In this conversation with Teesta Setalvad, Rajagopal recounts his personal ordeal and reflects on the wider implications of SIR exercises now being discussed and expanded across multiple states. The discussion explores the relationship between electoral rolls, citizenship, passport verification, welfare entitlements and democratic rights.

The conversation also raises difficult questions: Why is there so little transparency around SIR processes? What happens when administrative verification begins to determine access to rights? Where are the media and political opposition in this debate? And if this can happen to a veteran journalist with decades of documentation, what does it mean for millions of ordinary citizens?

The post SIR and the Making of a Stateless Citizen? | R. Rajagopal Speaks Out | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ask Palestine. The team finished second in the second round of the Asian qualifiers, behind Australia, thus qualifying for the third round for the first time in their history. Here, they were drawn in a tough group with South Korea, Jordan, Iraq, Oman and Kuwait. They played their hearts out, drawing twice against the much stronger South Korea, and would have qualified for the next round, had it not been for a penalty awarded to Oman in stoppage time during Palestine’s final match. When Oman converted, what should have been a win became a draw, and Palestine was eliminated, just one point short of progressing.

Palestine’s World Cup qualifying campaign faced extraordinary odds. In the qualifying tournaments, each team plays a ‘home’ and an ‘away’ match. Palestine has not been able to play ‘home’ matches in either the West Bank or Gaza since October 2023. These matches are played in a neutral venue. Thus, while their opponents enjoy the ‘home’ advantage, Palestine don’t. Palestinian players routinely face harassment and travel restrictions from Israeli authorities. Even getting the whole team together for training is an achievement. Several players and staff have had family members or friends killed during the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

And then there’s the destruction of infrastructure. Gaza had around 40 football clubs affiliated with the Palestine Football Association (PFA) before the start of the genocide in October 2023. Gaza had several football facilities, including four stadiums: Palestine Stadium, Yarmouk Stadium, Khan Younis Stadium, Rafah Municipal Stadium. Today, nothing remains. All stadiums have been destroyed. All football facilities are in ruins. There is no functioning football club.

And what of the players? In early June this year, Israel abducted two women football players, Rand al-Halawani (released after a few days) and Natali Abu Dayyeh.

At least they are alive. In an official letter to FIFA, the PFA said that 99 footballers (among some 400 athletes) had been killed by Israel in Gaza between October 2023 and March 2024. That’s two athletes killed every day, and a footballer killed every second day. There are also numerous cases of athletes being ‘knee-capped’ – that is, shot in the knee or lower limbs – effectively terminating their playing careers. This is part of the deliberate Israeli effort to wipe out Palestinian social life, to obliterate anything that represents Palestinian culture and national pride.

This, by itself, should be enough to get the Israel Football Association sanctioned and expelled by FIFA. But there’s more.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank, built on land stolen from Palestinians, are illegal by international law. All activity on settlements, whether economic, social, cultural, or sporting, is also illegal. Several countries in the world explicitly prohibit conducting business with illegal settlement-based enterprises.

There are about half a dozen football clubs recognized by IFA operating from illegal settlements. These clubs play in Israeli leagues, and players move from illegal settlement-based clubs to other Israeli clubs, and vice-versa, all the time.

Not only is this in contravention of international law, it also explicitly violates FIFA’s own charter, which states, ‘Member associations and their clubs may not play on the territory of another member association without that association’s approval.’

Then there is the extreme Zionism of some Israeli clubs. The best-known is Beitar Jerusalem FC. Since its founding in 1936, it has been closely identified with Israel’s extreme right wing. Benjamin Netanyahu is a long-time Beitar supporter. The club has fan groups of the extreme right. The most notorious of these is La Familia, founded in 2005. This group of football ultras is known for its wanton violence and genocidal chants, including ‘Death to Arabs’.

Among football hooligans, Israeli fans occupy pride of place. For example, in November 2024, fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv FC went on a rampage in Amsterdam, tearing down Palestinian flags from buildings; chanting racist slogans, including ‘Death to Arabs’; indulging in acts of wanton violence; and chanting songs celebrating the Gaza genocide, including one that means ‘There are no schools in Gaza because all the children are dead’.

In typical Israeli playbook style, all this was justified with the claim that it was Maccabi fans who were first subjected to antisemitic slurs and violence. Subsequent investigations complicated the picture. While it is true that some Maccabi supporters faced public anger against the genocide in Gaza (but not antisemitism), there is no doubt that Maccabi supporters indulged in acts of hooliganism and racist provocations both before and after the match (in which Maccabi was trounced by the Dutch club Ajax 5–0), followed by retaliatory violence against some Israeli supporters.

The PFA is right in petitioning FIFA to sanction and expel IFA, of course, but for us to expect action under the present FIFA leadership would be naïve. FIFA president Gianni Infantino is Donald Trump’s poodle. Not only has FIFA not used its clout to force some degree of decency from the US in the conduct of the present World Cup, Infantino presented Trump with a completely made up ‘FIFA Peace Prize’ when Trump didn’t get his coveted Nobel. He has appeared in public wearing a red, MAGA-style hat. He pledged FIFA’s support to the ‘Board of Peace’ constituted by Trump to oversee a post-genocide plan in Gaza. During the FIFA Congress in Vancouver in April 2026, he attempted to get PFA president Jibril Rajoub to shake hands on stage with the vice president of IFA, Basim Sheikh Suliman. Rajoub refused.

FIFA’s collusion with Israel and the US is in contrast with its own stand against South Africa under apartheid. FIFA suspended South Africa in 1961 and expelled it in 1976. Today, despite a mountain of evidence against Israel, FIFA refuses to even sanction IFA, let alone suspend or expel it. Or take Russia, which was banned by FIFA just four days after its conflict with Ukraine began, in February 2022.

This, like much else, reflects geopolitical realities of the respective times. The 1960s and 70s were a time of decolonization and independence in Asia, Africa and Latin America, often inspired by socialism and Marxism; today is a time of naked racism and imperialism by the white ruling elites of the West.

When children in Gaza play football on the beach in the midst of the genocide, they are not merely escaping a terrible reality. They are also fighting to be treated with decency, dignity and self-respect. They are asserting humanity.

[This is a slightly amended version of an article that appeared on leftviews.in.]

Courtesy: Sudhanva Deshpande

The post How FIFA Colludes in the Genocide of Palestinians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For months, anti-SIR campaigners have urged the state government to ensure that eligible voters are not excluded from electoral rolls by simplifying the issuance of PRCs, caste certificates and family certificates—documents recognised by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for SIR verification.

However, Revenue Minister Priyank Kharge said the state had written to the ECI over a month ago seeking recognition of Karnataka’s family certificate, but the Commission has yet to respond.

Obtaining caste certificates also remains difficult despite government claims. Applicants must still produce several documents relating to their father’s lineage, making the process particularly challenging for marginalized communities. As a result, lakhs of applications remain pending, casting doubts on Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar’s assertion that 5.4 crore of Karnataka’s 5.5 crore voters already possess caste certificates.

People-Friendly PRC Rules, but…

Initially, the government had instructed Panchayat Development Officers (PDOs) to issue ordinary residence certificates through Gram Panchayat offices. Activists have pointed out that these certificates would not satisfy SIR requirements because they did not establish permanent residence. Following sustained criticism, the government has now introduced fresh guidelines and eligibility criteria for issuing Permanent Resident Certificates through a significantly simplified process.

Thus, the revised rules represent an important victory for anti-SIR activists and are considerably more citizen-friendly than the earlier framework.

Applicants may establish permanent residence through criteria such as ten years of residence in Karnataka, ten years of schooling in the state, or ownership of immovable property. To prove these conditions, they may submit Aadhaar, ration cards, revenue records, electoral rolls and similar documents. The guidelines also empower officials to conduct local inquiries, seek reports from village accountants and even consider oral testimony as supporting evidence.

Perhaps most significantly, applications cannot be rejected solely because a particular document is missing. Authorities must provide written reasons for any rejection, introducing greater transparency and accountability into the process.

Taken together, the new rules are clearly more inclusive than their predecessors.

Read SabrangIndia’s analyses of the Karnataka government’s intervention here.

The Bigger Question: Will the ECI accept them?

The central question, however, is whether Permanent Resident Certificates issued under such a simplified and inclusive framework will actually be accepted under the SIR process.

The answer is far from certain.

Lessons from West Bengal

The West Bengal example, along with the ECI’s approach and directives regarding such inclusiveness makes it clear that the ECI will not permit this level of inclusiveness.

When the Union government initiated the SIR process in Bihar, the Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal proactively simplified the issuance of domicile certificates in July 2025 to make them easier for citizens to obtain.

However, once SIR began in West Bengal, the BJP objected to domicile certificates issued after July 2025, arguing that they should not be accepted. The Election Commission subsequently subjected those certificates to additional scrutiny and, according to the author, later declined to accept domicile certificates altogether before issuing fresh notices even to applicants who had previously submitted them.

Only after widespread protests led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee did the Commission agree to accept domicile certificates again, but with several additional conditions.

Hence, through its February 8 order, the ECI asserted that:

• domicile certificates conform strictly to West Bengal’s Government Order dated November 2, 1999;
• they be issued only by the designated competent authority; and
• Electoral Registration Officers independently verify that every prescribed procedure had been followed before accepting them.

Verification was reportedly assigned to Micro Observers.

With regard to domicile certificates, West Bengal’s Government Order dated November 2, 1999, is available here:

The order prescribes limited eligibility criteria for obtaining a domicile certificate and requires that, in addition to documentary evidence, every applicant undergo verification of citizenship and police verification before the certificate can be issued. This calibration and aggressive re-assertions by the ECI demonstrate how the Commission did not accept the simplified certification process introduced by the West Bengal government. The process may be read about here.

What this could mean for Karnataka

Since the same Election Commission oversees electoral process across India, the Karnataka’s simplified PRC rules may face similar scrutiny. In that case, only PRCs issued in accordance with standards accepted by the Commission—not merely under Karnataka’s revised procedures—would qualify for SIR.

This creates fundamental contradiction: the more citizen-friendly the PRC rules become, the less likely they are to satisfy the requirements of the SIR process. This, then, again underlines the very nature and orientation of the SIR, which is designed as an exclusionary mechanism rather than an inclusive one.

For now, attention will turn to how the Election Commission responds to Karnataka’s new rules.

Moreover, the state government itself has indicated, though indirectly, that the revised PRC rules are intended solely to address SIR requirements and do not create any broader legal rights. Existing rules, it says, will continue to apply in all other contexts.

The ECI, meanwhile, is under no obligation to accept Karnataka’s amendments. As it did in West Bengal, it could reject them altogether or impose additional verification requirements through its own officials.

With the Supreme Court having upheld the Commission’s broad authority in such matters, Karnataka’s battle over PRCs is far from over.

‘Logical Discrepancies’ remain a concern

The author further notes that Karnataka’s Chief Electoral Officer has rejected demands from civil society groups and the state government to suspend the use of “Logical Discrepancy” criteria in the state. The CEO has already identified six categories of logical discrepancies in Karnataka and has indicated that more could emerge once completed Enumeration Forms are received.

For anti-SIR activists, and the campaign in general, this demands greater vigilance, avoidance of premature celebration and a continued and intensification of the struggle, both in positioning and manoeuvre

Related:

To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern

Anti-SIR Activists Beware: A mere Residential Certificate does not satisfy SIR requirements

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

The Biopolitical Anatomy of Hindutva Fascism: Part II: SIR, EVMs and the Judiciary

The post Karnataka’s new PRC rules are people-friendly, but will the ECI accept them? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The SIR exercise in Karnataka has begun amid intense political debate. The Congress-led State government has repeatedly said that it is not opposed to updating electoral rolls but has questioned the manner in which the present framework is being implemented. The concerns stem from issues of transparency, safeguards against wrongful deletions, the use of software in identifying discrepancies and the burden placed on voters.

On the first day of the exercise, Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer V. Anbu Kumar attempted to address several of these concerns by clarifying that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would not demand any documentary proof during the house-to-house enumeration. At the same time, the State Cabinet and senior ministers continued to seek greater clarity from the Election Commission before the process moves further.

No documents during house-to-house survey, says CEO

Ahead of the commencement of the exercise, Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), V. Anbu Kumar clarified that electors would not be required to produce any documents during the month-long door-to-door enumeration. According to the CEO, BLOs have been instructed only to distribute and collect Enumeration Forms. Documentary verification, he said, is not part of the initial house visit, as Times of India reported

The forms are available in Kannada, though electors may fill them either in Kannada or in English. The Election Commission has also enabled online submission through the Voters’ Service Portal and the ECINET mobile application.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The Chief Electoral Officer (@ceokarnataka)

The enumeration exercise will continue from June 30 to July 29.

After the completion of the exercise, the draft electoral rolls will be published on August 5. Claims and objections may be filed until September 4, these will be decided by October 3, and the final electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on October 7.

More than 5 cores electors exist in Karnataka

The Election Commission has stated that all 5, 54, 32,314 electors presently enrolled in Karnataka will be covered during the exercise. Around 59,050 Booth Level Officers, supported by supervisors and election officials across districts, have been deployed. BLOs have been instructed to visit every household and, wherever necessary, make up to three visits to ensure that eligible voters are not left out. While the clarification that no documents would be collected during house-to-house visits has addressed one immediate concern, the Election Commission has also imposed a pre-condition that could amount to ensuring exclusions.

The CEO stated that only those electors who submit the filled Enumeration Form within the prescribed period will find their names in the draft electoral rolls. This effectively makes the submission of the form central to the continuation of an elector’s name in the draft roll, even though documentary proof is not being sought during the initial visit. Eligible citizens who have recently turned eighteen or otherwise qualify for enrolment will have to submit Form 6 for inclusion in the electoral rolls, as reported

Logical discrepancies remain one of the biggest concerns

Perhaps the most closely watched aspect of the Karnataka exercise is the identification of so-called “logical discrepancies.” This vague and untested category had amounted to 27 lakh exclusions in West Bengal! The CEO has listed six categories of such ‘logical discrepancies’ that have presently been identified, although the final number will become clear only after the publication of the draft electoral rolls on August 5. Explaining some of these categories, he said notices may be issued where “the age difference between father and child is less than 15 years,” where “the age difference between grandfather and grandson is more than 40 years,” or where there are inconsistencies relating to gender and family relationships.

According to the CEO, Assistant Electoral Registration Officers would issue notices asking electors to submit supporting documents wherever such discrepancies are detected.

However, while examples have been provided, the Election Commission has not yet publicly released the complete methodology, software logic or technical standards through which such discrepancies are identified. It is precisely this lack of transparency that has become the central point of disagreement between the Karnataka government and the Election Commission.

State Cabinet says it supports revision, not arbitrary deletions

A day before the exercise began, the Karnataka Cabinet discussed the SIR process and formally recorded its concerns. The Cabinet maintained that updating electoral rolls is necessary, but insisted that the process must remain transparent, legally sound and free from arbitrary action.

In a detailed statement shared on social media, Home Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge said that:

“The Karnataka Cabinet supports transparent, evidence-based revision of electoral rolls, but has raised serious concerns about opacity, arbitrariness and possible disenfranchisement in the current SIR framework.”

He further wrote that. “the Cabinet has made it clear, Karnataka supports revision of electoral rolls, not subversion of electoral rolls. The ECI is yet to respond.”

The statement reflects the State government’s position that electoral roll revision itself is not under challenge. Instead, the concerns relate to the manner in which the current framework is proposed to operate. Through the Cabinet’s resolution, Priyank Kharge outlined an extensive set of demands before the SIR process progresses further in Karnataka.

The Karnataka Cabinet supports transparent, evidence-based revision of electoral rolls, but has raised serious concerns about opacity, arbitrariness and possible disenfranchisement in the current SIR framework.

The Cabinet resolved that before SIR is implemented in Karnataka,…

— Priyank Kharge / ಪ್ರಿಯಾಂಕ್ ಖರ್ಗೆ (@PriyankKharge) June 30, 2026

The Cabinet has asked the Election Commission to undertake a full independent review of the entire SIR process, including its legal basis, deletion criteria, supervisory mechanism, software systems and safeguards.

It has also sought an extension of the timeline for submission of Enumeration Forms from one month to at least three months, arguing that the present schedule places undue pressure on Booth Level Officers, election officials and ordinary citizens.

Another major demand relates to transparency. The Cabinet has sought publication of a comprehensive manual explaining every category of “logical discrepancy”, the software or algorithm used to detect such discrepancies, the standard operating procedures, the officials responsible for decision-making and the documents that may be required from electors.

The State government has further demanded that no elector should receive a notice unless a prior physical field verification has been conducted by the Booth Level Officer. It has argued that minor spelling mistakes, clerical errors or transliteration differences should never become grounds for objection.

The Cabinet has also insisted that no voter should be deleted without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard before an impartial authority and a reasoned speaking order.

It has sought clarification on the complete list of admissible documents, reconsideration of the exclusion of Aadhaar and Voter ID wherever applicable, recognition of Karnataka’s Kutumba ID in appropriate cases and assurance that the burden of proving eligibility is not unfairly shifted onto ordinary citizens.

The State government has additionally sought simultaneous processing of valid Form 6 applications and Form 7 objections, safeguards against bulk objections leading to mass deletions, publication of machine-readable daily data relating to notices, additions and deletions, public disclosure and independent testing of all software used in the process, clearer definition of the role of Special Roll Observers and Micro-Observers, and enhanced safeguards for vulnerable groups including women, migrant workers, slum residents, nomadic and de-notified tribes, widows, persons with disabilities, orphans and transgender persons.

While the SIR exercise in Karnataka has commenced, the Election Commission has, so far, not publicly responded to these demands.

CM promises permanent residence certificate for voters

Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar has also intervened on the issue by assuring citizens that the State government would facilitate the issuance of Permanent Residence Certificates for those who require them during the SIR process. The assurance came after concerns were raised about documentation and the practical difficulties faced by many electors in obtaining supporting records, as reported

The Chief Minister has also maintained that the State government will examine legal options depending on the Election Commission’s response to the concerns raised by the Cabinet.

The larger issue is about safeguards, not merely enumeration

Although the Election Commission has repeatedly stated that the objective of the SIR is to ensure an accurate electoral roll, the political debate in Karnataka has increasingly shifted towards procedural safeguards.

Questions are being raised about how discrepancies are identified, who supervises the process, how notices are generated and what legal protections exist before an elector’s name can ultimately be deleted. The clarification that no documents are required during house-to-house visits addresses only one stage of the process. Concerns continue over what happens after the draft electoral roll is published, particularly in cases where notices may be issued on the basis of “logical discrepancies.”

The absence of publicly available technical documentation explaining these discrepancy categories has further contributed to demands for greater transparency.

Fear of wrongful deletion continues to shape public discourse

Among several sections of voters, the discussion around SIR is being shaped not only by the current guidelines but also by concerns arising from earlier electoral roll revision exercises in different parts of the country where allegations of wrongful deletions had led to on ground fear among the marginalised electors.

Political parties and civil society groups have repeatedly argued that even a small number of erroneous deletions can significantly affect citizens because the right to vote depends entirely upon inclusion in the electoral roll.

For many electors, especially elderly persons, migrant workers, tenants, persons living in informal settlements and economically weaker sections, concerns remain about whether procedural requirements can be completed within the prescribed timeline and whether genuine mistakes in records may eventually result in exclusion.

It is against this backdrop that Karnataka’s month-long SIR exercise has begun. While the Election Commission has emphasised participation and administrative preparedness, the State government continues to press for greater transparency, procedural safeguards and stronger protection against wrongful disenfranchisement. The coming weeks—leading up to the publication of the draft electoral rolls on August 5—are likely to determine whether these concerns are addressed through administrative clarification or result in the wrongful disenfranchisement of existing electors.

Related:

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

SC greenlights SIR, upholds ECI’s power to revise electoral rolls

The Bihar Verdict 2025: How an election was engineered before votes were cast

The post Karnataka launches SIR with 5.5 crore voters, State Govt voices transparency concerns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Urban solid waste management is among the most critical responsibilities of any modern state. Yet success in this area remains elusive across much of the world, and India is no exception. While governments frequently focus on technologies, treatment facilities, and infrastructure, the most fundamental aspect of waste management often receives insufficient attention: waste is generated by people and can only be managed effectively through their active participation.

The case of Kerala illustrates this challenge. The state generates over 11,000 tonnes of solid waste every day. Yet the infrastructure available for scientific processing and disposal remains limited. A significant quantity of waste, particularly mixed and residual waste finds its way beyond the state’s borders for further processing or disposal. This problem is not simply one of insufficient facilities, although that is a major part of it; it reflects a broader difficulty in creating a system that seamlessly integrates households, local governments, private actors, and public institutions into a coherent framework.

A common misconception is that waste management can be solved primarily through mechanisation and large-scale infrastructure. Machines undoubtedly have an important role. Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs), treatment plants, collection vehicles, incinerators, and scientific landfills are necessary components of any modern waste management system. However, waste begins its journey long before it reaches such facilities. It begins in households, shops, offices, and institutions. If waste is not segregated at source, even the most advanced infrastructure struggles to perform efficiently. After all, the viability of these facilities relies entirely on the steady supply of source-segregated waste.

Waste management is therefore not merely a technical problem but a deeply social one. It involves citizens, local governments, public agencies, and private enterprises. It concerns both the rights and responsibilities of individuals, the actions of institutions at various levels, and collective outcomes. The effectiveness of any system depends on the willingness of individuals to segregate waste at source, reduce waste generation, and cooperate with local authorities, which are the primary administrative units responsible for managing solid waste. Without such civic participation, infrastructure alone cannot succeed.

This social dimension also explains why waste management differs from ordinary market activities. In a typical market transaction, two parties voluntarily exchange goods or services. Waste, however, creates consequences for people who are not directly involved in its generation. A plastic bag discarded in a public space may belong to nobody, yet its effects are borne by everybody through pollution, waterlogging, and environmental degradation. Economists describe such situations as externalities, but the practical implication is straightforward: market incentives alone cannot adequately govern waste. An approach based primarily on the economic aspects of waste management has significant limitations.

For this reason, waste management should not be viewed primarily as a profit-generating activity driven by private players and their interests. Opportunities for revenue generation certainly exist through recycling, recovery, and resource extraction. Yet the central objective of waste management is the creation of public value that safeguards public health and society, rather than ensuring profit for those involved in it. When waste management is approached solely through a market lens, important social and environmental considerations are easily neglected. The management of waste is fundamentally an administrative and civic responsibility involving common resources and public participation.

Decentralisation and Kerala

The possibility of effective solid waste management in a densely populated country like India depends heavily on the decentralisation of waste management mechanisms. By this, we also mean the decentralisation of local administration into layered Local Self-Government (LSG) units: wards, grama panchayats, block panchayats, district panchayats, municipalities, and municipal corporations.

Such a division of administration and representation helps promote participatory planning from the grassroots, as has been happening in Kerala since the launch of the People’s Planning Campaign in 1996. Village-level plans discussed at ward-level meetings of all voters are forwarded to higher levels for approval every six months. This mechanism immediately links administrative responsibility such as that of a municipal health inspector or secretary to political representation through the local ward councilor or standing committee chairman on issues that deserve urgent attention.

Solid waste management issues in each locality require the close participation and attention of administration at these lower levels. In India, people in positions of power are generally disinclined to give attention to waste for two primary reasons:

1. The all-pervasive caste system has historically branded waste handling as a lower-status occupation.
2. Safety and protective equipment remain highly inadequate in most Local Self-Government units, making waste management a hazardous task.

If Kerala has been able to achieve relatively better solid waste management outcomes at a basic level since 2020—specifically through source segregation at households and institutions, and the collection of non-biodegradable waste (NBDW) by the Haritha Karma Sena (HKS) from households, shops, and institutions—it is primarily because the state has fully operationalised its 941 grama panchayats, 14 district panchayats, 152 block panchayats, 87 municipalities, and 6 municipal corporations following the implementation of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments from 1996 onwards.

In the coming years, other states in India should follow suit, given the complex ecological implications of poor waste management in both urban centres and villages. For instance, in Kerala, the recurring floods of recent years (2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021) have compelled the state administration to think seriously about solid waste management as a vital preventive measure, given the state’s vast network of water bodies and its long monsoon season, during which plastic waste clogging water bodies and urban drainage systems can significantly aggravate flooding.

Gandhi and Decentralised Governance

Gandhi’s ideas about society and its relationship with local governance need to be explored further to understand Kerala’s approach to solid waste management. “My Waste is My Responsibility” (Ente Malinyam Ente Utharavadithwam) and “We Are the Change” (Nammalanu Mattam) are two distinctly Gandhian-sounding slogans used by the Kerala Local Self-Government Department in its solid waste management campaigns.

For Gandhi, the decentralisation of administration formed part of a broader effort to mitigate the coercive power of the state and ensure representation for everyone; Sarvodaya, in Gandhian terms. As is well known, Gandhi was deeply influenced by John Ruskin’s Unto This Last. The political and philosophical dimensions of prioritising the last person in society in terms of justice and equality were later elaborated in a profound manner by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice.

Gandhi ultimately saw the world as an “ever-expanding circle” of villages rather than an arena of nations fighting one another with increasingly sophisticated weapons over market-driven interests disguised as national interests under capitalism, state socialism, or fascism. To address the problems of centralised production and complex, profit-driven machinery, he stressed the decentralised village or small community as the basic unit of society, irrespective of the immediate economic losses or inconvenience that such an approach might entail.

Haritha Karma Sena as a Gandhian Alternative

The work undertaken by the Haritha Karma Sena in Kerala has generally been regarded as a capital-intensive urban function. However, its involvement makes the system far more labour-intensive, while distributing the benefits of waste management more equitably, as workers are compensated from the value created through their labour. This represents a distinctly Gandhian approach to a social responsibility, particularly because waste management is a socio-environmental obligation whose benefits extend far beyond Kerala and India.

Their involvement makes solid waste management genuinely decentralised at multiple levels. First, their participation makes the process labour-intensive and reduces the likelihood of future dumping. Dump-yard clearance, on the other hand, is a highly capital-intensive activity, as witnessed in Brahmapuram, Kochi, and elsewhere, where decentralisation had long been neglected before it was finally adopted.

Another important contribution of the Haritha Karma Sena to the waste management sector is the decentralisation of governance, income generation, and administration across genders. It also serves as a mitigating force against the historical stigma attached to waste handling in India, particularly within caste-based social structures. The process of visiting households every month to collect source-segregated waste is itself a form of public education that fosters a new ecological consciousness among citizens.

Gandhi believed that power should be shared in such a way that any monopoly over wealth constituted a social wrong; hence his concept of trusteeship. The collection, processing, and consequent reduction of waste through the systematic involvement of the Haritha Karma Sena represent an alternative understanding of both the economy and the community in a society that is rapidly moving in a capitalist direction, where private capital already exercises considerable influence.

Generally, the benefits of urban solid waste management accrue to capital-intensive companies and to a very small section of poor people willing to work under unfavourable conditions. The involvement of the Haritha Karma Sena has transformed waste management into an area in which ordinary people can participate and contribute. As a result, waste management becomes a more transparent process. The financial benefits generated through waste management increasingly reach relatively poorer sections of society, thereby expanding the scope for the democratisation of wealth.

The Haritha Karma Sena and the municipal administration have become trustees of the wealth generated while creating a social good, rather than parties seeking to exploit it for private gain. However, a great deal of conscious effort is still required to fully realise this ideal.

Kerala’s Past Failed Experiences with Centralised Waste Management

The two most prominent failed experiments in centralised waste management in Kerala; Brahmapuram in Kochi and Vilappilsala in Thiruvananthapuram illustrate what happens when Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) lack self-sufficiency. At these dumping sites, unsegregated urban solid waste from various municipalities and towns was piled up indiscriminately.

The facilities failed to function because the fundamental principle of waste management that individual participation through source segregation is paramount was overlooked in favour of the belief that machines and capital-intensive technologies could remediate large dumpsites.

In Brahmapuram, a village used by the Kochi Municipal Corporation, six neighbouring municipalities sent their unsegregated waste to a single dumpsite. A catastrophic fire that lasted twelve days caused widespread toxic pollution across the city. The subsequent land reclamation took nearly two years, during which around 550,000 tonnes of mixed solid waste had to be biomined and removed. Following the disaster, each municipality in the district was instructed to manage its own solid waste within its jurisdiction to the greatest extent possible.

Similarly, at Vilappilsala panchayat, urban waste from Thiruvananthapuram city was dumped for years instead of requiring individuals and institutions to segregate their waste at source. This led to sustained public protests that eventually forced the closure of the facility. In both cases, waste management practices ran directly contrary to the Gandhian principle of village self-sufficiency, whereby production, consumption, and waste are managed by the people themselves to the maximum extent possible. Recognising the shift towards a Haritha Karma Sena-based urban waste management system, the state government aptly titled its comprehensive 2021 status report The State of Decentralised Solid Waste Management in Kerala.

Part 2 Follows.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Waste, Responsibility and Decentralisation: A Gandhian Perspective on Solid Waste Management in Kerala (Part 1) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Historically, the Indian state has used demographic data for its population control goals. After decades of deploying demographic data to control fertility and sexuality, and sustained resistance by women’s movements for their reproductive rights, bodily autonomy and integrity, the ‘target’ has now moved to specific religious communities, in particular minorities, with a communal agenda, under the pretext of achieving an ‘infiltrator-free India’. 

The statement states:

“It is in this context that the we as feminists, civil liberties and people’s movements, activists, academics and concerned citizens are deeply concerned at the questionable Terms of Reference (ToR) of the ‘High-Level Committee on Demographic Change’ (HPC-DC) notified by the Government of India on May 26, 2026, in pursuance of the Prime Minister’s announcement of the ‘High-Powered Demography Mission’ on August 15, 2025.

“The Committee is to be chaired by Jst (Retd) Prakash Prabhakar Navlekar, with Mr. Durga Shankar Mishra (Retd. IAS), Mr. Balaji Srivastava (Retd. IPS), Dr. Shamika Ravi and the Census Commissioner, as its members. Notably, the ToR has references to “illegal immigration or “illegal migrants” in seven of its eight action points. The sole action point that does not include such references calls for an analysis of structural population changes among “religious and social communities”

“Demography is a broad field of inquiry that studies population processes such as birth, death, fertility, mortality, ageing, gender ratios, population distribution, migration, urbanisation and the influence of development models on demographic patterns. One would, therefore, expect the ToR to mandate an examination of the full range of demographic transformations currently reshaping India, including declining fertility rates, regional population disparities, internal migration, emigration, changing family structures, ageing populations, gender inequalities, and the intensification of care responsibilities. 

“A genuinely independent Committee would be tasked with analysing the socio-economic drivers of these critical changes, assessing the social, political, cultural and economic consequences at the regional, state and local levels, and recommending policies grounded in evidence and constitutional values. Instead, the ToR has presumed and pre-determined the outcomes of the inquiry and narrowed this vast subject almost exclusively to questions of “illegal immigration”, “religious and social communities”, border management, identification systems, detention and deportation. We are particularly concerned that the Committee has been tasked with analysing population changes among religious and social communities, while simultaneously operating within a framework that repeatedly links demographic change to “illegal immigration” and “demographic imbalance”.

“The Government should ensure that any study of demographic change is independent, methodologically transparent, federally undertaken, and free from assumptions that pre-determine its findings. Instead, this Committee appears poised to recommend mechanisms for identifying, detaining and deporting persons presumed to be illegal immigrants. Although presented as demographic analysis, the ToR effectively continues the regime’s misplaced focus on “illegal immigration” as a primary threat to national sovereignty while simultaneously stigmatising entire communities. Such an approach risks deepening social polarisation rather than advancing evidence-based public policy.

“As feminists, we reject attempts to reduce complex social realities to narratives of demographic threat linked to illegal immigration. History shows that anxieties about population composition often translate into increased surveillance of women’s bodies, restrictions on reproductive autonomy, and heightened discrimination against minorities, marginalized, and communities in peripheral locations.  The recent SIR exercise conducted through the lens of “illegal immigration” resulted in disproportionately high deletions of women voters and Muslims, relative to their share of the population.

“We, therefore, request that the Government undertake a comprehensive review of the objectives and ToR of the said Committee and defer the commencement of the Committee’s work, at least until the ongoing Census is completed. Only a robust, exhaustive, and transparent Census can provide a trustworthy demographic baseline for understanding the myriad complex population changes India is undergoing. The suggested policies based on the analysis of this Census data will equip the state to address the demographic challenges. Proceeding without such a foundation risks compounding errors, deepening exclusions, and enabling pre-determined conclusions, under the guise of demographic study.”

ALIFA has also urged that the government to step back from this misguided approach. Public policy must be guided by constitutional values, rigorous evidence, and respect for human rights. India’s demographic future should be approached as a question of justice, equality and human development, not as a narrative of suspicion and fear.

Related:

High-Level Committee on Demographic Change (HLC-DC): Another Offensive on Indian Muslims!

The post ALIFA seeks review of questionable ToR of ‘High-Level Committee on Demographic Change’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“In March this year, my name was deleted from the Ballygunge constituency electoral roll in Kolkata, apparently because the Special Intensive Revision process could not trace either my name or that of my late father in the 2002 voters’ list. My father, a Gandhian, retired professor and former State Secretary of the Gandhi Smarak Nidhi in Kerala, passed away in 2016. I remain unable to understand how a conscientious voter like him could have been absent from the rolls.

“Like nearly 27 lakh other residents of West Bengal, I was excluded on account of what were described as “logical discrepancies”. No reason was furnished even after I submitted my matriculation certificate, and my appeal is now pending before one of the tribunals constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions. As a consequence, I was unable to vote in the recent election.

“More distressing has been the fate of my passport renewal application. Although I completed the biometric formalities on March 19, 2026, police verification has not been cleared because my name no longer appears on the electoral roll. Despite submitting several alternative documents, I have been informed that they are insufficient. In fact, today (Saturday, June 27, 2026) is the 100th day since my biometrics for passport renewal were taken. I was formally informed last week by the passport-issuing authority that Kolkata Police sent an adverse report, citing the deletion of my name from the voters’ list. I have been asked to appear before the Regional Passport Office in Calcutta “immediately” but when I sought an appointment, without which it is difficult to gain entry, the date granted is July 17, 2026.

“In between, our daughter, a journalist in California, got married in San Francisco on April 17. Needless to say, it would have been impossible for me to attend the wedding in the absence of an active passport, notwithstanding my possession of a valid ten-year US visa.

“For all practical purposes, I find myself in a state of civic uncertainty although recently the government iterated that a passport is no proof of citizenship.  Much of my time is now consumed by efforts to reconstruct family records and secure documents dating back several decades….

“My days begin with checking my voting right appeal status and then the passport tracker. Then I write to the college where my mother taught in 1965 and to her school from where she passed out in 1959, asking for any document that proves she existed. The school has been very helpful but not the college. Similarly, I speak to prohibition campaign activists in Kerala, running down a list I collected after coming across an activist’s name in a group by chance, asking for any news clipping or photographs that show my father campaigning against illegal liquor vends and communalism.

“Some close friends and public figures have helped me in all these efforts. However, I am unaware if any media outlet or journalists’ association or guild (of which I am not a member) has shown any interest in my situation. A senior journalist reminded me that this situation is by no means unique as “rejection” has been the daily certainty confronting millions of Indians for centuries. I accept that point.

“My intention has never been to project myself as a victim. Rather, I have wanted to underline a larger point: if someone who spent his professional life in journalism and edited a relatively known newspaper can encounter such difficulties, one can only imagine what the truly marginalised must endure.  Did I approach any newspaper? No, because I do not want it to become an issue concerning me. Do editors and journalists know about my issue? Of course, several do. If they don’t, they should not be in the profession, don’t you think?

“Yet, the complete silence of newspapers on this issue has confirmed my suspicion, now reinforced with personal experience, that so-called mainstream journalism has little to do with my life. I do not “read” any newspaper now. I glance at some but hardly find anything that piques my interest.

“I continue, however, to admire the work of organisations such as The Wire, Scroll, The Reporters’ Collective, Newslaundry, The News Minute and PARI. They represent journalism of the highest order, and I sometimes feel it does them a disservice to evaluate them alongside much of what passes for mainstream journalism today.

“It is for this reason that I no longer feel ethically justified in serving on a jury entrusted with recognising excellence in journalism. My views on much of the misidentified “mainstream media” have become deeply sceptical, and I cannot be confident that they would not unconsciously influence my judgment. There may well be outstanding work being done within those organisations, but I am no longer sure that I would be able to assess it with the detachment such a responsibility demands. My disenchantment cannot be allowed to affect their chance at winning an award named after Shri Prem Bhatia.

“My reservations are ethical rather than legal. I believe my continued presence would diminish, rather than enhance, the integrity of the selection process.

“I, therefore, request that you kindly permit me to step aside. I apologise to you for any inconvenience caused. I remain deeply appreciative of this stellar initiative and wish it every success in the years ahead. Please feel free to share this note with anyone you prefer.

This note that has been made public by R. Rajagopal was also a part of his resignation from the Prem Bhatia Journalism Award Jury.

R. Rajagopal

P.S. The The Prem Bhatia Journalism Awards and Lecture were instituted in 1995 by the Prem Bhatia Memorial Trust to honour the legacy of the legendary former editor of The Tribune. Mr. Bhatia was an eminent journalist, known for both his incisive political reporting and far-sightedness, as well as his independence of judgement and unfaltering objectivity. The trust instituted two awards — one for Excellence in Political Journalism, and the other for Excellence in Environmental Journalism, to honour his memory.In 2024, under an arrangement, the trust handed over its corpus to the Guild. Since 2025, the Editors Guild of India (EGi) has continued the legacy by administering the awards, along with the annual lecture.

Meanwhile the Editor’s Guild of India issued a statement condemning the treatment meted out to R. Rajagopal on Sunday, June 28. The full text may be read here:

“June 28, 2026 | New Delhi: The Editors Guild of India condemns the manner in which Mr. R. Rajagopal, a former Editor of The Telegraph, a leading Kolkata-based daily, is being treated by the bureaucracy that gets to decide who is an Indian citizen and who is not. Mr. Rajagopal, despites decades of work in the public domain as a journalist and editor, today finds himself not only disenfranchised as a voter due to the deletion of his name from the electoral rolls, but also unable to renew his passport since more than 100 days, allegedly due to an ‘adverse report’ from the Kolkata Police, who must have been very familiar with Mr. Rajagopal as the Editor of one of the city’s leading dailies. The police verification appears to have been denied on the basis that Mr. Rajagopal’s name no longer figured on the electoral rolls!

Mr. Rajagopal’s plight highlights the misery that millions of Indians are being put through due to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India.

If it could happen to someone like Mr. Rajagopal, a known public figure, the fate of others who have similarly been disenfranchised by a bureaucratic stroke of the pen, and lacking the voice to seek redressal can only be imagined.

The EGi calls on the EC to display common sense – and sympathy — and restore Mr. Rajagopal’s identity as a voter at the earliest — and extend similar consideration to all those who have suffered a similar fate.

Related:

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern

Anti-SIR Activists Beware: A mere Residential Certificate does not satisfy SIR requirements

The post Rejected as Voter, also denied a Passport? Here is how ‘New India’ deals with exclusion complaints under SIR: Former editor, Telegraph, R Rajagopal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Widening Crisis and the Call to Reject Blame

The statement highlighted the dangerous trajectory of the crisis, noting that the devastating conflict that erupted between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities in May 2023 has now escalated to include tensions between the Naga and Kuki communities. Warning that the situation must not devolve into a “war of all against all,” the signatories deliberately avoided assigning blame to any specific group. Instead, they mourned the casualties across all communities, including the Kuki-Zo, Meitei, and Naga populations.

The appeal stressed that competitive victimhood has no place in the current crisis, declaring that no historical grievance, political claim, or religious identity can justify the killing of civilians, hostage-taking, or the targeting of women and places of worship.

Furthermore, the coalition demanded the immediate protection of civilians, safe humanitarian access, the release of detainees, and the dignified return of mortal remains.

A major regional concern raised by the collective is the threat the ongoing violence poses to the broader North East’s fragile peace agreements. The appeal referenced the three decades of political negotiations and ceasefires facilitated by the Government of India, particularly the historic 1997 Indo-Naga peace process with the NSCN-IM, warning that the region could be plunged into deeper insecurity if communities lose faith in negotiated settlements.

However, the signatories also acknowledged recent acts of restraint that offer hope, praising Naga civil society’s successful intervention in securing the release of 14 Kuki detainees despite intense public anger.

The collective highlighted this as a crucial gesture for peace, demonstrating that community institutions can still prioritise responsibility over revenge.

A Diverse Coalition Demanding Accountability

The appeal is backed by a diverse and distinguished group of signatories, including filmmakers Anand Patwardhan and Suhasini Mulay, former civil servants Harsh Mander and V. Venugopal, former Planning Commission member Dr. Syeda Hameed and numerous journalists, economists, and environmentalists.

Notably, women’s rights organisations and feminist scholars constitute a significant portion of the coalition. Emphasizing this, political activist Annie Raja stated that women’s organisations across all communities must be empowered as the primary custodians of peace, as women have historically held communities together during times of crisis.

Dr. Syeda Hameed further underscored the national significance of the crisis, stating that Manipur is a direct test of the Indian republic’s constitutional morality and that the Union Government must act before all faith in peace collapses. Nicholas Chinnappan, President of Friends of the Earth India, added that the violence is deeply intertwined with issues of land, resources, and militarization, asserting that peace must be built on a foundation of justice.

Core Demands for Peace and Justice

In its concluding demands, the appeal called upon both the Union and State governments to protect lives without discrimination, recover illegal weapons, and prevent further armed mobilization.

The signatories demanded an impartial, time-bound peace process involving independent mediators and representatives from all affected communities, including the Kuki-Zo, Meitei, Naga, Pangal, Mising, and Hmar communities.

Additionally, they called for an independent, judicially monitored investigation into all major incidents of violence, sexual assault, arson, and custodial abuse that have occurred since May 2023, with scrutiny of the roles played by armed groups, state forces, and political actors. The statement concluded by asserting that democracy cannot survive if communities are forced to negotiate life and death through armed factions while constitutional institutions fail in their fundamental duties.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Citizens and Civil Society Groups Issue Urgent Appeal to Halt Escalating Violence in Manipur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A key reason is the limited understanding among affected communities of the long-term implications of SIR. While the NRC was widely perceived as a direct threat to citizenship, the dangers posed by SIR have not been communicated with the same clarity. There is growing concern that individuals removed from electoral rolls through the SIR process could eventually face the erosion of citizenship rights, exclusion from government welfare schemes, and the weakening of constitutional protections. If such consequences begin to materialise, awareness and resistance among marginalised, Dalit, and oppressed communities are likely to intensify. As a result, the demand for the withdrawal of SIR may gather mass support only after the process has run its course, making it essential for people’s organisations to prepare for a longer and grittier struggle.

At the same time, certain assumptions circulating within sections of the movement deserve closer scrutiny. A widely held belief suggests that Karnataka can make SIR more people-friendly through administrative interventions and political will, particularly with the support of the Congress government. This expectation persists despite the fact that similar efforts have not succeeded in states such as West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, where opposition parties and grassroots organizations have mounted a far more sustained resistance.

Several proposals have emerged from within activist circles. These include conducting Gram Sabha-based verification of voter lists (social audit of the electoral rolls), preparing parallel voter registers, allowing Gram Sabha approval to substitute for missing documents, issuing residence certificates at the local level, digitizing available records, creating smart cards for residents, and extending the deadline for document submission by six months. Reported The Hindu.

Underlying these proposals is the hope that Karnataka can prevent the exclusion of any eligible voter from the electoral rolls. Activists have also warned that a larger agitation could follow if the Election Commission refuses to accommodate these demands.

Responding to public pressure, Congress leaders and the Chief Minister have repeatedly instructed party workers to ensure that no eligible voter is left out during the SIR exercise. Such statements have further strengthened the belief in some quarters that Karnataka may be able to overcome the dangers associated with SIR through state-level intervention.

The democratic spirit behind these demands is Unquestionable. Similar proposals have been endorsed by several scholars and former Election Commissioners who view them as part of a broader project of democratizing electoral administration.

The central issue, however, is not the democratic aspirations themselves. The question is whether these aspirations can actually be implemented within the legal framework governing SIR.

Here lies the fundamental contradiction. SIR, by its very design, appears to function in a manner that limits democratic oversight rather than expanding it. Even the modest mechanisms of public accountability that existed in earlier electoral processes seem increasingly inapplicable within the current framework.

This raises important questions about the constitutional character of SIR, the extent of authority available to state governments to intervene in the process, and the realistic prospects of protecting vulnerable communities from exclusion.

Demands for Gram Sabha oversight, smart cards, social audits, and community verification are undoubtedly democratic and desirable. Yet there is a danger in assuming that existing governments can simply implement these measures and thereby neutralise the exclusionary potential of SIR. Such expectations rest on the assumption that state governments possess meaningful authority over a process that is largely beyond their control.

That reality may help explain why states with stronger grassroots movements, more active civil societies, and comparatively responsive governments—including Kerala, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu—have been unable to introduce significant people-friendly modifications to the SIR process.

A serious engagement with SIR therefore requires moving beyond optimism, assumptions, and administrative wish lists. The challenge is to understand the process in its existing legal and political form and to develop strategies of resistance grounded in that reality rather than in expectations of accommodation.

SIR and the Constitutional Limits of State Governments

A recurring demand in the ongoing opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process is that state governments should intervene to make voter verification more democratic and inclusive. Proposals such as Gram Sabha scrutiny of voter rolls, social audits, community verification mechanisms, and locally issued documentation have gained support among activists and sections of civil society.

These demands arise from legitimate democratic concerns. Yet a closer examination of the constitutional and legal framework governing electoral rolls raises an important question: do state governments actually possess the authority to introduce such measures within the current system?

The Constitution of India, through Articles 324 to 326, vests the superintendence, direction, control, and conduct of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures in the Election Commission of India (ECI). This arrangement has long been criticized for limiting democratic oversight and accountability. Nevertheless, until constitutional reforms alter this framework, it remains the governing reality.

Precisely because of these limitations, proposals such as Gram Sabha-based verification and social audits represent important democratic reforms that deserve serious consideration. The issue, however, is not whether such reforms are desirable, but whether state governments can legally implement them under the existing constitutional structure.

The answer appears to be clear. Without constitutional amendments or changes to the relevant laws governing elections, state governments do not possess the authority to introduce such reforms in the preparation of Assembly electoral rolls.

The need for a legislative reform on how state elections function may be read here. A year ago, Janaagraha found that only 34 of the State Election Commissions had the powers to undertake delimitation and reservation exercises, revealing that state commissions are unable to enforce independent timelines for the conduct of local elections. This study may be read here.

The legal basis for the current SIR exercise is found in Article 324 (1) of the Constitution, Sections 21 and 13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the relevant provisions of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Article 324(1) places the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections under the authority of the Election Commission of India.

Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 grants the Commission broad powers to undertake revisions of electoral rolls whenever it considers such action necessary. Electoral rolls prepared outside the Commission’s directions do not possess legal validity.

But the SIR process goes beyond a routine electoral revision and effectively operates as a form of citizenship verification and exclusion. Whether such an exercise falls within the Commission’s constitutional authority remains a matter of intense legal and political debate. However, Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality and the legal basis of this exclusionary SIR in its May 27, 2026 judgement.

Read Vote for Democracy and SabrangIndia’s special analysis of the verdict here.

Section 13CC further strengthens the Commission’s authority by placing all election officials, including Chief Electoral Officers of the states, under the control, superintendence, and disciplinary authority of the Election Commission while performing election-related functions. This is arguably against the intrinsic federal principals also vaguely enshrined in the Constitution, especially if the central ECI becomes a handmaiden or tool of the regime in power.

Read Vote for Democracy’s multi-lingual Timeline: From shielding Election Commissioners to restricting scrutiny of election documents, including video footage here.

As a result, the design, implementation, and operational guidelines governing SIR fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction. During the conduct of the exercise, state election machinery functions under the Commission’s authority rather than under the direct control of state governments.

Some activists have pointed to provisions contained in the Election Commission’s 2023 revision manual, which allow draft electoral rolls to be read out in Gram Sabhas during certain revision exercises. However, those provisions apply to the routine Intensive Revision -IR- categories of electoral roll revisions and not the exceptional and Special Intensive Revision-SIR which is envisaged to verify and exclude citizens and not just routine voter verification.

Read Citizens for Justice and Peace’s exclusive training manual for activists here and here.

The guidelines issued separately for SIR do not provide for Gram Sabha scrutiny. Consequently, any attempt by a state government to impose alternative procedures outside the Commission’s framework could potentially conflict with the legal obligations imposed on election officials under Section 13CC.

A distinction must also be drawn between the Election Commission of India and State Election Commissions. State Election Commissions conduct elections to local bodies and operate within a different constitutional framework. Their powers do not extend to the preparation of electoral rolls for Parliamentary and Assembly elections.

The recent SC judgement has made it mandatory even for the voter list prepared for the Local Body elections to pass the SIR test. Thus it has further reinforced the centralization of authority in matters linked to SIR. As a consequence, even the limited space available to state institutions appears increasingly constrained.

The broader implication is that unless constitutional reforms transfer greater authority over electoral roll preparation to states or create stronger mechanisms of local democratic oversight, state governments have little room to modify the framework established by the Election Commission.

This constitutional reality helps explain why states such as Kerala, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu—despite possessing strong opposition parties, an active citizenry, and robust grassroots movements—have been unable to implement many of the democratic safeguards demanded by activists.

Read SabrangIndia’s exclusive interrogation into numbers of exclusion of voters, state-wise, here.

Previous robust analyses by the Reporter’s Collective into the ongoing West Bengal SIR process, that revealed issues like a) how the Commission misled the Supreme Court, b) serious software glitches that facilitated mechanical exclusions, c) ECI’s authorisation of hand-picked personnel to supersede legally designated officers responsible for voter verification, d) rules changes without public notice and e) WhatsApp messages and oral commands complementing written regulations. These investigations may be read here, here, here and here.

The debate surrounding SIR is therefore not simply about the possibility of constitutional (read sympathetic) administrative interventions. It is also about the unchecked concentration of electoral authority within existing constitutional structures and the lack of constitutional mandate for the state governments to intervene. Unfortunately this authority has also been lent judicial affirmation.

Smart Cards and Residence Certificates are not SIR Documents

Recent statements by the Karnataka’s Congress leadership have highlighted efforts to address concerns surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The Chief Minister has reportedly directed officials to expedite the issuance of Residence Certificates, while the newly-appointed KPCC president BK Hariprasad has urged the state government to adopt a people-centric approach in dealing with SIR-related issues.

The difficulty, however, lies in the distinction between a general residence certificate and the category of requirements of documents for a Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) and recognised under the SIR framework.

Read an earlier caution on the issue here.

According to the criteria laid down by the Election Commission, the relevant requirement is not merely proof of current residence but proof of permanent residence through documents recognised under the prescribed verification process.

Experiences from other states especially West Bengal illustrate the limits of state-level intervention. In West Bengal, the Election Commission initially declined to accept even the permanent Domicile Certificates leave alone what was called as the arbitrary Residence Certificate! Only after sustained political opposition, public mobilisation, and legal challenges was the Commission persuaded to recognize Domicile certificates. Even then, their acceptance was made contingent upon specific procedures, verification requirements, and certification by competent authorities.

This precedent raises doubts about whether residence certificates issued through an expedited state-level process would automatically satisfy the Commission’s requirements. The authority to determine the validity and acceptability of documents remains with the Central Election Commission.

More over the recent May 2026 SC judgement has endorsed the constitutional authority and legal power of the Election Commission to prescribe documentary regime that it deems fit to satisfy eligibility criteria, discretion in determining timelines, documentary requirements, and verification procedures under SIR. This has significantly expanded the Commission’s unchecked autonomy while reducing opportunities for democratic oversight.

“Eleven Logical Discrepancies”: Illogical Criteria

One of the most controversial aspects of the process concerns the use of what are described as “logical discrepancy” tests. According to reports from earlier phases of implementation, these checks are intended to identify inconsistencies within submitted records and family-linkage claims.

When it was first introduced exclusively for the West Bengal SIR only four or five “discrepancies were listed. Now emboldened by the SC judgement the ECI has increased this exclusionary criteria 11 (“absurd”) discrepancies for the remaining states, despite facing strong independent criticisms on the four/five listed for West Bengal. Some of these criticisms may be read here and here.

The fresh list of logical discrepancies include:

1. More than six individuals claiming the same parents.
2. A parent-child age gap of less than fifteen years.
3. A parent-child age gap exceeding fifty years.
4. Less than nine months between the birth dates of siblings.
5. Differences in parental names between earlier and current records.
6. Age records that do not correspond logically across different electoral revisions.
7. Reliance solely on Aadhaar as supporting documentation.
8. A grandparent-grandchild age gap of less than forty years.
9. Mismatches in the father’s name across records.
10. Spelling variations in names.
11. Changes in the recorded relationship between individuals across different electoral records.

Supporters of SIR view such checks as tools for maintaining the integrity of electoral rolls. However, these criteria risk excluding large numbers of genuine voters because discrepancies in names, ages, and family records are common in official documents across India.

The broader concern is that each successive phase of implementation appears to introduce additional layers of scrutiny increase the likelihood of exclusion rather than inclusion, particularly among poor, marginalised, migrant, Dalit, Adivasi, and minority communities whose documentation histories are often incomplete or inconsistent.

Within this framework, proposals such as Gram Sabha certification, locally issued smart cards, or residence certificates face a fundamental obstacle. Unless the Election Commission formally recognises such documents, they do not automatically qualify as valid proof under SIR procedures.

A Second Freedom Struggle as the Only Way Forward?

In the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the central issue is not merely the exclusion of voters from electoral rolls but the broader implications such exclusions may have for citizenship, constitutional rights, and democratic participation.

From this perspective, partial safeguards and administrative adjustments are unlikely to address the underlying problem, as has been proved in the 13 states where SIR has been completed. As long as SIR remains in force, concerns persist that millions of poor and marginalized citizens who lack complete documentary records may remain vulnerable to exclusion. Those possessing stronger documentation may be able to withstand the immediate impact, but the structural risks embedded in the process would remain unchanged.

This requires a political response of a much larger and more intense scale.

Calls are increasingly being made for a nationwide democratic mobilisation comparable in spirit to a second freedom struggle—one aimed not at colonial rule, but a new colonial interpretation of Citizenship. Hence the need of  defending constitutional democracy, civil liberties, and the rights of citizens against what is perceived as growing centralization of power.

Within this framework, opposition parties should move beyond rhetorical criticism and undertake forms of organised political resistance capable of confronting the Election Commission and the Union government directly. Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary measures and that routine electoral politics may be inadequate to meet the challenge.

But the willingness of mainstream opposition parties to pursue such a course is in doubt. The electoral calculations, competition for office, and institutional constraints have limited the capacity of opposition forces to mount a sustained challenge to the prevailing political order.

The result, in this view, is a widening gap between the scale of the perceived threat and the scale of the political response.

Attention therefore turns to the Indian citizenry, people’s organisations, social movements, trade unions, student groups, and ordinary citizens. The democratic resurgence must emerge through broader public mobilization “WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA”

At the same time, significant obstacles remain. Although concerns about democracy, citizenship, and constitutional rights are growing, public awareness of the long-term implications of SIR remains uneven. Organisational capacity is fragmented, and the kind of nationwide movement required for a sustained democratic struggle has yet to take shape.

Karnataka is not unique in this regard. The limitations visible within the state’s anti-SIR movement reflect broader challenges facing democratic movements across the country. Dependence on political parties, particularly on ruling Congress party, and within existing institutions, has often weakened the autonomy, preparedness, and strategic clarity of people’s movements.

These tensions are increasingly evident in debates over the direction, goals, and methods of the anti-SIR campaign itself.

The democratic resurgence demand the complete withdrawal of SIR and the protection of democratic rights and the strategies for the same should be directed towards grass root democratic mobilisation and not a dependence on the half-willing or unwilling and impossible intervention of the ruling congress party in Karnataka.

The struggle over SIR is therefore is not an electoral issue, but as a test of the country’s democratic foundations. The choices made by political parties, civil society organizations, and citizens in the coming years may determine how that larger contest unfolds.

Related:

Anti-SIR Activists Beware: A mere Residential Certificate does not satisfy SIR requirements

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

The Biopolitical Anatomy of Hindutva Fascism: Part II: SIR, EVMs and the Judiciary

The post To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What has unfolded over the past week, between June 19 to June 21, 2026, is the culmination of years of unresolved worker grievances, mounting concerns about the privatisation of public transport, chronic underinvestment in the bus system, growing dependence on contractual labour, and a broader policy debate over whether Mumbai still treats affordable public transport as an essential public service.

The strike has therefore become a flashpoint where labour rights, commuter interests, public finance, urban planning and transport policy have collided.

Notably, the three-day indefinite strike by Mumbai’s BEST bus employees was called off late Sunday night following a meeting with Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. According to Hindustan Times, the decision to call off the strike was announced after the state government agreed to a monthly wage hike of ₹3,000 for permanent employees and ₹2,000 for contract workers, along with the release of pending gratuity payments from the current financial year’s budget. It also assured improvements in canteen and washroom facilities for employees.

Strike years in the making

The BEST Sanyukt Kamgar Kruti Samiti, a joint action committee representing all twelve major unions operating within the undertaking, is leading the agitation. The scale of participation itself is significant. Union representatives have claimed that workers across all 27 BEST depots have joined the movement, making it one of the most extensive industrial actions witnessed within the undertaking in recent years.

The immediate trigger may have been the failure of negotiations with the administration, but workers insist that the issues underlying the strike have accumulated over many years.

At the centre of their demands is the implementation of wage agreements that have remained unresolved despite prolonged negotiations. Union leaders have pointed out that wage settlements covering the period from 2016 onwards have not been fully implemented. Employees have also demanded the extension of benefits in line with the Seventh Pay Commission, arguing that workers of a public undertaking performing an essential service cannot be left behind while the cost of living in Mumbai continues to rise.

Equally significant are allegations that retired employees have been denied statutory dues for years. During the Dharavi protest that preceded the strike, union representatives stated that some retirees had not received payments due to them since 2022, forcing many into financial distress. Protesters also alleged that wait-listed workers continue to be denied even minimum wages despite performing essential functions within the undertaking.

As reported by The Indian Express, one of the unions’ principal demands is the implementation of wage agreements for the period 2016–2026 together with arrears and benefits in line with the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations. The unions have also repeatedly demanded that pending legal and statutory dues owed to retired employees be cleared in a lump sum.

Workers have also highlighted the plight of wait-listed and contractual employees who, according to the unions, continue to receive inadequate wages and lack the protections available to permanent staff. These concerns have been repeatedly raised over the years, but workers argue that little substantive action has followed.

For many employees, therefore, the strike is not simply a reaction to current conditions but a response to a long history of unmet commitments.

The Demand That Symbolises the Larger Conflict: Merger of BEST’s budget with the BMC

Among all the demands raised during the agitation, none has assumed greater symbolic importance than the call for the merger of BEST’s budget with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s principal budget. Workers argue that this issue has remained unresolved despite years of discussions and despite approvals and resolutions at various levels. According to employee representatives, the proposal was effectively accepted years ago but remains stalled within government processes. The significance of the demand extends beyond accounting arrangements.

For unions, according to India Today, the merger represents recognition that public transport is an essential civic service and should be funded as such. They argue that BEST cannot continue to be expected to operate on commercial principles while simultaneously fulfilling social obligations that private operators would never undertake.

This position has received support from commuter groups and transport activists who argue that the financial crisis confronting BEST stems from a fundamental policy contradiction: the city depends on BEST to provide affordable transport to millions, yet repeatedly expects the undertaking to function without the level of public investment necessary to sustain such a service.

The unfinished question of BEST’s finances

The financial debate surrounding BEST has become one of the most contentious aspects of the current dispute. According to transport activists, as per The Indian Express, the problem is not that public money is being spent on BEST. The problem is that it is being spent inconsistently and often through mechanisms that deepen rather than solve the undertaking’s financial difficulties.

Aamchi Mumbai Aamchi BEST has pointed out that between 2019 and 2025, the BMC provided more than ₹10,400 crore to BEST largely in the form of loans rather than direct subsidies. Critics argue that treating support to public transport as debt merely shifts the burden onto the undertaking while doing little to strengthen its long-term viability.

The organisation has also highlighted what it views as a stark disparity in public funding priorities. While rail-based transport systems receive substantial public support as an essential service, BEST buses—which carry lakhs of passengers daily and provide critical last-mile connectivity—have often been subjected to a very different financial approach. The result is a perpetual cycle of deficits, debt and austerity.

Mumbai needs 12,000 buses; it has less than a quarter of that number

Perhaps the most striking issue emerging from commuter groups concerns the sheer inadequacy of Mumbai’s bus fleet. According to Aamchi Mumbai Aamchi BEST, a city of Mumbai’s size requires approximately 12,000 buses to adequately serve its population. Yet the city currently operates fewer than 3,000 buses. This shortfall has profound consequences.

It translates into overcrowded buses, long queues at bus stops, reduced route coverage, longer waiting times, irregular services and increasing pressure on other forms of public transport.

For residents living far from railway corridors and metro stations, the consequences are particularly severe. Buses remain the most affordable and accessible form of public transport for students, senior citizens, women, persons with disabilities, hospital patients, informal workers and millions of lower-income commuters.

Transport activists argue that instead of expanding bus services in line with population growth, policy choices over the last decade have steadily reduced public transport capacity.

As a result, many commuters have been pushed towards more expensive transport options or private vehicles, further contributing to congestion and inequality in urban mobility.

The wet-lease experiment and the growing backlash

No issue better captures the broader ideological dispute surrounding BEST than the wet-lease model. Over the past decade, the undertaking increasingly shifted towards buses owned and operated by private contractors. According to The Indian Express, unions have pointed out that of the approximately 2,800 buses currently operating in the fleet, only a small fraction are directly owned by BEST. The overwhelming majority are operated through wet-lease arrangements involving private contractors.

When introduced, the model was promoted as a solution to financial constraints and operational inefficiencies. Workers, however, argue that the promised benefits have failed to materialise. According to the unions, outsourcing has not solved BEST’s structural financial problems. Instead, it has created a two-tier workforce in which contractual employees often work under more precarious conditions and with fewer protections than permanent staff.

The unions also contend that outsourcing has weakened accountability within the transport system while transferring public functions into private hands.

For many workers, the strike represents a rejection of a model they believe has steadily undermined the institution.

Safety concerns and the human cost of outsourcing

The criticism of the wet-lease system is not limited to labour rights. Commuter groups have linked the model to growing concerns regarding public safety. Aamchi Mumbai Aamchi BEST notes that between January 2023 and December 2025, BEST buses were reportedly involved in 958 major accidents resulting in 77 deaths and 217 injuries. The organisation argues that the pattern points to deeper systemic issues.

According to the memorandum, contract drivers often work under difficult conditions while private operators have incentives to minimise expenditure on maintenance and training. The group contends that these pressures create risks not only for employees but also for passengers and pedestrians.

The memorandum further recalls earlier concerns raised regarding operational defects in electric buses, including braking issues, delayed door closure systems and battery-related problems.

Whether every accident can be attributed to outsourcing remains contested. However, the scale of the figures has strengthened demands for a comprehensive review of the current model.

The fight over depots and public land

Another major fault line concerns the future of BEST’s depots. Workers and transport activists have expressed strong opposition to proposals involving redevelopment and monetisation of depot lands through public-private partnerships. Their concern is not merely ideological. They argue that depots are critical pieces of transport infrastructure. They serve as maintenance facilities, operational centres, charging stations, worker facilities and storage spaces necessary for running a large bus network.

Once such land is transferred or leased for commercial development, critics warn, rebuilding equivalent infrastructure in a densely populated city like Mumbai may become virtually impossible. Previous monetisation exercises have failed to deliver the financial turnaround that was promised. They point to outstanding recoveries from earlier redevelopment projects and argue that selling public assets generates only temporary revenue while leaving underlying operational problems unresolved. For them, public transport land should remain dedicated to public transport purposes.

Mumbai’s urban priorities

The dispute has also revived broader questions about how Mumbai allocates public resources. Activists, as per MoneyControl, argue that the city has invested heavily in infrastructure designed primarily to facilitate private vehicle movement while neglecting the needs of millions who depend on public transport.

They point to a decade of road infrastructure expansion, flyovers and large transport projects alongside a shrinking bus fleet and deteriorating bus services.

The result, they argue, is an inversion of priorities: enormous investments benefit private mobility while the most accessible form of transport for ordinary residents struggles for survival. For commuter groups, the BEST crisis therefore reflects larger choices about the kind of city Mumbai is becoming.

What workers and commuters are ultimately demanding?

Despite differences in emphasis, workers’ unions and commuter organisations are advancing remarkably similar demands.

They seek:

• Immediate payment of pending retirement benefits and statutory dues.
• Implementation of wage agreements and Seventh Pay Commission recommendations.
• Regularisation and protection of contractual workers.
• Merger of BEST’s budget with the BMC’s main budget.
• Stable public funding rather than debt-based support.
• Absorption of wet-lease workers.
• A major expansion of the city’s bus fleet.
• Reversal of policies that have reduced direct public ownership and operation of buses.
• Protection of depots and transport infrastructure from commercial redevelopment.
• Recognition of public transport as an essential public service deserving long-term public investment.

Opposition silent on Mumbai woes?

While citizens forums like Amchi Mumbai have been pro-active even as Unions have collectively brought attention to the deliberate crippling of BEST Undertaking once an international display for a working and extensive public transport system. The relative inactivity of the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi, read Shiv Sena (Udhav Balasaheb Thackeray-UBT) with 65 corporators and the Indian National Congress (INC) with 15 was expected by Mumbaikars to support, with its own cadre, this issue. Instead, BEST employees and their unions have been forced to raise this issue in isolation!

A crisis that cannot be resolved through negotiation alone

The strike may eventually end through negotiations over wages, benefits and working conditions. However, the questions it has raised will remain. For years, workers have complained of unpaid dues and broken commitments. Commuter groups have warned that the city is systematically underinvesting in bus transport. Activists have questioned outsourcing, depot monetisation and shrinking public ownership. Yet many of these concerns have remained unresolved. The current confrontation has brought all of those issues into a single moment.

What is now at stake is not merely the settlement of an industrial dispute but the future direction of Mumbai’s public transport policy itself. The central question confronting the state government and the BMC is whether BEST will continue to be treated as a struggling enterprise expected to fend for itself, or whether it will be recognised and funded as what millions of Mumbaikars already know it to be: an indispensable public service and one of the city’s last remaining democratic forms of mobility.

Here is the BEST memorandum for view:

Related:

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

“₹4 a Kilo for a Crop That Costs ₹20 to Grow”: Nashik’s onion farmers erupt in protest over deepening price crisis

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

2025 in Protest: Across issues, across India

The post The BEST Strike: Years of unfulfilled promises, structural neglect and the future of public transport in Mumbai appeared first on SabrangIndia.