SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/ News Related to Human Rights Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:19:37 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/ 32 32 Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests https://sabrangindia.in/youth-congress-escalates-fight-against-cec-gyanesh-kumar-as-sir-controversy-fuels-nationwide-protests/ Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:19:37 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49490 From marches at Jantar Mantar to a demonstration outside the CEC’s residence, the Youth Congress is taking its campaign against Gyanesh Kumar into the streets, as opposition parties, students, trade unions and civil society groups prepare fresh protests

The post Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Indian Youth Congress is taking its campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar beyond political statements and press conferences, turning the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls into a sustained programme of street mobilisation.

On Saturday night, September 26, IYC president Uday Bhanu Chib led protesters to Kumar’s official residence in New Delhi, demanding his resignation and accountability over the functioning of the Election Commission during the electoral-roll revision exercise. The demonstration came days after the Youth Congress marched towards Jantar Mantar and as protests against the Election Commission were reported across several States.

 

The escalation follows The Indian Express’s September 23 investigation reporting that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of 10 months concerning decisions related to electoral-roll revisions and database access. The reported objections included voter additions and deletions, restoration of names, changes to Form 6 and the centralisation of electoral-roll systems.

The disclosures have intensified an already contentious debate over the SIR exercise and the constitutional responsibility of the Election Commission to protect the integrity of the electoral rolls. For the Youth Congress, the issue is no longer simply about an administrative exercise. It has framed the controversy as a question of citizens’ right to participate in elections and of the accountability of the constitutional institution entrusted with conducting them.

 

Youth Congress puts CEC at the centre of its campaign

The IYC has placed Kumar personally at the centre of its mobilisation. At the September 26 demonstration outside his residence, as reported by PTI, Chib said Youth Congress members would maintain a “watch” outside the CEC’s residence and claimed that members would also be present at airports. The protesters demanded Kumar’s resignation and raised slogans over alleged irregularities in the electoral process.

The language used by some Youth Congress leaders has been deliberately confrontational. At an earlier protest, Chib accused Kumar of betraying the country and claimed that he would eventually face imprisonment. But beneath the rhetoric is a more fundamental demand: that the Election Commission account publicly for the decisions taken during the SIR and for the concerns reportedly raised by two of its own members.

The Youth Congress has already taken the campaign beyond Delhi. Protests have been held or announced in several States, including Bihar, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Manipur.

In Delhi, the IYC’s demonstrations have included masks bearing Kumar’s face and protesters displaying their hands in chains. The symbolism is unmistakable: the organisation is seeking to transform what could otherwise remain an institutional dispute into a public accountability campaign.

The strategy also reflects the political importance of young and first-time voters. Student groups have separately raised concerns about changes to Form 6, the application used for inclusion in the electoral roll, arguing that procedural changes could make registration more difficult for young citizens.

A detailed report on the #QuitGyaneshKumar protests may be read here.

Articles exposing the non-transparency in functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) may be read here, here and here.

The SIR controversy behind the protests

The immediate trigger for the current mobilisation is the controversy surrounding the SIR and the reported objections within the Election Commission. According to The Indian Express, Sandhu and Joshi raised questions on multiple occasions about decisions relating to voter deletions, additions and restoration, the modification of Form 6 and access to electoral databases. The newspaper reported that some of the objections concerned whether changes were being made without adequate consultation within the Commission.

The Election Commission has disputed the political interpretation of these reports. It has maintained that operational queries, internal observations and administrative suggestions are a normal part of the functioning of a multi-member constitutional body and has asserted that its final decisions on the SIR were unanimous. That response, however, has not ended the controversy. Instead, it has intensified demands for greater transparency about how the Commission arrived at its decisions, what objections were recorded internally and how those objections were resolved.

The question is particularly important because electoral rolls are not merely administrative databases. They determine who can exercise the franchise. Any erroneous deletion can therefore have consequences far beyond paperwork. For citizens whose names disappear from electoral rolls, the burden of establishing eligibility and navigating the restoration process can become a practical barrier to exercising the right to vote. This is why the controversy has increasingly been framed by protesters as one concerning disenfranchisement rather than simply electoral administration.

Questions over deleted voters

Opposition parties and civil society organisations have raised particular concerns about the scale of deletions during the SIR. The Hindu reported that CPI(ML)-Liberation conducted surveys in selected constituencies in Bihar to verify the status of voters whose names had been deleted. In Aigaon, the party said 46 of 204 deleted voters surveyed were still living in their villages. In Ziradei, it said 122 of 665 voters deleted during the SIR were found to be residing in the village.

These figures are based on a party-conducted survey of selected booths and cannot, by themselves, establish the scale of wrongful deletions across Bihar or the country. They have nevertheless been cited by the Left as evidence of why deleted names require systematic verification.

The concern is particularly acute for communities for whom documentary requirements, migration, displacement or unstable residence can already make access to official records difficult. Trade unions have similarly entered the debate. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions has argued that poor and migrant workers could face disproportionate difficulties in restoring their names to electoral rolls if they are deleted during the revision process.

The electoral-roll debate has therefore acquired a wider social dimension: who bears the burden when a name disappears from the voter list, how easily can that person challenge the deletion, and what safeguards exist against wrongful exclusion?

 

From electoral rolls to institutional accountability

The controversy has also raised questions about the internal functioning of the Election Commission. The reported objections of Sandhu and Joshi are significant precisely because they came from within the constitutional body itself. The issue is not that members of a multi-member institution can never disagree. Institutional disagreement is neither unlawful nor unusual. The question is what happens to those disagreements.

An RTI response obtained by activist Anjali Bharadwaj has added another layer to the debate. According to The News Minute, the Election Commission responded to a query concerning the decision to undertake a nationwide SIR by stating that it had not taken any decision to initiate a nationwide SIR in 2025. The RTI application had sought, among other things, the files and decision-making records relating to the exercise. Bharadwaj subsequently questioned how the national rollout had been decided if the requested decision-making records were unavailable. The RTI response raises a legitimate transparency question about the documentary trail behind an exercise affecting electoral rolls on a massive scale.

Police action adds another layer

The protests have also generated concerns about the policing of dissent and the treatment of journalists covering the demonstrations. The Press Club of India condemned the detention of Frontline journalist Vedaant Lakhera and The Wire journalist Mohammad Irfan while they were covering a September 25 protest at Jantar Mantar. According to the PCI, both journalists were wearing press identification. It said Lakhera was taken to Parliament Street police station and told to delete a photograph, while Irfan was detained for several hours. The PCI described the episode as a matter of serious concern for press freedom.

This is significant because scrutiny of an electoral institution depends not only on formal mechanisms of accountability but also on the ability of journalists and citizens to document public protests and report on the conduct of authorities.

At the same time, Delhi Police has said protesters were detained because permissions had not been obtained for demonstrations at certain locations. Reports from other States have also documented the use of water cannons and tear gas during protests. The emerging picture is therefore not simply one of a political confrontation with the Election Commission. It is also becoming a debate over the space available for public dissent and independent reporting during an intensely contested electoral controversy.

Opposition parties prepare for the next phase

The Youth Congress mobilisation is now converging with a broader opposition campaign. The Congress Working Committee is scheduled to meet on September 29 to discuss its strategy on the Election Commission and SIR. Opposition INDIA bloc parties are expected to meet in New Delhi on September 30 to discuss a coordinated response. The proposed meeting follows outreach between parties that have otherwise been political rivals in their respective States.

The CPI(M), CPI and CPI(ML)-Liberation have demanded Kumar’s removal and a halt to the SIR. The Trinamool Congress has also called for coordinated opposition action, while CPI(M) general secretary M.A. Baby has reached out to opposition leaders seeking wider mobilisation.

Opposition parties are also reportedly preparing another parliamentary notice seeking Kumar’s removal, potentially in both Houses of Parliament. It would be another attempt to initiate the constitutional process concerning the removal of the CEC.

 

Mumbai set for another round of protests

The next major flashpoint is likely to be Mumbai. Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (UBT) have announced a joint rally for October 4 against the SIR and the functioning of the Election Commission.

 

As reported by Hindustan Times, Raj Thackeray has called for the mobilisation to be treated as a public protest and appealed to political parties to participate. Aaditya Thackeray has also backed a wider mobilisation beginning October 2 if Kumar does not resign.

The Cockroach Janta Party has separately announced a nationwide protest campaign beginning in Mumbai on October 2, with plans to subsequently take the mobilisation to other cities. Even after permission was denied by Mumbai police, the call for the agitation has stayed.

 

For the protestors, the strategy is clear: keep the controversy visible, take it to young voters and expand it from Delhi into a national campaign. The organisation’s protests have moved from marches to demonstrations outside the CEC’s residence. Its leaders have announced continued mobilisation, while Congress workers have taken the issue to State capitals and district-level centres. The immediate demand remains Kumar’s resignation.

But the larger issue being placed before the public is whether an electoral-roll revision affecting millions of citizens can be conducted with sufficient transparency, procedural safeguards and accountability. The protesters are demanding evidence of that institutional accountability.

 

Related:

A chargesheet against the ECI’s “All Is Well” defence

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

Assam: ‘No to SIR!’ Complete the pending NRC! 

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 Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Maududi Is Not Relevant for Indian Muslims — Nor Is Ghamidi https://sabrangindia.in/maududi-is-not-relevant-for-indian-muslims-nor-is-ghamidi/ Mon, 28 Sep 2026 05:28:32 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49485 Why Indian Muslims Must Move Beyond Imported Intellectual Templates and Produce Their Own Indo-Islamic Thought and A Think Tank!

The post Maududi Is Not Relevant for Indian Muslims — Nor Is Ghamidi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Main Points:

·         Indian Muslims need not look to Pakistan-centric preachers or scholars for intellectual and religious direction—particularly when some of them have yet to fully internalise and articulate the demands of pluralism within their own national context.

·         Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s intellectual trajectory itself reflects an important Indian influence: his thought was significantly shaped by the rationalist and reformist legacy of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. What Indian Muslims need today is not a wholesale importation of religious discourse from across the border, but a creative regeneration of the reformist, rational and pluralist intellectual tradition that emerged on Indian soil.

·         We need to take that legacy forward—critically, creatively and in response to India’s own civilisational, constitutional and pluralistic realities. The real task before us is to recover, renew and radically regenerate the Indian tradition of Islamic thought—not merely repeat imported formulations. We need scholars who can engage Islam through the lived realities of India: its constitutional framework, civilisational diversity, interfaith encounters, Sufi heritage and deeply plural social fabric.

·         There is an irony here that deserves to be confronted. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s intellectual formation was significantly influenced by the rationalist and reformist thought of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan—an Indian Islamic thinker who spent decades arguing for peace, dialogue, intellectual renewal and a non-confrontational engagement with modernity. If that intellectual inheritance could travel from India to Pakistan, why should Indian Muslims now imagine that their intellectual regeneration must necessarily come from Pakistan?

·         Indian Muslims do not need borrowed certainties. They need an indigenous intellectual renaissance. The time has come to stop importing answers and start producing them. We must learn to think beyond perpetual reaction, beyond every immediate political provocation, and beyond the anxieties of the next news cycle. A community that may define its intellectual agenda primarily! An intellectual renewal must mean more than changing rhetoric. It must produce new institutions, new scholarship and new answers to contemporary questions.

If Maulana Abul A’la Maududi’s political project emerged from the specific crises of colonial India and was subsequently articulated within the political realities of Pakistan, can his political theology provide an adequate framework for Indian Muslims in the twenty-first century?

For me, the answer is increasingly clear: Indian Muslims need not make Maududi’s political Islam the organising framework of their contemporary intellectual life. But that immediately raises a more difficult and important question:

What about Javed Ahmad Ghamidi?

Here the answer cannot be as simple. Ghamidi represents a substantially different intellectual trajectory. His work has challenged a number of inherited assumptions about Islamic law, politics, religious authority and the relationship between revelation and historical circumstance. His approach gives considerable importance to the Qur’an as the primary source of religious understanding, distinguishes enduring religious principles from historically conditioned arrangements, and subjects inherited interpretations to renewed scrutiny.

For Indian Muslims searching for an intellectually serious alternative to political Islam, these features make Ghamidi’s thought worth studying.

But worth studying is not the same as suitable for wholesale adoption. That distinction is crucial.

Ghamidi’s Real Significance

Ghamidi’s importance lies less in providing a ready-made political programme for India than in demonstrating that Islamic thought can be reconstructed through disciplined interpretation rather than ideological repetition.

This is an important departure from the tendency to treat every inherited formulation as equally immutable.

His engagement with questions of governance, jihad, citizenship, religious authority and Islamic law opens space for a different kind of Muslim intellectual conversation—one in which historical context, textual interpretation and reasoned argument matter.

In this respect, Ghamidi offers something that Indian Muslims urgently need: an example of intellectual disentanglement from the idea that every political claim made in the name of Islam is necessarily a religious obligation.

Yet there is a second side to the assessment.

Ghamidi’s intellectual framework was developed within the Pakistani context and within a particular South Asian scholarly genealogy. His formative relationship with Maududi and Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi is significant, even where his later conclusions differ from theirs. The reformist thought of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan also provides an important Indian parallel, particularly in the movement away from confrontationist political readings of Islam towards peace, dialogue and intellectual engagement.

Therefore, it would be historically simplistic to present Ghamidi as an entirely independent intellectual phenomenon—or as a straightforward continuation of Wahiduddin Khan.

His significance is better understood as part of a larger South Asian argument over what Islam means in the modern age.

And that argument has not ended.

Where Ghamidi Helps—and Where Indian Ulema Must Go Further

For Indian Ulema, Ghamidi’s approach can be useful precisely where it encourages critical examination of inherited political theology.

But India presents questions that require more than a Pakistani reformist framework.

The Indian Muslim intellectual condition is shaped by a constitutional order, a multi-religious society, India’s own civilisational history, regional cultures and languages, and the lived experience of Muslims as a large religious minority. Therefore, the Indian question cannot simply be: What does Ghamidi say about the Islamic state?

It must be: What does Islam mean for Muslims living as equal citizens in India’s constitutional and plural social order?

That leads to an entirely different intellectual agenda. Can Islamic ethics provide a theological vocabulary for equal citizenship?

How should concepts such as adl (justice), ihsan (moral excellence), rahmah (mercy) and shura (consultation) be interpreted within democratic public life?

How should Muslim jurisprudence address freedom of conscience, interfaith relations, gender justice, economic participation and constitutional rights?

What can India’s Sufi, Rishi and Bhakti traditions contribute to an Islamic theology of coexistence?

And how should Muslim scholars respond to artificial intelligence, biotechnology, environmental crisis, economic inequality and technological transformation?

These questions require Indian Muslim thinkers thinking from India—not merely Indian Muslims reading thinkers from elsewhere.

The Missing Indian Dimension

India has never been intellectually barren in matters of Islam.

The subcontinent produced powerful traditions of Qur’anic scholarship, Islamic philosophy, Sufism, Persian literature and Urdu thought. The Sufi centres of Delhi, Ajmer and the Deccan, the Rishi–Sufi traditions of Kashmir, the encounters between Sufis and Bhakti saints, and the reformist and intellectual contributions of figures such as Shah Waliullah and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan all demonstrate that Indian Muslim thought has historically interacted creatively with its surrounding civilisation.

This inheritance needs to be recovered—not as nostalgia, but as raw material for a new intellectual synthesis.

Ghamidi can therefore be read alongside this Indian inheritance rather than above it.

His work may help Indian Muslims reconsider inherited assumptions. Wahiduddin Khan may offer another model of religious engagement. Maududi may remain important as an object of historical and intellectual study. Iqbal may reopen questions of selfhood and creativity. Indian Sufi and Bhakti traditions may provide resources for interreligious ethics.

But none should become the final template.

From Following Thinkers to Producing Thought

This is ultimately the central issue. Indian Muslims have spent too much intellectual energy asking which scholar to follow and too little asking which institutions, methods and questions will produce the next generation of scholarship.

The answer cannot be another personality-centred movement.

India needs research institutions devoted to Qur’anic studies, Islamic philosophy and theology; centres for Islam and constitutional citizenship; serious academic study of Indian Sufism and Rishi traditions; madrasa–university intellectual programmes; Muslim public-policy and data research; translation and publishing initiatives; and fellowships for young scholars.

The purpose should be to create an intellectual culture in which disagreement is possible, inherited positions can be examined, and new interpretations can emerge without fear. That is where the Ghamidi question becomes genuinely useful.

Ghamidi need not be the answer to India’s intellectual crisis. His example can instead become part of the reason Indian Muslims begin asking better questions.

Maududi’s political theology belongs to an important chapter of South Asian Islamic intellectual history, but its political premises cannot simply be transplanted into twenty-first-century India. Ghamidi represents a more reformist and interpretive trajectory, and therefore deserves serious engagement. Yet his framework too emerged from a particular historical and national context.

The Indian Muslim intellectual project must ultimately move beyond both. Not by rejecting the wider Muslim intellectual world, but by entering it as a producer rather than merely a consumer.

India should not merely import Islamic thought. It should generate Islamic thought rooted in India’s constitutional reality, civilisational plurality and lived Muslim experience.

The decisive question is: Can India produce a new generation of Muslim thinkers who are deeply rooted in Islam, intellectually independent of imported ideological templates, conscious of India’s civilisational inheritance, and capable of addressing the realities of the twenty-first century?

That is the intellectual renaissance Indian Muslims should now begin building.

Today, Indian Muslims have no shortage of pan-Islamic intellectuals, transnational preachers or scholars speaking in the name of a global Ummah. What we lack is not voices—but an intellectual vision and renewal adequate to modern India’s reality.

What would that renewal actually look like?

It would mean developing an Indian Islamic theology of constitutional citizenship—one that explains, in substantive theological terms, why equality before law, freedom of conscience, democratic participation and fraternity are not merely political compromises but can be understood through the ethical resources of Islam.

It would mean producing a serious Islamic intellectual response to science, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, climate change and the digital revolution, rather than allowing Muslim discourse to remain trapped in questions inherited from nineteenth- and twentieth-century ideological battles.

It would mean rethinking madrasa education so that classical disciplines—Qur’an, Hadith, Fiqh, Arabic and Islamic theology—are placed in meaningful conversation with constitutional law, philosophy, economics, history, sociology, comparative religion, technology and the natural sciences.

It would mean recovering India’s own Sufi, Rishi and Bhakti traditions of ethical coexistence, not as romantic folklore but as serious intellectual resources for understanding India’s religious pluralism, shared sacred spaces and the ethics of disagreement.

It would mean developing a contemporary fiqh of citizenship and minority participation appropriate to a constitutional democracy—moving beyond the old binaries of dār al-Islām and dār al-ḥarb and asking what Islamic ethics requires of citizens living together under a common constitutional order.

It would mean making women’s education, intellectual leadership and economic participation central to Muslim social reform, rather than treating them as peripheral questions.

It would mean creating research institutions that produce data-driven scholarship on Muslim education, employment, poverty, entrepreneurship and social mobility, replacing anecdote and political rhetoric with evidence.

It would mean cultivating a new generation of Muslim scholars capable of speaking to Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Christian and Jewish intellectual traditions without either polemical hostility or superficial interfaith symbolism.

And it would mean developing a distinctly Indian Muslim intellectual vocabulary around peace, pluralism, environmental responsibility, ethical economics, social justice and human dignity—drawing from the Qur’an and Islamic intellectual history while engaging seriously with the realities of contemporary India.

Contributing author at New Age Islam, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is an Indo-Islamic scholar, writer and researcher on Indian Sufism, interfaith ethics, and the spiritual history of Islam in South Asia. His latest book is “Ishq Sufiyana: Untold Stories of Divine Love”.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Maududi Is Not Relevant for Indian Muslims — Nor Is Ghamidi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Census 2027: How much personal data is too much? https://sabrangindia.in/census-2027-how-much-personal-data-is-too-much/ Mon, 28 Sep 2026 05:22:48 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49480 From parents’ place of birth and religion to Aadhaar, voter ID, passports and bank accounts, the expanded questionnaire is prompting concerns over privacy, data use and its overlap with the NPR

The post Census 2027: How much personal data is too much? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> India’s next Census is no longer simply a question of how many people live in the country, where they live and what their socio-economic circumstances are. The questionnaire for Census 2027’s population enumeration phase asks households for an unusually wide range of personal and family information. Alongside conventional demographic and economic questions, enumerators will record details relating to respondents’ parents, spouses, nationality, permanent address, caste, digital literacy, COVID-19 vaccination, bank accounts and identity documents, including Aadhaar, voter ID, passport, driving licence and mobile numbers where available. The expansion has triggered a larger question about what a population census is supposed to do, and where the boundaries of such an exercise should lie.

Despite significant objections being raised to this overarching methodology that clearly aims, through the backdoor, to achieve more than a socio-economic number enumeration of the Indian people to guide policy thrusts, the union government has chosen this path. Earlier such attempts after the controversial 2019 amendments to the Citizenship Act, 1955 have been analysed here, here and here.

The Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India notified 40 questions for the population enumeration phase on August 14, 2026. The questionnaire contains several new or modified fields compared with the 2011 Census. The exercise is also significant because, for the first time since Independence, caste(s) beyond the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories is being included in the population Census.

That combination has made Census 2027 an exercise of enormous significance, but also one surrounded by questions about methodology, privacy, confidentiality and the eventual use of the information being collected.

As reported by The Hindu on September 9, former Deputy Registrar General of India K. Narayanan Unni questioned whether several of the newly introduced questions could generate meaningful statistical information at all. His concern was not simply about the volume of information being collected, but whether asking for personal identifiers and family details risks moving the Census away from its traditional statistical purpose.

A Census is supposed to count a population, not create an identity dossier

The basic purpose of a population census is to enumerate a population to understand its socio-economic status. The United Nations defines a population census as the comprehensive process of collecting, processing, analysing and disseminating demographic, economic and social information relating to all persons in a country at a specified point in time. The purpose is to produce reliable statistics at the smallest possible geographical level so that governments and societies can understand population patterns and implement policies that serve this population. That distinction matters because individual-level identifiers do not ordinarily constitute the statistical information that a Census ultimately publishes.

The United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics also place confidentiality at the centre of official data collection. Individual information collected by statistical agencies is supposed to remain confidential and be used exclusively for purposes of policy generation.

India’s Census framework has historically reflected this principle. Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 protects Census records from inspection and provides that such records are not open to inspection or admissible in evidence.

The question now is whether the enlarged questionnaire changes the nature of the information being collected without sufficiently clarifying how that information will remain insulated from other government databases and administrative purposes.

The concern is particularly acute because the questionnaire does not merely ask how many people live in a household or what their occupation, education or migration status is. It asks for information capable of directly identifying individuals and linking them to existing administrative databases.

Aadhaar numbers connect to UIDAI records. Voter identification numbers connect to electoral rolls. Passport numbers connect to passport records. Mobile numbers connect to telecommunications records. Bank information exists within the financial system. The significance of collecting such information in a single household-level exercise is therefore fundamentally different from collecting anonymous demographic information for policy-statistical tabulation.

Why are parents’ details being collected?

Among the most striking additions are questions about the parents of each individual. The questionnaire seeks information about parents and includes details such as their names, religion and place of birth. The information can extend to the village level. The respondent is also asked about the spouse in the case of married persons. These questions raise practical concerns as well as questions about purpose.

In an ordinary household, the person answering the Census may not know the precise place of birth of their parents or grandparents. The problem becomes even more complicated in institutional households such as hostels, old-age homes and prisons. The changing nature of Indian migration makes the issue still more complicated. Millions of students, workers and other residents live away from their permanent homes. Children may be living in hostels or as paying guests. Domestic workers and other persons may be temporarily residing with households during the enumeration period.

A respondent cannot necessarily be expected to know the identity-document details, parental information or other personal particulars of every person who happens to be eligible for enumeration at that location. The more information a questionnaire demands, the greater the possibility that respondents will either be unable to answer accurately or will provide hurried or incomplete responses. This is what former Census officials have described as the problem of “respondent fatigue”.

Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile numbers

The inclusion of identity numbers presents a different problem. The questionnaire asks for mobile number, Aadhaar number and voter ID number “if available”, while also seeking passport information for Indian passport holders and information about driving-licence availability. But what exactly does “if available” mean?

As The Hindu reported, it is unclear whether the phrase means that the number should be provided if it exists for the individual concerned, or whether it means that it should be produced if the respondent has it at the time of enumeration. That distinction could become important in large households. A person answering the Census may not possess the Aadhaar, voter ID or passport details of every member of the household. Elderly parents, domestic workers, visitors and people living temporarily in institutional accommodation may not have their documents immediately accessible.

There is also a more fundamental question: what statistical purpose is served by recording the actual identification number?

As former IIPS director K.S. James told The Wire, individual identifiers are not inherently useful for Census tabulation because they cannot themselves be meaningfully computed into conventional population statistics. In his view, such identifiers are more characteristic of an identification or population-registration exercise.

The NPR question

The most politically sensitive issue is the overlap between several Census questions and information that was previously sought for the National Population Register. Eight of the new or modified fields identified by The Indian Express as overlapping with the 2020 NPR schedule include nationality as declared, parents’ particulars, mobile number, Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and driving licence.

The National Population Register is a register of “usual residents”, rather than a register exclusively of citizens. Under the framework governing it, a usual resident broadly refers to a person who has resided in an area for at least six months or intends to remain there for at least six months. A foreign national who satisfies the residence criterion can therefore fall within the NPR.

The team of Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org,in) had, in 2020 extensively researched the issue and here is a document to understand the difference between NPR and Census, relevant even today. It may be read here.

The legal framework also connects the Population Register to the preparation of the National Register of Indian Citizens. The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 provide for verification of the Population Register in connection with preparation of the citizens’ register, including the possibility of marking cases in which citizenship is considered doubtful for further inquiry.

That legal architecture became particularly contentious when the government proposed updating the NPR alongside the Census process in 2019-20, shortly after the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act and amid nationwide protests against the CAA-NPR-NRC framework. The political context has not disappeared.

The Indian Express reported that questions concerning parents’ place and date of birth had been among the most controversial elements of the earlier NPR exercise. The government at the time maintained that such information was optional and that people would not lose citizenship merely because they could not provide their parents’ birth details. The government also argued that the NPR was intended to create a comprehensive database of residents that could assist with policy formulation, welfare delivery and administrative efficiency. The present controversy is therefore not based solely on the similarity between two questionnaires. It is also shaped by the history of how the NPR was understood and contested.

The government’s position and the trust deficit

A comprehensive regularly conducted census (a socio-economic population database) is required to assist governments to craft policy on education, housing, transportation and health: this can be then broken down to plan schools, hospitals, housing, transport, welfare programmes and other public services.

However, the currently underway exercise, that includes questions that go beyond that limited purpose, has raised questions of both motive and application (use). Will the data be collected used solely for the purpose envisioned/mandated? To craft policies that respond to the socio-economic needs of the people?

As The Indian Express documented, the government’s assurances in 2019 and 2020 existed alongside previous official statements and the Citizenship Rules that established a legal connection between the Population Register and the process of preparing a citizens’ register. The NRC in Assam, which excluded roughly 19 lakh people, further intensified concerns about the consequences of citizenship verification. Consequently, questions about nationality, parents’ places of birth and identity documents are not being encountered in a political vacuum.

An information request that might appear administratively ordinary can carry very different implications when it is introduced against the background of previous debates over citizenship, migration and the NPR-NRC framework. This is why the central issue is not simply whether the government is legally entitled to ask a particular question. It is also whether citizens can clearly understand why the information is being collected, what it will be used for, who will have access to it, how long it will be retained and whether it can subsequently be linked to another government database.

The 1951 precedent

Former Census officials have also pointed to history. In a September 10 report, The Hindu noted that records from the 1951 Census demonstrate that Census information was used in the preparation of the National Register of Citizens at the time. The 1951 Census report of R.B. Vaghaiwalla, then Superintendent of Census Operations for Assam, Manipur and Tripura, described the NRC as having been prepared by transcribing important Census data from the Census slips. The report stated that the register was essentially a copy of the Census slips, with the same symbols and abbreviations. However, what is being ignored, omitted or missed is that the questions for the 1951 Census were those related to socio-economic status of citizens responding, nothing more. Ironically, this aspect is exactly the argument used by a vigilante bureaucracy in Assam not to accept presence in the 1951 NRC as adequate indication/ proof of citizenship!

This background underlies the need for specificity and confidentiality in 2026 Census data collection particularly important.

Caste Census: historic opportunity, unresolved methodology

The other defining feature of Census 2027 is caste enumeration. India has not conducted a full caste census since 1931. Census 2027 will therefore generate data of enormous potential importance for understanding social and economic inequalities. But the methodology has itself become controversial.

The questionnaire asks respondents to identify their caste, but unlike a standardised list-based system, the field is largely open-ended for castes beyond SC and ST categories. The problem is not merely technical. The experience of the 2011 Socio-Economic and Caste Census demonstrates the consequences of an unstandardised approach. That exercise produced more than 46 lakh reported caste names, including variations involving castes, sub-castes, clans and surnames. The Union government subsequently told the Supreme Court that the raw caste data had technical problems and had not been released. The government’s own earlier submissions to the Supreme Court have therefore become relevant to the current debate.

In 2021, the Centre had argued that caste enumeration, particularly of OBCs, was administratively complex and that the existing data contained serious problems of completeness and accuracy. Yet experts quoted by The Indian Express and The Hindu have questioned why the lessons of the 2011 exercise have not been incorporated into the 2027 methodology. Former IIPS director K.S. James suggested that a hierarchical system combining recognised state and central caste lists with an option for respondents to provide additional information could make the data more usable.

Sociologist Satish Deshpande went further, arguing that an open-ended system risks generating a proliferation of spelling variations and caste names that could make the resulting data difficult to analyse. These expert assessments identify a serious methodological question: if caste data is being collected precisely because it is expected to inform public policy, affirmative action and social-justice measures, then the method of collection must be capable of producing data that can actually be classified and analysed.

The OBC question

Another unresolved issue is the treatment of Other Backward Classes. The questionnaire includes Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and caste fields, but does not provide OBC as a separately identified category in the manner critics had expected.

Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi subsequently wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking changes to the questionnaire, arguing that the methodology could undermine the accuracy and usefulness of caste data. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has also criticised the absence of a pre-prepared caste list and contrasted it with the approach used in caste surveys in Bihar and Telangana.

These are political claims and should be understood as such. The underlying methodological question, however, can be assessed independently: whether an open-ended caste field without adequate standardisation will produce reliable, comparable and policy-useful data.

That question is especially important because caste statistics are not merely academic numbers. They can influence the design of welfare schemes, reservation policies, educational interventions and other measures intended to address structural inequality.

A questionnaire that may become too long to be accurate

There is another, less politically dramatic problem: time. The population enumeration schedule contains 40 questions, many of which must be answered for every individual in a household. Adding questions about parents, spouses, identity documents, bank accounts, vaccination history and other personal details increases the amount of information that enumerators must collect and record.

Former Census officials told The Hindu that this could increase respondent fatigue, particularly when enumerators are required to work through lengthy questionnaires with multiple members of a household. The burden will fall heavily on enumerators, many of whom are government schoolteachers.

If a questionnaire takes substantially longer to complete, the consequences are not necessarily limited to inconvenience. Fatigue can affect accuracy. Respondents may become impatient. Enumerators may rush. Questions may be misunderstood. Answers may be guessed or left incomplete. A Census can therefore undermine its own statistical objectives by trying to collect too much information. The issue is particularly important in a country as large and diverse as India, where the credibility of population data depends upon consistent enumeration across hundreds of millions of people.

Migration creates another risk

The decision to advance population enumeration in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Goa because of their forthcoming elections has raised another concern: under-enumeration of migrants. As The Hindu reported, former Census official K. Narayanan Unni warned that conducting enumeration earlier in these States could affect migrant workers who move between their place of work and home State.

India follows a de facto method of enumeration, under which people are generally counted where they are physically present during the Census period. Traditionally, March 1 has been used as the reference date partly because migration patterns are relatively lower around that period.

If enumeration is advanced in some States because of elections, migrant workers may return to their home States to vote and potentially miss enumeration at their place of work. If enumeration has already concluded in the home State, there is a possibility that some migrants could be missed at both locations. That is a data-quality problem rather than merely an administrative inconvenience.

The Census is intended to provide a comprehensive picture of India’s population. Even relatively small levels of under-enumeration can affect the accuracy of demographic estimates, particularly for populations that are already mobile or difficult to reach.

Digital Census, digital vulnerabilities

Census 2027 is also being presented as India’s first fully digital Census, incorporating online self-enumeration and digital tools. Technology can make a national enumeration faster and potentially more efficient. But digitisation also changes the nature of the risks.

The more sensitive information that is digitised, the more consequential a data breach becomes. The Internet Freedom Foundation has raised concerns about the combination of Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and mobile numbers with caste, religion, language, migration history and other demographic information. Its argument is that these identifiers could potentially make it possible to connect Census information with other government databases. That concern is particularly significant because the value of a database to an attacker is not necessarily determined by any single field. It can arise from the ability to combine fields.

A database containing caste, religion, economic status, family relationships, migration history and unique identifiers would reveal substantially more about an individual than any one of those datasets considered separately.

Reports concerning the 2023 CoWIN data leak, for instance, demonstrated the potential consequences of vulnerabilities involving sensitive personal information. A breach of Census information could have consequences extending well beyond identity theft. Sensitive caste, religious and demographic information could potentially be used for discrimination, profiling, fraud or targeted harassment.

The legal framework is itself in transition

There is also a timing problem involving India’s data-protection regime. The Internet Freedom Foundation has pointed out that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and its implementing framework do not provide a fully operational safeguard during the entire Census process in the way one might expect from a mature data-protection regime.

The organisation has specifically questioned the interaction between the Census Act’s compulsory nature and emerging data-protection safeguards. Section 8(2) of the Census Act makes persons legally bound to answer notified questions, while Section 11 provides penalties for refusal or obstruction. That makes the nature of consent particularly complicated.

The Census and the compact of trust

At its core, the Census is an exercise in trust. The State asks citizens to provide information about themselves and their families on the understanding that the information will serve a socio-economic indicator of the status of the population. That compact becomes more fragile when the questionnaire starts asking for information that appears capable of connecting an individual to multiple existing databases.

The danger in collecting excessive information is not confined to what the database is intended to do today. Large databases acquire value precisely because they can be used for purposes that may not have been contemplated when the information was initially collected. That is why purpose limitation and data minimisation are fundamental principles of responsible data governance.

If the objective is to understand India’s population, the government should be able to explain why each additional identifier is necessary to generate that understanding. If an Aadhaar number does not produce a demographic statistic, its collection requires a separate justification. If a passport number does not contribute to population tabulation, the government must explain the purpose for which it is being recorded. If parents’ precise places of birth are necessary for a statistical exercise, that purpose should be made explicit. The same standard should apply to mobile numbers, voter IDs and other identifiers. The larger the database, the stronger the justification must be for every additional category of information.

The fundamental question facing Census 2027 is consequently not merely how much information the State can collect. It is how much information a democratic State should collect for a stated purpose, and what protections must exist to ensure that information does not acquire a different purpose later. A population census is meant to tell the country who lives in it, how people live, where they live and what their circumstances are. It should not leave citizens wondering whether, in the process of counting them, the State is also building a much more detailed map of who they are.

 

Related:

Census v/s NPR

Census v/s NPR

Falsifying the Truth: PUCL condemns the systematic manipulation of census data & suppression of ground realities in census exercise

Ensure transparency and inclusion in the 2027 Census: CCG

To count or not to count, delays and India’s decadal Census

Caste Census Survey Result: 63% OBCs, 19% SCs and 1.68% STs constitute Bihar’s total population

The Whys behind a caste-based census point to an urgent imperative

The post Census 2027: How much personal data is too much? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> #QuitGyaneshKumar protests at 36 locations countrywide, Congress takes the lead https://sabrangindia.in/quitgyaneshkumar-protests-at-36-locations-countrywide-congress-takes-the-lead/ Fri, 25 Sep 2026 11:05:14 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49471 Congress workers protested in 36 countrywide locations against the ECI and the CEC Gyanesh Kumar, calling the betrayal of the Indian people by the constitutional body, “high treason”; Left parties also issued statements of protest.

The post #QuitGyaneshKumar protests at 36 locations countrywide, Congress takes the lead appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Various media outlets reported that Congress workers staged protests across several states on Friday, September 25, 2026, as part of a nationwide programme demanding the resignation and removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, exposed for taking non-consultative decisions regarding the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) that has disenfranchised 13 crore Indian Voters. The conception of the SIR process, substantively and procedurally, has not followed statutory requirements under the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 and the Election Manuals, an issue that has drawn independent investigations by citizen’s collectives and media establishments. The political opposition has so far also sporadically raised the issue yet gone along with state elections in Bihar (2025), West Bengal (2026), Kerala (2026) and Tamil Nadu (2026) using the hastily constructed electoral rolls that are under contestation.

Articles exposing the non-transparency in functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) may be read here, here and here.

Today, two days after the expose by The Indian Express that exposed serious fissures within the Election Commission, with two Commissioners disagreeing or dissenting with CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s decision 14 times in ten months since October 2025.

Protests were seen in Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Chandigarh and Manipur, among other states, with party workers marching towards Election Commission offices and raising slogans against the CEC.In Dehradun, Uttarakhand Congress leaders and workers, led by state in-charge Kumari Selja and Pradesh Congress Committee president Ganesh Godiyal, marched from the PCC headquarters towards the Election Office at the state Secretariat to gherao the office (as reported by ANI)

Image: The Print

The Indian Youth Congress also held a protest march on Friday from 5, Raisina Road, to Jantar Mantar, with Kumar’s removal among its key demands. The demonstrations come as political parties intensify their criticism of the Election Commission’s functioning and the SIR exercise.

The protests have also spread to several other states. The Madhya Pradesh Youth Congress held a protest outside the office of the state Chief Electoral Officer in Bhopal on Thursday, raising slogans against the CEC and demanding his resignation over alleged irregularities in the poll panel’s functioning and the revision process.

Protesters carried posters bearing messages such as “arrest Gyanesh Kumar for treason” and “Vote-Chori magic trick exposed”. Bhopal district Youth Congress president Ankit Dubey alleged that no proper inquiry had been conducted despite objections by two Election Commissioners over the deletion of voters’ names and access to the voter database.

The Indian Youth Congress also launched a nationwide online citizens’ petition titled “Gyanesh, It’s Done Bro”. Through the campaign, it sought action against Kumar and urged citizens, especially young people, to support electoral transparency and accountability.

In Punjab, too the Congress protested.

Uttarakhand PCC president Ganesh Godiyal told ANI, “Rahul Gandhi has been saying this for the past three years that under vote theft, the Election Commission is getting BJP governments installed, and this fact has been proven true today. I salute Rahul Gandhi for his steadfastness… Certainly, this will benefit the nation. We want neutral and clean elections. If clean and neutral elections are held, it will have its own impact.

“Leader of Opposition in the Uttarakhand Assembly, Yashpal Arya said, “For three years, Rahul Gandhi has been highlighting the conduct of the Chief Election Commissioner, specifically how rules regarding ‘Form 6’ were disregarded and how votes were deleted or added via the SIR process. Although the other two Election Commissioners raised objections 14 times over a ten-month period, the Chief Election Commissioner ignored them. It has now come to light that 13 crore votes were deleted over the past few years, and the BJP central government manipulated the electoral process… a criminal case for sedition should be registered against him, and he ought to be dismissed immediately.”

In Lucknow, Congress workers gathered at the party’s state office and staged a demonstration over the SIR exercise, with plans also reported to lay siege to the State Election Commission office in Hazratganj.In Manipur, Congress workers led by Pradesh Congress Committee president Okram Ibobi Singh and Congress Legislature Party leader Keisham Meghachandra Singh marched towards the Chief Electoral Office at Lamphelpat, demanding the arrest and prosecution of Kumar.The protest came with a rally carrying slogans of immediate arrest of Gyanesh Kumar and also burnt the effigy of Gyanesh Kumar. The protest became violent, and the protesters scuffled with police; later, the police personnel resorted to firing tear gas shells.Furthermore, in Jammu, heavy police deployment was made outside the Election Commission office during a Congress protest. Congress leader Chaudhary Lal Singh said demonstrations were being held across the country wherever Election Commission offices were located.”Demonstrations are taking place everywhere, statewide and nationwide, wherever there is an Election Commission office. The reason for these protests is the rigging orchestrated by the Election Commission in collusion with the government; they have misused the people’s right to vote. The manner in which the government was formed is utterly absurd; a losing government was declared the winner, while the actual winners lost. This gross injustice has now been proven,” he told ANI.

Congress protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar spread across India; marches in Delhi, Chandigarh, Lucknow, Guwahati - The Economic Times
Image: The Economic Times

In Srinagar, Congress MLAs staged a protest inside the Legislative Assembly and raised banners demanding the immediate resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Congress leaders and workers also staged protests in Guwahati, Chandigarh, Dehradun, Lucknow and Kolkata, demanding the resignation of Kumar.

The protest was organised as part of the nationwide programme directed by the All India Congress Committee (AICC), which asked state units to hold marches to their respective Election Commission offices.The protests come amid reports that The Indian Express on Thursday said that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the SIR process.

In its defence, the Election Commission, however, has rejected the characterisation of these objections as evidence of institutional dissent, saying operational queries, internal feedback and administrative suggestions during the drafting process are part of the normal functioning of a multi-member constitutional body. The ECI has maintained that all final decisions, including those concerning SIR, were unanimous.The Congress has also indicated that opposition parties may move an impeachment motion against Kumar in both Houses of Parliament, as per sources.The controversy over SIR and the Election Commission’s internal functioning is expected to be taken up at the Congress Working Committee meeting scheduled for September 29 in New Delhi. (ANI)

Meanwhile, the Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee (TPCC) president B. Mahesh Kumar Goud said the Congress would organise protests at all district headquarters across the State on Monday (September 28, 2026) against what he described as the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) mishandling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

Left parties demand CEC’s removal, announce week-long protest against SIR

The CPI, CPI (M), CPI (ML)L, RSP, and All India Forward Bloc seek Gyanesh Kumar’s ouster, suspension of the SIR, and restoration of voting rights to those wrongfully excluded from electoral rolls. Left parties issued a joint statement demanding the ouster of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and a halt to the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The parties also announced a week-long protest to be held across the country from September 26 to October 2 on the issue.

The parties have demanded not only that the CEC be removed from office, but also that the SIR be halted and that voting rights be restored to all those who have been wrongfully excluded from the electoral rolls. The parties also demanded that the Election Commission’s “independent and democratic functioning” be reinstated and that the present system of appointment of Election Commissioners be replaced with a mechanism based on the Supreme Court’s proposed selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

The statement said the latest expose confirms concerns repeatedly raised by Opposition parties and civil society organisations and expose the hollowness of claims that the SIR and electoral roll management process are transparent and decentralised.

The issue, the Left parties said, goes far beyond the SIR. “It concerns the transparency and democratic functioning of the ECI and the protection of the fundamental democratic principle of universal adult franchise. Any system that makes the right to vote dependent on opaque, centrally controlled processes undermines public confidence in the electoral system,” the statement said.

Related:

A chargesheet against the ECI’s “All Is Well” defence

‘BJP, EC looted the West Bengal polls’: Mamata seeks CEC’s arrest, fresh elections with pre-SIR voter list

EC evades, shrugs off serious questions on fissures & divisions within the ECI

The post #QuitGyaneshKumar protests at 36 locations countrywide, Congress takes the lead appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> A chargesheet against the ECI’s “All Is Well” defence https://sabrangindia.in/a-chargesheet-against-the-ecis-all-is-well-defence/ Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:31:24 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49462 While recent media reports of serious internal dissensions within the Election Commission of India (ECI) have helped re-focus on the opacity and non-functioning of the body, this detailed examination of the past two-and-a-half years traces this trend back to at least 2024, when a refusal to release voting data, CCTV footage, 17C forms were only […]

The post A chargesheet against the ECI’s “All Is Well” defence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> While recent media reports of serious internal dissensions within the Election Commission of India (ECI) have helped re-focus on the opacity and non-functioning of the body, this detailed examination of the past two-and-a-half years traces this trend back to at least 2024, when a refusal to release voting data, CCTV footage, 17C forms were only part of the story related to a complete capture of the electoral process.

For any real correctional institutional autonomy to emerge, each and all of these issues need addressing, substantially and procedurally

The Election Commission of India (ECI), constitutionally entrusted under Article 324 with the superintendence, direction and control of elections, has faced sustained allegations since 2024 concerning electoral transparency, voter registration, counting data, access to election records and the administration of electoral-roll revisions. The controversies have intensified with the reported dissent of two Election Commissioners over the manner of its over-centralised functioning: the large-scale SIR deletions, the hijacking of powers over the electoral roll statutorily with the local EROs and the integrity of the software employed in the SIR process.

Ten crucial pointers over the corrosion in India’s Election Commission:

1. Internal dissent within the ECI: 14 recorded objections by two Election Commissioners

2 Election Commissioners, 14 Objections: What Happened Inside The ECI?
Image: NDTV

On September 23, 2026, The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over ten months to decisions and orders concerning the Commission’s functioning. The objections reportedly concerned voter registration, deletion and restoration, Form 6, database access, West Bengal appeals and communications issued in the ECI’s name without their knowledge or approval. Four objections were reportedly made on one day. The report also stated that the two Commissioners approached the Cabinet Secretary over changes affecting the integrity and oversight of the IT system.

One central objection concerned the July 2026 change to Form 6, the application used by new voters. The revised form asked whether the applicant, or their parents or grandparents, appeared in the electoral roll of the last SIR. According to the report, Sandhu and Joshi had objected that the change could not be introduced without the relevant rule being amended; Sandhu later described it as “unauthorised and illegal” and sought its removal. Amending a rule requires the collective deliberations of the legislature that is Parliament.

The Commissioners also raised concerns over the centralisation of electoral-roll database. Contrary to its constant defence of actions over past months on the manipulation of electoral rolls which was to say that the process of roll preparation is decentralised, the IE probe showed that through the ERONet and thereafter ECINet software controlled centrally the ERO’s access to the list was being restricted and that both Commissioners have repeatedly questioned this centralisation. (Each constituency’s voters’ list is prepared and controlled by its Electoral Registration Officer, a statutory authority on the ground. Usually, the ERO is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate).

Indian youth Congress supporters protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in New Delhi on Wednesday. Photos by Suraj Singh Bisht (@bsuraj509) #ThePrintPictures #INC #GyaneshKumar #Indianyouthcongress #youthcongress #CEC #ECI
Image: The Print

2. Electoral-roll software and the Goa episode: when an officer’s decision was not implemented

A follow up story for the same paper, Indian Express, revealed that this bypassing of federal principles and over-centralisation was witnessed in Goa. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) reportedly found 97 voters eligible after examining their documents, but the software in the central ECI’s digital electoral-roll system did not provide the mechanism needed to reverse their earlier deletion! The Goa Chief Electoral Officer’s office reportedly wrote eight times between February 11 and 17 seeking a rollback facility. The facility was not enabled in time, and the 97 voters remained outside the final roll!!

The issue is not simply the number of voters involved. It is whether a statutory officer’s decision can be rendered ineffective because the central software does not permit its implementation. The reported concerns of Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi about centralised database control, access credentials and the authority of the IT division assume particular significance in this context.

The episode raises a direct accountability question: when a voter is found eligible by the officer empowered to decide the matter, who is to be held responsible if the system despite this, denies him the right to be registered as a legitimate voter?

From the ballot box to the electoral record: what VFD analysed

The sharp citizen’s scrutiny of electoral transparency did not begin with SIR. Vote for Democracy (VFD), a Maharashtra-level citizens’ platform formed in 2023, began a continuing examination of electoral data, polling, counting and electoral-roll processes, publishing a series of reports and analytical documents from 2024 onwards.

Its principal Lok Sabha Elections 2024 report, “Conduct of Lok Sabha Elections 2024: Analysis of ‘Vote Manipulation’ and ‘Misconduct during Voting and Counting”, examined alleged irregularities in polling and counting, changes between initial and final turnout figures, discrepancies between EVM votes polled and votes recovered/counting figures, Form 17C-related transparency, Returning Officer conduct and selected closely contested constituencies. VFD argued that its calculations were based primarily on official ECI data and reported a cumulative increase of 4, 65, 46, 885 votes between the polling-day turnout figures and subsequently released final figures, and identified 79 Parliamentary Constituencies where its calculated increase exceeded the winning margin; it also examined discrepancies in 350+ constituencies, including seats with margins below 50,000 votes, and highlighted cases such as Mumbai North-West and Farrukhabad.

On July 19 2024, VFD and associated organisations served a notice on the ECI seeking explanations regarding turnout data, Form 17C, alleged injection of votes, counting procedures, Returning Officers and other alleged irregularities.

The inquiry continued with VFD’s November 19, 2024 Draft Report on the Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir Assembly Elections, which analysed the ECI’s refusal to release absolute voting figures before counting, changes in turnout percentages, projected/extrapolated votes in Haryana, district-wise turnout changes, alleged discrepancies between EVM votes polled and votes recovered, post-counting changes, voters remaining in queues after closure of polling, and EVM battery and vote-count issues.

In 2025, VFD expanded the examination through its report on the Maharashtra Assembly Elections 2024, analysing 95 Assembly Constituencies for mismatches between EVM votes polled and recovered, what it described as an unexplained 7.83% hike in voter turnout after 5 PM, constituencies with margins below 26,500, district-level data mismatches, seats with margins below 3,000/5,000/10,000 votes, additions of voters between 2019 and 2024, discrepancies between ECI and CEO Maharashtra elector data, and the addition of 29,219 electors in Nagpur South-West between the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.

Its August 12, 2025 Bihar SIR analysis, followed by the expanded report, examined the deletion of approximately 65 lakh electors, the categorisation and changing granularity of deletion data, “untraceable” and deceased elector categories, district-level concentrations, the chronology of SIR data released by the ECI, and the potential impact across 243 Assembly Constituencies.

Thus, taken together, VFD’s reports present a continuing analytical thread: who can independently verify the numerical journey of the vote, the completeness of the electoral roll, and the records through which the ECI’s final figures are reached?

These are VFD’s calculations, interpretations and allegations, not judicial findings that elections were manipulated. The importance of the record, however, lies in the fact that a numerical discrepancy does not automatically establish wrongdoing; it creates a question capable of being resolved only when the underlying statutory and electoral records are sufficiently available for independent reconciliation. The 2024–25 VFD reports therefore shifted the debate from an isolated question about voting machines or turnout percentages towards a broader question of electoral traceability: whether the public record permits the vote, the voter and the final result to be independently followed and verified.

None of the questions raised in either these reports or the July 19, 2024 Notice to the ECI were answered.

3. Votes polled vs. Votes counted: unanswered questions in the ECI’s electoral data

Vote for Democracy’s (VFD) 2024 Lok Sabha election report raised concerns over discrepancies between EVM votes polled and votes counted. Separately, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), in its report dated July 29, 2024, identified 5, 89,691 votes in discrepancy across 538 constituencies, based on ECI-published data. The ECI has maintained that votes recorded in EVMs are matched with Form 17C and that final turnout is reconciled by Returning Officers after scrutiny. However, these explanations leave public scrutiny focused on constituency-wise reconciliation, timely disclosure and transparent clarification of the discrepancies identified.

4. Maharashtra Assembly elections: VFD’s further allegations of data discrepancies

VFD’s 2025 report on the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections examined 95 constituencies for alleged mismatches between EVM votes polled and recovered, a reported 7.83% increase in turnout after 5 PM, district-level data mismatches and constituencies with narrow victory margins. It also examined additions to the electorate between 2019 and 2024, discrepancies between ECI and Chief Electoral Officer data, and the addition of 29,219 electors in Nagpur South-West between the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.

VFD’s larger August 2025 report, “Dysfunctional’ Election Commission of India & Weaponisation of India’s Election System”, brought together its analysis of the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Maharashtra Assembly elections and Bihar SIR. It also raised questions concerning EVM/VVPAT/SLU architecture, Forms 17A and 17C, election-data publication, videography, preservation of CCTV footage and the Rule 93 amendment. The allegations collectively placed the ECI under scrutiny over the availability and consistency of the records needed to verify electoral data. The reports’ findings remain attributed to VFD; numerical discrepancies, without examination of the underlying records, do not by themselves establish deliberate wrongdoing.

5. Rule 93 amendment: reduced public access to election-related electronic records

Soon after the Lok Sabha polls of 2024 that had significantly reduced the seats of the ruling party, citizens groups had begun questioning the ECI’s functioning especially on non-release of the Form 17C data. All in all the role of the ECI was being interrogated and individual candidates of the Opposition who were victim to the deliberate lapses were demanding EVM Verification and CCTV Footage.

Unilaterally, even surreptitiously, on December 21, 2024, the Union Government amended Rule 93 (2) (a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, following an ECI recommendation. The amendment changed the framework governing public inspection of election-related papers and affected access to certain electronic records, including CCTV, webcasting and video recordings. The stated rationale included preventing misuse of electronic records and protecting privacy. In fact, however, this amendment, without involving public debate or the Opposition’s view, ensured absence of scrutiny and transparency.

The concern raised in the supplied material is that restrictions on inspection can weaken the ability of candidates, political parties, researchers and citizens to independently examine the conduct of elections. The amendment narrowed the category of election records that the general public can inspect. CCTV footage, webcasting and similar electronic records are not automatically available for public inspection merely because they relate to an election. Candidates continue to have access, and courts may order disclosure where appropriate. Therefore, the concern is that independent verification by citizens, researchers and other stakeholders may become more difficult, particularly when electronic records are important for examining allegations concerning the conduct or accuracy of an election.

The criticism is directed at the transparency framework and its practical consequences, rather than establishing that the amendment itself proves manipulation.

6. Bihar SIR: an intensive revision that placed a fresh documentary burden on existing electors

On June 24, 2025, the ECI ordered a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, where the electorate stood at approximately 7.89 crore. The Commission relied on Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, citing demographic change, migration, unreported deaths and duplicate entries as reasons for revision. Unlike routine updating, the exercise required existing electors to participate in enumeration and, depending on their circumstances and earlier records, produce documents relevant to eligibility.

During Bihar’s SIR, the ECI initially prescribed (one of) 11 documents for establishing eligibility-related particulars, excluding Aadhaar from the list. On September 8 2025, the Supreme Court directed the Commission to accept Aadhaar as the twelfth identity document for consideration in the inclusion or exclusion of names from Bihar’s revised electoral roll, while clarifying that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and its authenticity may be verified.

The supplied material questions whether this shifted an excessive burden onto already registered voters, particularly those whose documentary trail was incomplete, whose families had migrated, whose names differed across records or who could not be located during enumeration. It also alleges that categories such as “untraceable”, “shifted” and “not found at address” disproportionately affected Muslims, Dalits, migrant labourers and economically marginalised communities, whose circumstances may make documentation and enumeration more difficult. These are serious allegations of discriminatory impact contained in the material; they require category-wise evidence and individual-level scrutiny to establish their extent.

The material further alleges that, for electors unable to satisfy the documentary demands under paragraph 5(b) of the ECI’s June 24, 2025 order, deletion was coupled with referral to a “competent authority” as suspected foreigners, without prior judicial determination. The criticism is that administrative verification risked turning documentation gaps into exclusion from the electoral roll, with immediate consequences for voting rights. The central issue is whether adequate notice, hearing, alternative-document options and timely restoration were available before the relevant election.

The most problematic structural issue of the Bihar 2025 SIR and the subsequent ones held in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala are the they were held at virtual gun-point with no adequate procedural time for imminent elections. The result was that arbitrarily excluded voters were summarily denied their constitutional right to universal franchise.

7. SIR figures: mass deletions and the failure alleged in category-wise reconciliation

The Bihar SIR began with approximately 7.89 crore electors. The ECI’s figures recorded about 65 lakh deletions at the draft stage, 21.53 lakh additions through Form 6, and a further 3.66 lakh deletions after claims and objections. The final roll published on September 30, 2025, contained approximately 7.42 crore electors—a net reduction of about 47 lakh from the pre-SIR electorate. The supplied analysis argues that the disclosed additions and later deletions do not, on their own, fully explain the movement from the original roll to the final figure.

A June 2026 SabrangIndia’s “Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?” analysis of VFD’s examination of official data from 14 States and Union Territories put the pre-SIR electorate at 61.38 crore, final deletions at 5.29 crore and additions at 1.87 crore. On that arithmetic, the expected final electorate would be approximately 57.96 crore, while the published aggregate was reported as 55.17 crore—a difference of about 2.79 crore. The analysis alleges that the ECI did not publish sufficient category-wise data to reconcile the difference, including how many electors were deceased, permanently shifted, duplicates, restored or newly registered. This is an external analysis of official figures, not a judicial finding that 2.79 crore people were unlawfully disenfranchised. Its core allegation is that the public data are insufficiently reconciled to permit independent verification.

The supplied material also identifies state-level discrepancies, including Bihar and West Bengal, and questions the unexplained additions between draft and final rolls in Uttar Pradesh. The allegation is not that every deletion or addition is necessarily improper, but that the ECI’s published figures do not provide a sufficiently transparent, reproducible account of the movement of electors through the revision process. In an exercise involving crores of names, the absence of a complete, category-wise reconciliation is a substantial accountability concern.

8. West Bengal SIR: mass deletions, a huge appeals backlog and questions over authorisation

West Bengal: SIR unravelled | NewsClick
Image: Dibyangshu SARKAR / AFP.

In West Bengal, around 60 lakh electors were flagged for “logical discrepancies” and examined through a judicially supervised process. Approximately 27 lakh voters were subsequently deleted. The ECI informed the Supreme Court that 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed: 22.21 lakh seeking restoration of deleted voters and 16.10 lakh seeking deletion of voters who had been included. The scale of these appeals raised concerns about the accessibility and timeliness of remedies for people whose names had been removed.

The issue was compounded by questions about who authorised appeals seeking deletion of voters included through the adjudicatory process. According to The Indian Express, Sandhu questioned the authorisation and recorded that neither he, Joshi nor the then West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer had been informed of the basis or process by which those appeals were initiated. Later reporting showed that only a small fraction of the appeals had been disposed of, leaving a substantial backlog.

The allegations against the ECI therefore concern both the initial deletion process and the effectiveness of the remedy. Where a voter must appeal to regain inclusion, an unresolved appeal can mean exclusion continues in practice. The questions are whether each deletion was supported by adequate reasons, whether appeals were properly authorised, and whether restoration could be secured before the election.

9. Electoral exclusion and its consequences: welfare concerns and the Supreme Court’s limited validation of SIR

The supplied material records concerns that deletion from electoral rolls was being linked to loss of welfare benefits. In West Bengal, government statements reportedly connected electoral-roll deletion with eligibility for certain schemes, while reporting described ration-card and cash-transfer consequences for affected beneficiaries. In Bihar, Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary reportedly stated that persons deleted from the roll would be ineligible for ration and other welfare schemes and raised the possibility of cancelling bank passbooks. Such measures raise a distinct concern: electoral-roll exclusion must not automatically be treated as a final determination of citizenship or entitlement to unrelated benefits.

The Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026 judgment upheld the ECI’s authority to conduct Bihar SIR under the constitutional and statutory framework. However, the Court distinguished the ECI’s limited inquiry into electoral eligibility from a formal citizenship determination under the Citizenship Act, 1955. It also directed referrals to the competent authority in specified cases and required notice and an opportunity of hearing. The Court’s decision therefore affirmed the Commission’s authority to revise rolls; it did not judicially certify every individual deletion or establish that every excluded elector was ineligible.

The supplied material criticises the judgment for not adequately resolving the practical consequences of exclusion before final citizenship adjudication, and invokes Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) in support of procedural fairness and the presumption attaching to existing electoral registration. These are criticisms of the judgment and the SIR framework, not the Court’s own conclusions. The concern remains that an elector may lose the opportunity to vote while a separate determination or appeal is still pending.

10. Expansion of SIR and the unresolved accountability test

The ECI’s SIR exercise has expanded beyond Bihar to a much larger electorate. The supplied material identifies Phase III as covering 16 States and three Union Territories, involving approximately 36.73 crore electors. It argues that this expansion is taking place while questions from earlier phases—including unexplained data movements, deletion categories, restoration mechanisms and the practical burden on voters—remain unresolved.

Taken together, the controversies since 2024 concern more than any single election or revision exercise. VFD’s reports raised questions about the traceability of turnout and counting data. The Rule 93 amendment narrowed aspects of public inspection of electronic election records. SIR brought scrutiny of documentation, deletions, appeals and the reconciliation of electoral-roll figures. The Goa episode and the reported objections of two Election Commissioners added questions about who controls the software and whether decisions taken by statutory officers can actually be implemented.

The central allegation running through these episodes is that the ECI has not consistently provided a sufficiently transparent, verifiable and accountable record for consequential electoral decisions.

The allegations do not all have the same evidentiary status, and not every discrepancy establishes manipulation or illegality. But in the absence of transparency and accountability or any consultation with citizens or the Opposition, the Commission’s conduct remain suspect. The Commission’s constitutional responsibility requires more than a general assertion that procedures were followed. It requires records that identify the authority for a decision, explain the basis for it, permit an affected elector to challenge it, and make correction possible when an error is established.

The latest reported internal objections make this demand especially pressing. When two of the three Election Commissioners reportedly question decisions concerning voter registration, deletion, database access and institutional authorisation, the issue is no longer confined to criticism from political parties or civil-society organisations.

It concerns the functioning of the constitutional body itself. The essential test is whether the ECI can account for every consequential change to the electoral roll and every stage of the electoral process through records that are complete, accessible and capable of independent scrutiny. 

ECI’s Defence of Unanimity: A Press Note That Seeks to re-assure, but Leaves Critical Questions Open

In response to The Indian Express investigation, which reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months, the Election Commission of India (ECI), through its Press Note dated 23.09.2026 (No. EC/PN/119/2026), asserted that it functions under Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions as a multi-member constitutional body.

The Commission stated that written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks and balances are standard practices intended to ensure transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour; that all official orders, decisions and administrative directions carry legal sanction and follow statutory procedures under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023; and that operational queries or inputs raised during draft stages are routine measures aimed at safeguarding voters’ rights and improving electoral processes. It further maintained that differing views are a normal part of deliberation, that every Commission officer is authorised to offer suggestions, and that highlighting selected internal notes over 10 months presents only “one part of the picture.”

The ECI emphasised that it had taken numerous decisions, introduced around 40 initiatives, undertaken electoral reforms—including SIR—and conducted major election-related exercises in Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Assam and West Bengal, asserting that all decisions during the preceding year were unanimous decisions of the full Commission. It also defended ECINet and other digital platforms as operating under strict data-security protocols, while affirming that Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers exercise their statutory powers under law.

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

Assam: ‘No to SIR!’ Complete the pending NRC! 

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 A chargesheet against the ECI’s “All Is Well” defence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> From caste to race: Reading ‘Black & Buddhist’ through an Indian lens https://sabrangindia.in/from-caste-to-race-reading-black-buddhist-through-an-indian-lens/ Thu, 24 Sep 2026 11:37:21 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49457 A few days ago, while visiting a local library in a relatively small town on the eastern coast of the United States, the person who took me there asked if I wished to borrow a book. I looked around. While I couldn’t find much that immediately connected with me, one book seemed of particular interest: Black […]

The post From caste to race: Reading ‘Black & Buddhist’ through an Indian lens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> A few days ago, while visiting a local library in a relatively small town on the eastern coast of the United States, the person who took me there asked if I wished to borrow a book. I looked around. While I couldn’t find much that immediately connected with me, one book seemed of particular interest: Black & Buddhist.

An African American interpretation of Buddhism, it is a collection of articles by scholars and Buddhist activists who, writing from their personal experiences of racial exclusion, explore “trauma, belonging, healing, and transformation,” even as they “wrestle with their suffering.”

Subtitled Buddhism Can Teach Us about Race, Resilience, Transformation & Freedom, the book prompted a thought even as I carried it in my hand: if Dalits in India have been embracing Buddhism in large numbers, why wouldn’t Black Americans do the same, given that they, too, have experienced a qualitatively similar form of discrimination?

Even before I began reading the book, which was published in 2020, I sought to find out what percentage of Americans are Buddhists and, of these, how many are Black. This is what I found: Buddhists represent approximately 1.0% to 1.3% of the U.S. population, or about 3.5 to 4.4 million people. A majority are of Asian descent—roughly 60% to 67%—while about a quarter to one-third are White.

As for Black Americans, they make up roughly 3% of all Buddhists in the United States. And within the broader Black American population, less than 0.5% identify as Buddhist. Yet, from my personal interactions in the United States, I have found that Buddhist cultural presence, visibility, and affinity appear to be growing rapidly.

Someone I know intimately is by no stretch of the imagination a Buddhist. Yet he is among the millions living in America who identify as Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or “spiritual but not religious,” while regularly practising Buddhist meditation or adopting aspects of Buddhist philosophy. Not without reason, according to one source, the absolute number of Buddhist practitioners in the United States grew by more than 20% between 2010 and 2020.

Yet, as far as Black Americans are concerned, they haven’t gone the Dalit way.

Buddhists in India may make up a minuscule 0.7% to 0.8% of the country’s population, or about 8.4 million people, but a vast majority of them are Dalits—around 85% to 90%.

In all likelihood, many of them followed their icon, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who publicly converted to Buddhism at the fag end of his life—in October 1956, just two months before his death in December 1956—after concluding that the caste hierarchy and the practice of “untouchability” were inextricably embedded in orthodox Hindu scriptures.

Returning to Black & Buddhist, I couldn’t find any direct reference to Ambedkar or Dalits in its chapters. This could be because the anthology’s primary focus is specifically on the African American and Black diaspora experience in the United States, examining intergenerational trauma, white supremacy, capitalism, and the distinctive resilience of Black Buddhist practitioners in America.

However, in the book’s introduction, the two editors, Pamela Ayo Yetunde and Cheryl A. Giles, explicitly name “caste designations” alongside racism, sexism, white supremacy, imperialism, and colonialism as inherent, exploitative features of the capitalist system that Buddhism must actively confront.

There is, of course, a critique of Mahatma Gandhi by one of the contributors, Sebene Selassie, similar to what some Indian Dalit intellectuals, as well as the well-known litterateur Arundhati Roy, have been saying.

Selassie writes: “When (Gandhi) was living in South Africa as a young lawyer, his stance on anti-Black racism was well-defined and expressed: he believed Indians and whites to be part of an Aryan brotherhood and inherently superior to Black people, which was not an uncommon stance of Indians living there at the time.”

I didn’t expect Selassie to go on to examine whether Gandhi changed his views thereafter.

But let me turn to the book now.

Each of the eight contributors—Cheryl A. Giles, Lama Rod Owens, Sebene Selassie, Lama Dawa Tarchin Phillips, Pamela Ayo Yetunde, Gyozan Royce Andrew Johnson, Kamilah Majied, and Ruth King—gives graphic details of the suffering and trauma they have experienced, which led them to adopt the Buddhist way of life as a way out.

They go on to conceptualize Buddhism by identifying the paths they believe have helped them overcome their suffering: Right View, Right Mindfulness, Right Intention, Right Livelihood, Right Concentration, Right Action, Right Speech, and Right Effort.

Given this framework, what appeared particularly interesting to me was the way the book looks at capitalism.

While pointing out that in the capitalist society in which they live there is “creativity and freedom,” the book also underscores—and let me quote here—that the system leads to “exploitation, poverty, classism, caste designations, racism, sexism (and other ‘isms’ related to sex and gender), ageism, white supremacy, human supremacy, imperialism, and colonialism.”

Further, capitalism “allows for shortened lifespans for poor people due to chronic stress, hunger, thirst, and treatable but untreated diseases.”

This is quite close to the Marxian analysis—something the powers-that-be in the United States would perhaps detest from the bottom of their hearts.

A closer look, however, suggested that it is nowhere near the typical Communist way of thinking—the proletariat versus the capitalists.

One of the solutions offered is “Right Action.”

The book wonders: “A question Black Buddhists ponder is ‘What is Right Action when confronted by a violent racist?’ Our actions are not just about our own self-preservation but”—and here I paused—“also about the well-being of those around us, including violent perpetrators.”

It says that Black actions, from a Buddhist perspective, should lead to “domino effects and we vow not to become oppressors even while being oppressed.” Insisting that “hatred does not transform hatred” and “only love does that,” it underscores the importance of responding without reproducing the very violence one is confronting.

Quite Gandhian, I thought.

Further: “Right Action, at its core, is love. Love in Right Action applies to everything we do, including our hobbies, vocations, work, and activism. Right Action is necessary in the economic system we live in.”

And how does one observe “Right Livelihood” in a capitalist setup?

Not by rebelling against the system, but by ensuring that one does not make “money in a way that harms others.” In fact, one must live as “spiritually integrated, nonexploitative, generous, and constructive human beings” by beginning with “examining if and how greed operates in our lives.”

The book warns: “Capitalism can breed greed if we have the wrong view that possessing a multitude of things, or having much more money than we need, brings real security and real joy.”

Here, it cites “studies in the US” to argue that “being rich does not make one happy and does not promote mental, emotional, or psychological security.”

Regretting that Black people have “been the objects of capitalism and exploited as property,” the book says that, through the generations, they “have created a collective psychological defense against the vulnerability of being seen as financially insecure.”

The result is that “some of us have come to value things that don’t bring lasting joy.”

Often, “a large home, a luxury car, precious gems and metals, and expensive designer clothing, and paying for these things through doing work that exploits, maims, causes addictions, or kills others” are considered “symbols of success,” feeding the delusion “that being wealthy or appearing to be wealthy protects Black people from exploitation.”

The book believes: “Right Livelihood promotes safety, truth, nonharming, and constructive enterprises. Right Livelihood is not the pursuit of greed and has no interest in impressing others with material excess.”

It adds: “It is not a way to demonstrate economic viability or invulnerability. It can be used as a springboard to create economic alternatives within the system in which we find ourselves. Right Livelihood is certainly a fitting description for Right and Noble anti-racism activism…”

And how does one achieve Right Action and Right Livelihood?

The answer the authors offer is through Right Concentration.

“Supported” by experienced meditation teachers and students, one can undertake “meditation retreats” for this purpose. But here, they warn, one must be selective. One should check whether the retreat centre would be in a position to support participants during what could be an emotionally and mentally vulnerable period.

The book underlines: “Long meditation retreats evoke mental and emotional vulnerability because returning to one’s object of meditation over and over again can trigger trauma.”

But this “should not be taken to mean that meditation is not right… The real questions are these: What type of meditation retreat is appropriate? How long? How often? To what end?”

Why would an African American anti-racism activist want to experience Right Concentration?

By committing to “cultivating peace of mind and peace of body as we struggle for liberation”; by helping each other so that “our collective souls and collective selves may be nourished for generations of communities to come.”

Right Concentration, the book believes, would help one know one’s “traumatized history, without the constructs of race, ethnicity, gender, and religion and without preferences and desires, fears and terrors, anger and rage—imagine how much freedom there may be.”

“We would come out of that experience knowing ourselves as part of the Universal Renaissance in Black Self-Knowledge…”

All this would have to be done, says the book, at a time when, in the United States, one often hears African Americans being told: “Go back to Africa where you belong!”

It says: “Black belonging has always been contested in the United States and we are now being asked to support the exclusion of Brown people at our borders, Black people from African countries, and the Muslim world which is largely populated by people of color.”

This, the book argues, ought to be overcome through “benefactor practice,” which “weaves together the threads of ancestral myth, memory, and connection with others, all of which may be modes of healing intergenerational trauma that lives in our bodies.”

It says: “Integrating these threads is a lifelong process that can be supported by bringing our benefactors into our meditation practice. We know trauma lives in the body. We carry it every day. Trauma cannot be buried, ignored, pushed aside, or denied. As long as we breathe, trauma reminds us it is with us and rises to the surface. Transforming trauma means being willing to address it in our lives.”

“In other words,” the book argues, “being Black-identified does not mean that I am also anger-identified. To be Black has come with significant woundedness and trauma from having to survive a white supremacist culture as well as having to hold the transhistorical trauma of (the) ancestors who also survived the same trauma and passed it on unknowingly” to the next generation.

Yet, through meditation practice, one can experience “Blackness” as something “based upon resiliency, community, deep joy in the face of violence, and a profound gratitude” for Black culture, “which continues to transform marginalization into celebration.”

Courtesy: CounterView

The post From caste to race: Reading ‘Black & Buddhist’ through an Indian lens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> ‘BJP, EC looted the West Bengal polls’: Mamata seeks CEC’s arrest, fresh elections with pre-SIR voter list https://sabrangindia.in/bjp-ec-looted-the-west-bengal-polls-mamata-seeks-cecs-arrest-fresh-elections-with-pre-sir-voter-list/ Wed, 23 Sep 2026 13:49:29 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49452 Former -Bengal CM calls for pan-India protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and has demanded his arrest and accusing him of being "compromised" and working with the BJP.

The post ‘BJP, EC looted the West Bengal polls’: Mamata seeks CEC’s arrest, fresh elections with pre-SIR voter list appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Former West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday, September 23 has  demanded the arrest of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and fresh assembly elections in the state with the pre-SIR voter list, alleging that the BJP and the poll panel had “looted” the polls held earlier this year.

Her remarks were a response to the The Indian Express report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had red-flagged multiple issues, including deletion of names, in various states during the pan-India Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters’ list, triggering a massive political storm.

“It has now been proven that the BJP and the EC looted the West Bengal assembly polls,” Banerjee said in a Facebook live, thereafter reported by PTI and New Indian Express.

“There will be pan-India protests till Gyanesh Kumar remains CEC. He must be immediately arrested and put behind bars. The chair of the CEC is not for a person like him. It’s another fight for freedom, this time from the compromised CEC, and the BJP that has destroyed India,” she added.

The IE report claimed that Sandhu and Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders concerning SIR, including some allegedly taken without their knowledge. The Election Commission has, however, said that decisions relating to SIR were taken unanimously with the approval of all three commissioners.

“Re-election must be held in West Bengal with the old voter list,” she said, adding that INDIA bloc partners have spoken about the matter and will meet soon.

The remarks come days after the Election Commission froze the use of the ‘All India Trinamool Congress’ name and its reserved ‘twin flowers-and-grass’ symbol amid an escalating factional feud over control of the party.

The poll panel subsequently allotted separate interim identities to the two groups for the October 6 bypolls, with the Mamata faction getting ‘Mamata All India Trinamool Congress’ and the ‘football player’ symbol, while the rival faction led by Arup Roy was allotted ‘Democratic Trinamool Congress’ and the ‘envelope’ symbol.

The post ‘BJP, EC looted the West Bengal polls’: Mamata seeks CEC’s arrest, fresh elections with pre-SIR voter list appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> EC evades, shrugs off serious questions on fissures & divisions within the ECI https://sabrangindia.in/ec-evades-shrugs-off-serious-questions-on-fissures-divisions-within-the-eci/ Wed, 23 Sep 2026 13:46:11 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49449 In a hastily issued press release issued by P Pawan, Deputy Director of the Commission, the election body has attempted a rebuttal of the Indian Express investigation

The post EC evades, shrugs off serious questions on fissures & divisions within the ECI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> In its hurried response to the investigation by The Indian Express  that revealed that two of three Election Commissioners raised serious questions on the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) across at least nine states, a press note by the election body states that all decisions were taken in accordance with norms and procedures

The IE investigation, on the front pages of all editions of the paper stated that two Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected formally at least 14 times on various decisions taken and orders issued without their knowledge in the last 10 months. On the face of it, the Election Commission appears to have evaded the most important concerns – not least of which is what happens to the 13 crore names deleted as part of the ECI’s special intensive revision of voter rolls.

As the Indian Express report notes, the controversial national rollout of the SIR has been under the supervision of all three Commissioners. Now, with the reported disagreement of Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to some of the decisions made in the course of the SIR, there are renewed and serious concerns over the legitimacy of an extremely contested and controversial exercise.

In its press note, the ECI has repeated that it a constitutional body that functions under the strict mandate of Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions. Noting that the Commission operates as a “multi-member constitutional body,” the ECI states that “written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks-and-balances are standard, ongoing practices designed to ensure complete transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour.”

Avoiding any response into the particulars of the formal objections reported by the newspaper, the ECI claims then, “All actions of ECI have been in accordance of laws and instructions of the Commission.”

The press note may be viewed here:

 

The ECI also announced:

“All official orders, decisions and administrative directions issued by the Commission carry full legal sanctions and follow established statutory procedures under The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.”

However, this stand of the ECI that its actions were legally sanctioned evades the seriousness in the report– that two out of three Election Commissioners in a three-member body complained about being kept in the dark when it came to the adding new voters and the deleting of names.

The two have also expressed formal concerns over integrity of voter software and raised the issue of a centralised voter database that bypasses state officials.

The ECI’s response makes light of this concern and puts them under the umbrella of ‘operational queries or inputs,’ saying:

“Any operational queries or inputs raised by Commission members during draft stages are part of standard administrative practice aimed at safeguarding voter rights. The suggestions given by the Commissioners were for further improving the electoral processes.”

The ECI also adds:

“Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution. They are a part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken. Not only the three Commissioners, but every officer of the Commission is fully authorized to give his suggestions to the Commission for improving the electoral system.”

Contradicting this, the IE reports make it amply clear that the Election Commissioners’ objections were not “suggestions,” but full-fledged formal complaints. In one, Sandhu notes that the EC acted against the written advice of two commissioners and claim its action was “unauthorised and illegal.” Sandhu and Joshi also, the report says, wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary complaining about changes in work allocation that did away with crucial oversight despite their advice against it.

In what appears as a weak defense, ECI further claimed

“Highlighting certain specific internal notes/observations spread over the period of 10 months while overlooking the much larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives give only one part of the picture. In recent months, the Commission has taken numerous decisions, issued instructions, introduced around 40 new initiatives and undertaken many electoral reforms including the conduct of Electoral roll revision (including SIR) across the country. All these decisions are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission in the past one year.”

Notwithstanding the fact that some communication transcended the meaning of “internal” – like the complaint to the Cabinet Secretary as illustrated above – it is unclear why the gravity of 14 objections in 10 months should reduce under the weight of the allegedly much larger body of approvals.

“The Commission has recently successfully conducted major elections of Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Assam and West Bengal and election-related exercises during this period. This work involved wide-ranging administrative and operational machinery and many Commission approvals and instructions.”

Even today, the contentious deletions in some of these states, especially West Bengal, is being heard by the courts and the impact they have had on people’s ability to access public welfare is well reported. The Election Commission’s description of these SIRs as “successful” raises questions on its awareness of the issues and lives at stake.

In what reads as a response to the report that notes the Election Commissioners’ reservations against a central database, the ECI says:

The Commission’s digital platforms, such as ECINet, operate under strict data security protocols to prevent unauthorized tampering, manipulation, etc. IT security checks and audit controls are standard cybersecurity measures implemented across national databases. Statutory authorities, including Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and District Election Officers (DEOs), function as per statutory powers for registration and deletion under law.

The press note, signed by P. Pawan, a deputy director in the Media Division of the ECI, finishes with the line:

“Election Commission of India remains fully committed to executing its constitutional duties with complete integrity, recognizing its vital role in advancing our democracy.”

The post EC evades, shrugs off serious questions on fissures & divisions within the ECI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Gyanesh Kumar has no right to continue in office, reform the ECI: CPI-M https://sabrangindia.in/gyanesh-kumar-has-no-right-to-continue-in-office-reform-the-eci-cpi-m/ Wed, 23 Sep 2026 13:31:47 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49445 The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has demanded the resignation of the CEC Gyanesh Kumar and reform of the ECI

The post Gyanesh Kumar has no right to continue in office, reform the ECI: CPI-M appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The explosive revelations in the Indian Express (September 23) surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls raise serious questions not just about the process, but more importantly about the integrity of the Election Commission of India (ECI) itself, states a public statement released by the CPI-M. 

The disclosures in The Indian Express, September 23 have only strengthened suspicions and concerns that the CPI (M), other opposition parties and civil society organisations have all along raised since the SIR process was initiated. 

Reports indicate that two out of the three Election Commissioners have recorded objections to several decisions relating to electoral-roll revision and the SIR process. According to the law all the three election commissioners are equal and any difference should be settled by a majority or unanimity. The CEC didn’t follow this rule, but went on imposing his views without caring for the objections raised his other EC colleagues. Significantly, these differences concern fundamental questions about how voters are being added or removed from the electoral rolls and how the SIR is being implemented. 

“What is being revealed now is that the CEC has all along falsely claimed that the entire process is transparent and decentralised. It is now clear that over the past few months the entire system has been centralised to the extent that it obscures who is actually taking decisions. The Supreme Court has also flagged the over reliance on technology and the “mechanical” issuance of notices.

“The issues raised by the two Election Commissioners go beyond the SIR process. It concerns the institutional integrity and democratic functioning of the Election Commission, transparency in the electoral process, over centralisation and the protection of the right to universal adult franchise. The credibility of the Election Commission as an unbiased institution is at stake. People have lost confidence in a compromised Election Commission, for which CEC Gyanesh Kumar should be held accountable. He cannot continue in office any longer.

Hence, the Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) also demands an immediate halt to the SIR process. The integrity and democratic functioning of the ECI must be restored. Transparency in the appointment of the Election Commissioner’s has to be ensured by scrapping the concerned legislation and enacting a new one by accepting the Supreme Court guidelines for a selection committee comprising of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India.

Related:

INC protests outside ECI, demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation

Former TN CM, M. K. Stalin demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation

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 Gyanesh Kumar has no right to continue in office, reform the ECI: CPI-M appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> INC protests outside ECI, demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation https://sabrangindia.in/inc-protests-outside-eci-demands-cec-gyanesh-kumars-resignation/ Wed, 23 Sep 2026 13:24:56 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=49442 The Indian Express investigation exposing fissures within the ECI, with two Commissioners dissenting the moves by CEC Gyanesh Kumar over the past 10 months has generated a political storm: the Indian National Congress protested the anti-constitutional functioning of the ECI and demanded the CEC’s resignation

The post INC protests outside ECI, demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Indian Express’ September 23, front-page investigation exposing fissures within the ECI, with two Commissioners dissenting the moves by CEC Gyanesh Kumar over the past 10 months has generated a political storm: the Indian National Congress protested the anti-constitutional functioning of the ECI and demanded the CEC’s resignation!

In a series of posts on social media platform ‘X’, both the party handle and Leader of the Opposition (LOP) Rahul Gandhi’s handle both highlighted the investigation and also credited Gandhi for his campaign on #VoteChori (Vote Theft). Gandhi had also called these shenanigans by the ruling party and ECI as treason.

 

ECI had conducted free & fair elections: LoP Rahul Gandhi ji would be India’s PM today. Congress would have formed govt in Haryana. Congress would have formed govt in MP. MVA would have formed govt in Maharashtra. Modi would have lost his own seat. ECI robbed the people’s mandate to please their masters.

The post INC protests outside ECI, demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>