial of basic rights, but also the constitutional and legal protections guaranteed to a citizen.   “The entire SIR process has been shoddy, rushed and full of discrepancies and loopholes. It is hardly an accurate or foolproof exercise,” she said. “You cannot take away people’s access to food and welfare on the basis of such a flawed process.”   19 May 2026   What began With deletion from Voter Rolls may end With millions losing not only The Vote but their place in The Republic, by Samar Halarnkar. (Article 14)   As the third phase of the Election Commission’s special intensive revision rolls out across India, projections suggest nearly 100 million people could be deleted from voter rolls by the end of the exercise, facing the prospect not only of losing the right to vote but, as the BJP has already declared in Bihar and West Bengal, access to welfare, banking and citizenship protections, creating a vast class of “un-citizens”, a situation reminiscent of Jim Crow USA.   As you read this, about 60 million names have been deleted from India’s voter rolls across 14 states and union territories since 2025, under what the Election Commission calls a special intensive revision (SIR). This is the net figure after adding new names. In a nation where such numbers attract as much attention as potholes on a road, some perspective is relevant—it would be like disenfranchising the population of Italy, Argentina or South Korea in one fell swoop.   In any democracy with a growing population and a truly committed commitment to universal adult franchise, a revision of voter rolls should have led to a net increase in voters. Instead, the opposite has happened in India, as the psephologist Yogendra Yadav has pointed out: 625 million people live across the 14 states and union territories in question, with 610 million voters. But instead of an increase, he notes, the number of voters has fallen to 550 million.   Two phases of the SIR are over, and the third is rolling out in 16 states and union territories. The rough deletion rate is about 10%. Project that onto the Indian voting population of nearly 969 million voters, and it is safe to say that by the end of the third phase about 100 million are likely to be deleted from the rolls.   That is more than the population of Iran or Germany. Put another way, those deleted would form the world’s 17th most populous country—of un-citizens.   If you have not been a subject of the first two phases of the SIR, you would do well to gather your wits and documents. Disquiet is entirely in order. Ask me. I voted in the last two general elections from Bengaluru, but the Election Commission says you must prove that you voted in 2002 to be added to the electoral roll easily. But I lived in Delhi then, and I was never a voter there.   I have an Election Commission identity card, Aadhaar, Passport, and an electricity bill linked to my current address, but SIRs from the first two chaotic phases, with their arbitrary, shifting guidelines, indicate there is no guarantee that the local Election Commission office will accept any of them. I do have a 10th standard marks card from Delhi, but I cannot find my birth certificate, which in any case would be useless because it says my name is “Baby Shailaja”.   I am more privileged than the vast majority of less-fortunate Indians. I do not use any government schemes, but not being able to vote would be catastrophic, even to me.   After disenfranchisement, millions of Indians find themselves not just without a vote but faced with the prospect of losing access to government social-security programmes and bank accounts, as the new BJP governments of Bihar and West Bengal have already declared, preparing to cast them into a twilight zone of existence as un-citizens, a vast underclass without rights..   http://www.networkideas.org/2026/06/16/modi-is-rigging-indian-democracy/ http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpv37jwd3zzo http://thewire.in/politics/worst-fears-coming-true-why-bjp-cms-plans-to-link-sir-to-welfare-raises-serious-concerns http://thewire.in/government/one-year-of-sir-over-five-crore-voters-deleted http://article-14.com/post/what-began-with-deletion-from-voter-rolls-could-end-with-millions-losing-not-only-the-vote-but-their-place-in-the-republic--6a0bdc2b85017 http://scroll.in/article/1093897/where-did-your-father-vote-in-2003-why-demand-for-legacy-documents-under-sir-has-no-legal-basis http://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/22/india-west-bengal-state-elections-millions-stripped-of-vote
	View more stories