After assuming office as Chief Minister, DK Shivakumar has been sending contradictory signals that are leaving Karnataka’s progressive sections confused.
On one hand, in the SIR issue, directions have been issued to provide residence documents for farmers and the poor and to establish assistance centers to support them. On the other hand, final notices have been served in Bidadi to acquire farmers’ lands, a move seen as benefiting powerful real-estate interests.
One day, calls are made to plant saplings for a greener Bengaluru. That very same day, plans moved forward in Bidadi that could result in the felling of nearly 200,000 trees cultivated by farmers to make way for a township project.
Pro-people rhetoric, anti-people actions
A persistent gap between words and actions has long characterised Congress governments. Whether under Siddaramaiah or DK Shivakumar, the pattern appears unchanged. As a lifelong Congressman, DK Shivakumar represents that tradition in its purest form.
Political speeches may project concern for ordinary people, but a closer look often reveals the class interests that shape government policy. In DK Shivakumar’s case, those interests are visible enough for anyone to recognise.
If the government truly stands with farmers, why push ahead with the forcible acquisition of agricultural land for the Bidadi Township project despite sustained opposition from local farmers?
The answer lies in a development model that seeks to transform Bengaluru into a city of luxury apartments, gated villas, shopping malls, and elite lifestyles. In that process, the city’s slums and the agricultural lands surrounding it are steadily being consumed. Major real-estate players such as Puravankara, Salarpuria, Sobha, Dhavanam, and others stand to benefit from this vision of urban expansion. And It is a known fact that CM DKS has stakes in those projects and firms.
The approach closely mirrors the urban-development model promoted by the Modi government and aligns with the economic interests traditionally associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). During a recent visit to Delhi, DKS spoke proudly about receiving praise from the Prime Minister for pursuing a style of development similar to that of Gujarat. At a time when many slum residents continue to lack basic amenities, the government is committing tens of thousands of crores of rupees to tunnel-road projects designed primarily to serve private vehicle users.
The contrast between promises and policy remains difficult to ignore.
Economic interests shape political positions
More than two hundred years ago, Karl Marx warned ordinary people that economic interests ultimately shape political positions.
When the class interests and social foundations of Modi and DK Shivakumar, and of the BJP and Congress, are fundamentally similar, how different can their politics really be?
That is why DK Shivakumar openly praised the inauguration of the Ram Temple at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood and celebrated it with the sentiment that “ultimately, we are all Hindus.” Several prominent Congress leaders shared the same enthusiasm. When Yogi Adityanath organised the Kumbh Mela in Uttar Pradesh, DK Shivakumar and other senior Congress leaders personally attended the event, returned singing its praises, and went on to introduce Kumbh Mela-style celebrations and Cauvery Aarti events in Karnataka as well.
The new Chief Minister is also known for endorsing conservative social values, including the belief that a husband should constantly keep watch over his wife. He is a self-professed admirer of the Sangh tradition and has even sung RSS Anthem Namasate sada vatsale on the floor of the Assembly.
Although the BJP-isation of the Congress was very much there even during Siddaramaiah’s tenure, it has gained even greater momentum and a more pronounced character under DK Shivakumar.
For that reason, expecting the Congress under DK Shivakumar to come to the rescue of Karnataka’s oppressed communities solely on the SIR issue may prove to be a misplaced hope.
Siddaramaiah, too, showed little enthusiasm for mobilising against an SIR process that many believe disproportionately harms Dalits and other marginalized sections.
What is striking, however, is that DK Shivakumar has spoken far more than Siddaramaiah about the dangers that SIR could pose to the Congress. He has repeatedly instructed both the government and the party organisation to assist people in participating in the SIR process.
This raises important questions. What will be the real impact of these measures? What purpose do they ultimately serve? Are these efforts genuinely intended to protect people from the consequences of SIR, or are they designed to ensure participation so that, if large numbers of people are ultimately excluded, the responsibility can later be shifted onto the people themselves?
Politics of shifting the blame onto SIR victims
The Modi government’s sudden introduction of the SIR process – something fundamentally different from the earlier SR or IR exercises – is an attempt to exclude oppressed communities and Muslims from the electoral rolls and, eventually, from citizenship itself. The larger objective is to secure a permanent electoral majority, establish long-term political dominance, and advance the project of transforming India into a Hindu nation.
The rules, procedures, and timelines of the SIR exercise have been designed with that objective in mind.
If a political party were genuinely committed to defending the Constitution and protecting citizens from the consequences of SIR, it would have exposed this project as an assault on the republic, mobilised people against it, and used every available constitutional avenue to resist it. It would have organised non-cooperation against this fundamentally unconstitutional exercise.
Yet neither in Karnataka nor elsewhere in the country has the Congress, or any other major opposition party, been willing to set aside electoral calculations and boycott the process in a way that could create a constitutional crisis and force a confrontation over the issue. No major opposition force has chosen a path of direct political struggle aimed at stopping SIR altogether.
Instead, the Congress has largely adopted a compromise position: rather than directly confronting Modi’s initiative, it has focused on protecting its own political interests within the framework of the exercise. National leaders of Congress have emphasised not so much the defense of constitutional rights as the need to ensure that the party itself does not suffer politically because of SIR.
That approach has been accepted and implemented by the party’s leadership at multiple levels. Siddaramaiah endorsed it earlier, and today influential leaders across Karnataka – including DK Shivakumar – appear committed to the same strategy, working to ensure that the Congress safeguards its electoral position while participating in the process rather than leading a broader resistance against it.
That is precisely why, under DK Shivakumar’s leadership, the Congress response and strategy on SIR have been reduced largely to creating awareness about how to survive the process. The emphasis is almost entirely on preparedness—particularly on filling out and submitting the Enumeration Form.
Should the warning have been directed at the people or at ECI?
As part of this campaign, people are being warned that failure to return the form could result in their names being deleted from the rolls and the loss of access to government benefits.
In effect, this form of “awareness” risks shifting responsibility onto those who become victims of the SIR process itself. Yet experience elsewhere has shown that even when documents are submitted and forms are completed, exclusion can still occur. In West Bengal, large numbers of people were reportedly removed through provisions such as “Logical Discrepancy.” The Election Commission has already indicated that similar procedures may be applied in Karnataka as well.
Despite this, neither the DKS-led government nor the Congress party has mounted a serious campaign demanding that such arbitrary provisions not be implemented in Karnataka.
The reality is that few citizens deliberately refuse to submit forms or willingly place their citizenship rights at risk. The problem is not irresponsibility. The problem is that many of the details demanded by the SIR process simply do not exist in the lives of the most marginalised sections of society.
For people who possess property records, educational certificates, documented birth details, and a long paper trail of official records, providing information may be difficult but possible. For landless laborers, slum residents, migrant workers, and other marginalized communities, those records often do not exist at all.
In such circumstances, even if Booth Level Agents (BLAs) and Booth Level Officers (BLOs) provide assistance, they cannot create documents that people do not possess. Forms submitted without the required information can still be rejected under provisions such as “Logical Discrepancy.”
The responsibility for such exclusion does not lie with the people. It lies in the design of the SIR process itself.
Unless the Congress and the DK Shivakumar government are prepared to challenge the structure and intent of the process, they will find it difficult not only to protect ordinary citizens but even to protect their own voters from exclusion.
The same contradiction appears in the demand for voter assistance centres. In reality, the Election Commission itself, in its May 14 directive, instructed that voter assistance centres be established in all states where SIR is being implemented. These centres are being presented as a solution, even though they were conceived as part of the very process now under criticism.
But how can an assistance centre solve a problem rooted in the absence of documents? It may help those who already possess the required information – property holders, educated citizens, and those with complete official records – to fill out forms correctly. It cannot provide missing birth records, missing family histories, or missing proof of residence to those who have never possessed them.
If the required information does not exist, no amount of assistance can manufacture it. In that case, voter assistance centres become less a safeguard of rights and more a mechanism for legitimising a process whose outcomes are already structured against the most vulnerable.
That raises a fundamental question:
What does the slogan “Not a single eligible voter will be left out” actually mean if there is no opposition to a process that many believe has been designed precisely to disqualify eligible voters in the first place?
Can “awareness” protect Indians who have no documents?
At the heart of the SIR exercise lies a simple objective: the verification of citizenship. The process is structured in a way that could exclude large numbers of people – particularly Muslims, Dalits, and Adivasis – from the electoral rolls and, ultimately, from the full enjoyment of citizenship rights.
To establish eligibility, the Election Commission has prescribed a limited set of documents. These include government employee identity cards and pension orders, records issued before July 1, 1987, birth certificates, passports, SSLC and other educational certificates, domicile certificates, forest-rights certificates, caste certificates, NRC records where applicable, officially maintained family records, and government-issued land or housing documents. Aadhaar may be submitted, but it is not accepted as a standalone proof.
The exclusion of commonly available documents such as ration cards and voter ID cards is not accidental. It reflects the logic on which the entire exercise has been constructed.
The burden of proving citizenship falls most heavily on those least equipped to meet it: the illiterate, the poor, migrant workers, the landless, people without stable housing, and communities that have historically remained outside formal systems of documentation. Muslims, Dalits, and Adivasis are especially vulnerable because they are disproportionately represented among these sections of society.
The issue is not whether people are citizens. The issue is whether they possess the specific documents that the process demands.
That distinction is crucial.
A person may have lived in India for generations and still be unable to produce a birth certificate. A migrant worker may possess a voter card but no land record. A slum resident may have an Aadhaar card but no permanent-address certificate. Under such conditions, awareness campaigns and assistance centres can help people fill out forms, but they cannot create documents that never existed.
As long as the eligibility criteria remain tied to this narrow list of records, large sections of the oppressed and marginalised population remain vulnerable to exclusion regardless of how many awareness drives are conducted.
The experience of West Bengal is often cited as evidence of this problem. Even where forms were submitted and procedures followed, many people faced exclusion through administrative mechanisms and technical objections. The concern is that similar outcomes could emerge elsewhere if the same standards are applied.
That is why the recent directive from DK Shivakumar to expedite the issuance of residence certificates has generated considerable expectations. For many, it is being seen as one of the few concrete interventions that could help people obtain at least some of the documentation demanded by the process.
Yet an important question remains unanswered: can the issuance of residence certificates alone overcome a framework whose eligibility criteria continue to exclude millions who lack the documents that SIR treats as proof of citizenship?
A residence certificate is not an SIR document
The excitement surrounding the Karnataka government’s decision to expedite the issuance of residence certificates rests on an important assumption: that such certificates will help people satisfy the documentation requirements of the SIR process.
The problem is that the Election Commission’s list does not refer to an ordinary Residence Certificate.
What the Commission specifically requires is a Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) issued by the competent state authority.
In other words, the requirement is not merely proof that a person currently resides in Karnataka. It is proof that the person is a permanent resident – or domicile – of Karnataka, certified by the designated authority.
In Karnataka, an ordinary Residence Certificate can be obtained on the basis of documents such as Aadhaar, ration cards, electricity or water bills, rental agreements, and similar records.
A Permanent Residence Certificate is a different category altogether.
To obtain one, applicants are generally expected to demonstrate long-term residence in Karnataka, often extending beyond six years, through documentary evidence. Only after verification can the competent authority – typically the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar – issue such a certificate.
That raises an obvious question.
If the government begins issuing certificates in large numbers and at great speed, will the Election Commission automatically accept them as valid SIR documents? Or will it scrutinise whether they satisfy the precise criteria laid down for a Permanent Residence Certificate?
The experience of West Bengal offers a cautionary example.
During the SIR exercise there, many residents submitted domicile certificates issued by the West Bengal government in an effort to establish eligibility.
It is important to note that these were not ordinary residence certificates. They were domicile documents issued by the state itself.
Yet the Election Commission initially rejected them, arguing that they did not satisfy the specific requirements attached to the category of Permanent Residence Certificate. Notices were reportedly issued even to individuals who had already produced domicile documents.
The dispute eventually escalated into a major political confrontation. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee publicly opposed the decision and later approached the Supreme Court.
Only after sustained pressure did the Election Commission, on February 9, agree to recognise certain West Bengal domicile certificates as admissible documents. Even then, acceptance came with strict conditions.
The Commission specified that only domicile certificates issued in accordance with the West Bengal government’s November 2, 1999 order would be accepted. It further required that such certificates be issued only by designated competent authorities such as District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Officers, or the District Magistrate of Kolkata. Certificates issued by other authorities would not qualify. The documents also had to conform strictly to the prescribed government guidelines.
The West Bengal episode demonstrates that the question is not simply whether a person possesses a residence-related document. The crucial issue is whether the document matches the precise legal and administrative criteria that the Election Commission is prepared to recognise.
That is why the current optimism surrounding the Karnataka government's move requires careful scrutiny.
If ordinary residence certificates are issued while the Commission insists on Permanent Residence Certificates meeting specific eligibility standards, the gap between public expectation and administrative acceptance could become a serious problem.
The larger question therefore remains unresolved: will the government's initiative actually help those most vulnerable to exclusion, or will many applicants discover that the documents they were encouraged to obtain do not ultimately satisfy the standards applied during the SIR process?
Without the withdrawal of SIR, the marginalised cannot be protected
The residence certificates that the Karnataka government has been directed to issue do not automatically satisfy the standards laid down for a Permanent Residence Certificate under the SIR framework.
Going by the experience of West Bengal, only a domicile certificate establishing permanent residence in the state is likely to come closer to meeting the Election Commission's requirements. Even then, acceptance is not guaranteed.
The conditions imposed by the Commission in West Bengal are likely to serve as a reference point elsewhere as well. That means the validity of a domicile certificate may ultimately depend not merely on its existence, but on whether it has been issued through procedures that the Commission considers compliant with its prescribed standards.
The concern is that an Election Commission determined to conduct SIR as rigorously as possible retains wide discretion in evaluating documents. Even minor procedural deviations in the issuance of domicile certificates could potentially become grounds for declaring a document defective or inconsistent.
The Supreme Court has already indicated that the Commission possesses substantial authority to frame and implement procedural rules governing the SIR process. As a result, the possibility of additional scrutiny and new categories of discrepancy remains a source of concern for many observers.
For that reason, the blanket instruction to issue residence certificates to all those who require them is unlikely, by itself, to shield Karnataka’s Dalits, Adivasis, minorities, migrant workers, and other marginalized communities from the risks associated with the SIR process.
The issue extends beyond documentation. It concerns the structure of the process itself.
As long as eligibility continues to be determined through standards that large sections of the population find difficult to satisfy, documentation drives alone cannot guarantee protection from exclusion.
From this perspective, the struggle does not end with helping people submit forms or obtain certificates. Even if large numbers of people are excluded after the completion of SIR, the demand for their inclusion would remain. The broader political challenge would continue.
That is why the central question remains unchanged: can the rights of vulnerable citizens be secured through administrative assistance within the SIR framework, or does meaningful protection require a sustained democratic movement aimed at fundamentally challenging the process itself?
For those who believe the latter, the fight is not over documentation alone. It is over the future of democratic rights, citizenship, and political participation itself.
Shivasundar is an activist and freelance journalist. Views expressed are the author’s own.
