The decision follows discussions between student representatives and a university-appointed committee, which also yielded assurances on the withdrawal of FIRs against students, a review of contentious provisions of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual and the withdrawal of proctorial enquiries initiated during earlier campus protests. Hindustan Times reported that the university has also agreed to constitute committees with JNUSU representation to review the disciplinary provisions, examine the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) and address hostel reservation issues. The developments mark a breakthrough in the prolonged standoff, with further discussions also covering hostel infrastructure, library timings and the opening of a canteen at the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG).

At the heart of the confrontation is the suspension and rustication of elected representatives of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), alongside the administration’s continued enforcement of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual, which students argue imposes punitive restrictions on protests and collective gatherings. The dispute also raises questions about the university’s response to students exercising their right to protest, particularly when disciplinary action has excluded elected representatives from the institution they are mandated to represent.

The Hindu reported that CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas had sought intervention from President Droupadi Murmu and Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi as the hunger strike has reached a critical point amid concerns about the deteriorating health of participants. Brittas, a former JNU student, has called for the revocation of the rustication orders and an expedited resolution of the students’ grievances.

Rustication of elected representatives lies at the centre of the dispute

JNUSU president Aditi Mishra, vice-president Gopika Babau and other students have participated in the indefinite hunger strike. As reported by Outlook, JNUSU joint secretary Danish Ali said the union, along with former president Nitish Kumar, was rusticated in February 2026 following protests against the installation of facial recognition technology (FRT) at the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Central Library. Ali said the union and Nitish were rusticated for a year and fined ₹20,000 each, while eight other students were fined ₹19,000 each for their alleged presence at the protest.

The university had earlier suspended five students and declared them “out of bounds” in connection with the alleged vandalism of the facial recognition technology gates in November 2025. The administration has maintained that public property worth ₹20 lakh was damaged.

However, the continuing exclusion of elected student representatives has become a central concern in the present agitation. In his letter to President Murmu, Brittas argued that keeping elected representatives off campus directly affects the functioning of the students’ union and weakens the mechanism through which students collectively articulate their grievances.

The issue goes beyond the individual penalties imposed on the students. When elected representatives are barred from the university, their ability to represent constituents, participate in campus discussions and negotiate with the administration is significantly curtailed. Disciplinary action against individual students can therefore have consequences for the wider student body, particularly when it affects the functioning of an elected representative institution. JNUSU has maintained that its office-bearers represent a student constituency of approximately 9,000. Its demand for the revocation of the rustication orders is therefore tied to the question of whether students can meaningfully exercise their collective voice through an elected union.

CPO Manual and the shrinking space for campus dissent

The students’ have called for the withdrawal of objectionable provisions of the CPO Manual, alleging that its disciplinary framework enables the administration to impose substantial penalties and restrict assemblies and protests. The agitation follows a university general body meeting (UGBM) on October 3, which reportedly passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of the manual. The students have argued that its provisions undermine legitimate democratic expression by exposing those who protest to punitive action.

Brittas raised similar concerns in his letters to the President and the Union Education Minister. As reported by The Hindu, he warned that disproportionate disciplinary measures could deter students from raising legitimate grievances for fear of punishment. He also invoked JNU’s foundational commitments to social justice, secularism and a democratic way of life, as reflected in the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966.

President Droupadi Murmu, as Visitor of the university, has been asked to intervene under Section 8 of the Act. Brittas has urged her to facilitate the withdrawal of the rustication orders, address the disputed provisions of the CPO Manual and ensure that the outstanding grievances are resolved.

Students dispute the administration’s account of medical care

The disagreement has also extended to the provision of medical assistance to students participating in the hunger strike. In a statement reported by the Press Trust of India (PTI), Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit said that a committee headed by Professor Vivek Kumar, Dean of the School of Social Sciences, had held discussions with protesters on October 9 and October 14. The first meeting reportedly lasted more than four hours. According to the administration, two groups subsequently ended their hunger strikes after receiving assurances, while discussions with other protesters continued.

The administration has also maintained that the university’s Chief Medical Officer has monitored the health of hunger strikers and that medical check-ups have been conducted twice daily. It said medical assistance was extended to rusticated students on humanitarian grounds.

JNUSU, however, has disputed this account. In its statement, the union alleged that its rusticated office-bearers were denied medical check-ups during the first six days of the protest and that their vital signs were monitored through a private laboratory instead. The allegations directly contradict the administration’s claim that medical care was provided to rusticated students from the beginning of the agitation.

The union has also questioned the Vice-Chancellor’s visit to the hunger strike site at approximately 9 am on October 16. It alleged that the visit, which took place without prior intimation, risked creating the impression that only a small number of students were participating. The administration, meanwhile, stated that a representative had visited the site at approximately 8.50 am but found no students sleeping there.

A wider charter of demands remains unresolved

The agitation encompasses a broader set of concerns about the university’s academic environment, infrastructure and institutional accountability. Students have demanded the restoration of the Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH), which was replaced by an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). As reported by Outlook, a student identified as Dhananjay argued that GSCASH offered a more inclusive platform, while students were in the minority under the ICC structure.

The demand places the question of gender justice alongside the wider dispute over student participation in university governance. The charter also includes a demand for an Equal Opportunity Cell under the proposed Rohith Vemula Act, an inquiry into alleged recruitment irregularities, improvements to deteriorating campus infrastructure and the reinstatement of the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) in place of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET). Students have also opposed the introduction of recorded video lectures through the Siddhanta Foundation, alleging that the arrangement undermines the quality of teaching and the possibility of holistic academic development.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication

The post JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On October 10, the United Nations Human Rights Office expressed concern over reports of mass detentions of demonstrators, civil-society members, lawyers and journalists in India. It called for the release of those arbitrarily detained and urged respect for peaceful assembly. The government rejected the criticism. Similarly, over 100 Harvard University alumni issued a statement condemning police brutality, unlawful detention and constitutional rights violations.

That response was predictable. The events that produced the criticism were not.

Delhi witnessed an extraordinary mobilisation of state power against demonstrations demanding accountability from Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. Protesters were prevented from assembling at Jantar Mantar. Police detained leaders, including MPs and former Chief Ministers. Police removed students from trains before they could reach the capital. Lawyers were detained. Journalists covering demonstrations were taken into custody. Police used force and violence against protesters, especially students: private parts of women were kicked and phones taken away. The internet was suspended in parts of central Delhi, Metro stations were closed, and railway services were severely disrupted.

The scale was extraordinary. On October 10, 45 Delhi Metro stations remained shut, while more than 250 railway services were cancelled or disrupted.

Eventually, Jantar Mantar itself got denotified by the Home Ministry as a protest site, even as right-wing groups were reportedly free to proclaim that they would “destroy all anti-Modi forces” and “slay protesters,” while the Delhi Police remained mute spectators.

Even a week later, the police continue to assault peaceful protesters carrying national flags, refusing to register an FIR over the police brutality. Leaders like Neha of AISA and Dipke are still being detained for prolonged periods, including at night, at undisclosed locations. Even delegations of lawyers and concerned citizens who march to police stations seeking answers are long-denied information about their whereabouts.

This was not proportionate policing of an unruly mob. Much of it was preventive action against citizens who had not committed violence. The distinction matters enormously.

Article 19 does not confer an unlimited right to occupy every road or disregard reasonable lawful restrictions. But travelling to a demonstration is not a crime. Reporting a protest is not participation in disorder. Representing protesters is not obstruction of justice. Peacefully demanding the resignation of a constitutional functionary is not an attack on the Republic.

When a government begins to erase these distinctions, law enforcement ceases to look neutral and begins to resemble political management.

The Supreme Court recognised the danger. In an exceptional Sunday sitting on October 11, it directed that peaceful and unarmed persons must not be illegally detained. It said Metro and railway services should function normally subject to genuine public-order necessities, free movement should be permitted, lawyers should not be obstructed in their professional duties, and internet services should remain undisturbed in accordance with law.

A constitutional democracy should find it sobering that its Supreme Court had to remind, after strong attention-seeking, the executive of propositions so elementary.

The government cannot hide behind the legality of SIR

Electoral rolls require revision. Dead voters cannot remain indefinitely registered. Duplicate entries must be removed. People who have permanently shifted must be correctly recorded. Persons legally ineligible to vote cannot acquire electoral rights merely because an administrative error went unnoticed. Indeed, on May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Bihar SIR, recognising the Election Commission’s authority under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act to undertake intensive revision. The Court also permitted a limited inquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes.

But the judgment contained an equally important restraint. The Election Commission does not become the final authority for terminating a person’s citizenship. Formal adjudication belongs to the competent authority under citizenship law.

The government’s defence therefore answers only one question: Can electoral rolls be revised? Of course they can. It does not answer the far more important question: How has that enormous power been exercised? Has the motive of conducting the exercise been to “clean” up the roles or to exclude pre-determined sections of voters?

More than 13 crore names were omitted from draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories during the nationwide revision. When exclusion occurs on such a scale, transparency is not optional. Nor can the government dismiss every criticism as partisan agitation, because some of the most serious objections have come from inside the Election Commission itself.

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least fourteen occasions within ten months concerning voter enrolment, deletion, restoration and control over electoral-roll systems. Among the descriptions reportedly used were “unauthorised” and “illegal”.

One dispute involved Form 6, used for registering new voters. Changes introduced through the Commission’s digital system required applicants to answer questions linked to previous SIR records and their parents or grandparents. Sandhu and Joshi reportedly objected that the alteration had not been lawfully authorised and risked harassing first-time voters. The Commission subsequently removed the disputed addition from its ECINET portal in states where SIR had concluded.

That is not an insignificant administrative disagreement. It goes to the heart of who enters the electorate and under what conditions.

An institution weakened by the way its guardians are chosen

These developments cannot be separated from the altered architecture governing Election Commission appointments.

In Anoop Baranwal, the Supreme Court created an interim selection arrangement comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted legislation. The Modi government subsequently did enact legislation—but removed the Chief Justice from the committee and substituted a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The result is straightforward: the executive now holds two of the three positions on the selection committee. The Supreme Court itself has recorded that this replacement lies at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the 2023 law.

This does not establish the allegation that Indian elections have been “rigged”. But institutional independence is not sustained merely by the absence of proven misconduct. Constitutional bodies survive because citizens can reasonably believe that they are insulated from the government whose political fortunes their decisions may affect.

The Modi government weakened that perception even when it constructed an appointment system in which the executive enjoys a built-in majority.

Now, when questions arise inside the Commission itself, the government’s instinct appears not to be radical transparency but political defence.

That is precisely the wrong response.

This is how democratic erosion occurs

India is not formally under an Emergency. There has been no proclamation under Article 352.

Democracies rarely collapse in a single constitutional explosion. They are hollowed out institution by institution. The judiciary may continue to deliver important interventions, yet public confidence in its ability to consistently confront executive power has been strained. Large sections of the mainstream media, meanwhile, operate in an environment of concentrated ownership, political alignment and governmental pressure; India now ranks 157th of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ 2026 Press Freedom Index. Overall trust in news among respondents to the Reuters Institute’s 2026 India survey fell to 39 per cent.

Then comes the machinery of everyday coercion: a journalist detained, a lawyer obstructed, a student pulled from a train, an internet connection suspended, a Metro station closed, a peaceful assembly prohibited, a constitutional institution stripped of visible independence, a voter suddenly required to prove an entitlement once presumed secure.

Each abuse can be rationalised in isolation. Together they reveal the steady normalisation of a state in which institutions meant to restrain power are themselves losing credibility, independent scrutiny is treated as hostility, and coercion substitutes a democratic response.

An Emergency need not always be proclaimed and democratic freedoms can also be extinguished by accumulation.

If the Election Commission’s SIR is legitimate, accurate and procedurally fair, they should not fear scrutiny. If Gyanesh Kumar’s decisions can withstand examination, barricades cannot strengthen his credibility. If the allegations are false, the appropriate answer is evidence.

Instead, the spectacle presented to the country has been one of police buses, blocked stations, disrupted trains, internet restrictions and preventive detention.

The state has used coercive power to contain a crisis of institutional trust. In doing so, instead of an uncomplicated right approach, it has enlarged that crisis.

Publish the records. Explain the major categories of voter deletion. Make restoration simple and accessible. Answer Sandhu and Joshi’s objections point by point. Establish transparent audit trails for electoral databases. Investigate allegations of misconduct by police against journalists, lawyers and other demonstrators. Permit peaceful protest.

And above all, stop treating scrutiny of the institutions as hostility towards India.

The Chief Election Commissioner derives authority not merely from statutory tenure but from public confidence that the referee is independent of every player—including the one occupying the government benches. His resignation is thus non-negotiable.

The Modi government should understand a fundamental truth that every democratic government eventually learns: institutions cannot be protected from criticism by protecting them against criticism.

A confident democracy answers questions. An insecure state arrests those who ask them.

When the question is who remains entitled to vote, there can be no bigger test of the Republic.

(Amal Chandra is an Indian author, policy analyst, and columnist, currently serving as The Statement Fellow and Coordinator, South Asia at Students for Liberty; Shabnam K. is an alumnus of the University of Delhi and a former SBI Youth for India Fellow)

Related:

After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

The post India’s Electoral Crisis is fast becoming a civil-liberties crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Three days after the planned rally, the consequences extend well beyond the detention of CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke. All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora, who was detained while marching with students in Delhi, has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a police notice requiring Neha to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety. Meanwhile, CJP convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka remain in judicial custody as their release proceedings face further delays.

The government responded to the Lehra Do Tiranga march by detaining Abhijeet Dipke and Neha, but thousands of protesters marched through Connaught Place. The police tried to disperse the crowds with incessant whistling.

Videos by Maya Palit (@mayapalit1), Surabhi Kanga (@surabhikanga) and Puja Sen (@psen9)

— The Caravan (@thecaravanindia) October 16, 2026

#WATCH | People carry out the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest march in the national capital, following a call by the CJP for the demonstration today.

CJP Founder Abhijeet Dipke has been detained by Delhi Police https://t.co/M0cBpeza2P

— ANI (@ANI) October 16, 2026

#WATCH | Maharashtra: Visuals from Azad Maidan in Mumbai, where people have started gathering following CJP’s call for the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest. https://t.co/qAJpgpIwX6

— ANI (@ANI) October 16, 2026

Delhi: Delhi Police detained AISA president Neha Bora as she arrived to participate in CJP’s ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest march https://t.co/SvzwDq1Miq

— IANS (@ians_india) October 16, 2026

Tense scenes unfolded at Connaught Place during the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march as Delhi Police detained protesters. Crowds gathered around detention buses, with demonstrators attempting to secure the release of those held.

DeKoder reports from the ground amid heavy police deployment and restrictions on the protest. Follow for more updates.

#IndianDemocracy #DelhiPolice #Protest #CJP #DelhiProtest #TirangaRally #ECI #SIR #GyaneshKumar

— DeKoder (@DeKoderAI) October 16, 2026

AISA national president Neha Bora was detained by Delhi Police at Mandi House while heading towards Connaught Place for the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest.

The detention comes amid heavy police deployment and restrictions in central Delhi ahead of the CJP-backed Tiranga march.
Follow DeKoder for more updates.

#NehaBora #DelhiPolice #Protest #CJP #DelhiProtest #LehraDoTiranga #AISA #ECI #SIR #GyaneshKumar

— DeKoder (@DeKoderAI) October 16, 2026

Ready for jail over the Tricolour: CJP’s Abhijeet Dipke dares Delhi Police as Central Park turns into a fortress for the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march.

Ukrainian Armed Forces #Ranabaali Hegseth भगवती मंदिर Brahmin #Salaar2 #Tesla #WorldFoodDay #Ranabaali #MaaKatyayani #reliance Dhirubhai Ambani

— Mir Ilyas (@Mir_Ilyas_INC) October 16, 2026

Delhi: A ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march was held at Palika Bazar in Connaught Place https://t.co/dsYIV6dV00

— IANS (@ians_india) October 16, 2026

Pune, Maharashtra: Pune city unit of the Cockroach Janata Party organised a ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march, which concluded at the Pune Collector’s Office. The protest follows nationwide demonstrations after party members Abhijeet Dipke and Saurabh Ranka were taken into police custody in Delhi

— IANS (@ians_india) October 17, 2026

The demonstrations were organised in solidarity with Das and Ranka, who were remanded to five days of judicial custody after they entered Jantar Mantar on October 13, a day after the Union government withdrew the site’s designated protest status. The party has also been demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and calling for the restoration of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest venue.

The police have cited the absence of permission, violations of previous undertakings and apprehensions of a breach of public peace to justify their actions. Protest organisers, however, have questioned why the exercise of political dissent and the unfurling of the national flag have been met with preventive detention and restrictions.

Neha Bora challenges police notice before Delhi High Court

Bora’s case has emerged as a significant part of the aftermath of the rally. According to LiveLaw in its October 19 report, the AISA president has approached the Delhi High Court seeking an urgent hearing, a stay on the police notices and its withdrawal.

Bora was detained on October 16 while marching from Mandi House with AISA members towards the planned gathering at Connaught Place. Bora was released early the following morning, after nearly 12 hours in detention. The police told LiveLaw that her release followed the completion of formalities under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.

Her subsequent legal challenge concerns a separate notice issued on October 18. Issued under Sections 126 and 130, read with Section 135(3), of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the notice directed Bora to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), New Delhi District, on October 19 and execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.

In its statement, AISA said the notice was prima facie ambiguous, factually incorrect and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which respectively protect freedoms including speech and peaceful assembly, and the right to life and personal liberty. Bora’s legal team, led by Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol and Moksha, among others, said it would seek an urgent hearing before the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and respond to the notice before the SEM.

AISA has also alleged that plainclothes police personnel have been following Bora since their release on October 17. The association has questioned whether this is routine police procedure or an attempt to intimidate Bora.

The legal challenge raises questions about the grounds on which a person who has already been released from detention can subsequently be required to furnish a peace bond, the factual basis for the notice and the constitutional safeguards applicable to preventive proceedings. These questions are now before the High Court; the allegations in the petition are not yet judicial findings.

Bora’s detention took place alongside that of Dipke, but the legal routes subsequently taken by the two differ. Dipke was held under Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS and released on October 17 after proceedings before an SEM, subject to a peace bond requiring him to maintain peace for a year. Bora, by contrast, was released after action under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act and has now challenged the separate notice requiring her to furnish a bond.

Delhi’s planned rally was stopped, but protests continued

The events in Delhi on October 16 unfolded amid extensive security arrangements and restrictions on gatherings in Connaught Place. Hours before the scheduled 5 pm rally at Central Park, Delhi Police visited Dipke’s residence in Jhandewalan and served him a notice prohibiting the march. The police cited his public statements, and social media calls for people to assemble without the required permission. The New Delhi Municipal Council also announced that Central Park would remain closed on October 16 and 17. Despite these measures, the demonstration did not simply disappear when its organisers were detained.

According to The Indian Express, Dipke was detained while on his way to Connaught Place, while Bora was detained at Mandi House. More than 100 protesters were detained, with several reports putting the total at around 150. Hundreds of supporters and student activists nevertheless gathered at different points in central Delhi, carrying the national flag and raising slogans.

ThePrint reported that, within minutes of the organisers’ detention, people gathered at Connaught Place, unfurled a large national flag and marched around the inner circle. Protesters regrouped at different locations even as police attempted to disperse the gatherings. 

AISA members also held a separate demonstration near Mandi House, demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, a rollback of the SIR exercise and the withdrawal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Minor scuffles were reported as police attempted to disperse crowds.

The Aam Aadmi Party also held a Tiranga march near Rashtrapati Bhavan and its central Delhi headquarters, according to The New Indian Express. Party workers carrying national flags raised slogans including “Bharat Mata ki Jai” and “Vande Mataram”.

The police response extended beyond the detentions. In its October 18 report, The Indian Express reported that Delhi Police had registered multiple FIRs following the demonstrations, including cases concerning alleged violations of prohibitory orders. Police were also investigating social media posts and taking action against at least 17 handles over content they alleged included misleading or fabricated videos and abusive material.

What happened in Mumbai and Bengaluru?

The October 16 call was not confined to Delhi. CJP supporters and allied groups also mobilised in Mumbai and Bengaluru, although the demonstrations proceeded under different local conditions. In Mumbai, police granted permission for a one-day protest at Azad Maidan from 10 am to 5 pm. The gathering was organised in solidarity with Das and Ranka and called for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

According to PTI, on October 16, social activist Anjali Damania addressed the gathering and sought accountability for what she described as police brutality against protesters in Delhi. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena leader Sandip Deshpande also attended, while CJP supporters and members of student organisations carried the national flag and raised slogans.

Mumbai, Maharashtra: Following a call by the CJP to hold a ‘Tiranga March’ on Carter Road in Bandra, the police took action. The Mumbai Police had not granted permission for the march; nevertheless, several CJP supporters arrived at Carter Road to participate. Subsequently, the police began taking the protesters into custody. During this process, actor Amin Hajee was also detained by the police; he had arrived at Carter Road to join the demonstration. Several others were also taken into custody by the police

— IANS (@ians_india) October 18, 2026

The Free Press Journal reported that the Mumbai demonstration drew an estimated 50 to 100 participants at different times during the day. The protesters called for the scrapping of the SIR exercise, an impartial investigation into alleged voter deletions and the replacement of electronic voting machines with ballot papers. The demonstration concluded peacefully with the national anthem.

Mumbai, Maharashtra: Actor Amin Hajee says, “I will not say anything. I have just one request for you. You had taken an oath to provide us with protection—so, this is your oath…” https://t.co/kI9SYP25X5

— IANS (@ians_india) October 18, 2026

In Bengaluru, a peaceful Tiranga march was permitted, subject to conditions and security arrangements. The Indian Express reported that the Bengaluru mobilisation began at 5 pm on October 16 and formed part of CJP’s nationwide campaign against alleged irregularities in the SIR and its demand for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

Reporting by Reuters on October 16 also recorded smaller demonstrations in Patna, alongside the protests in Mumbai and Bengaluru. In Delhi, the flag-waving gatherings continued despite the detention of the principal organisers.

Dipke released, but Das and Ranka remain in custody

The dispute over the protest has continued through the proceedings concerning the two CJP convenors. Das and Ranka were detained on October 13 after allegedly scaling the locked gates of Jantar Mantar and entering the premises to unfurl the national flag and raise slogans. Police said the two had violated peace bonds executed after earlier detentions and argued that their release could lead to further breaches of public order.

In an order dated October 14, the SEM remanded them to five days of judicial custody, stating that adequate surety had not been furnished at that stage. Both were sent to Tihar Jail. Dipke, who was detained separately on October 16, was released the following day after executing a peace bond. The release proceedings for Das and Ranka, however, have remained contentious.

According to Hindustan Times, CJP representatives spent nearly five hours at Mandir Marg police station on October 18 awaiting proceedings before the SEM. The hearing reportedly lasted only eight to ten minutes before being deferred. The party alleged that officials had repeatedly rejected surety documents on different grounds, including objections to fixed deposit receipts and the addresses of people standing surety.

CJP legal head Ratna Singh questioned why the proceedings shifted towards a reported threat received by the SEM instead of addressing the merits of the release request. The police said the magistrate had reported receiving threatening messages, following which a report was registered against unidentified persons. The authorities have denied deliberately delaying the release process and maintained that the surety documents submitted by the party were faulty.

The Indian Express reported on October 19 that the police were expected to seek an extension of the duo’s custody, citing apprehensions that their release could disturb public peace. 

We are still at SEM court, waiting for court to dictate order.

There is no reason to extend judicial custody. Today also no argument presented by PP on law. All his arguments were mere assumptions. Absolute waste of time of SEM court.

Saurav and Ashutosh must be released.

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 19, 2026

Detailed reports on protests against ECI may be read here, here, here and here.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’

The post After ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests, Neha Bora Moves Delhi HC against police notice; CJP leaders’ release remains unresolved appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I don’t remember when I started praying and keeping my Rozas ( the fast during Ramzan). Every child starts aping their parents and I guess I used to do the same. During Ramzan as kids we had the half ticket concept, either fast for half a day “aadhe din ka roza” or the more popular was “aadhe mooh ka roza”: we were allowed to eat using one side of the mouth. The right side of the mouth was the favorite side to chew among us, kids.

We lived in a joint family and there were siblings and cousins of similar ages.

Even our pet parrot Mitthu used to ape the rituals of the home, he was taught to say “Nabiji Rozi bhejo” (Prophet Ji send us bounty). Often, we got confused on whether it was “Dada Abba” (Grandfather) praying or our Mitthu, he used to make gibberish-like sounds which resembled, in sound, the tilawat (Quran recital). Many a time we got up in the night wondering what was wrong with Dada Abba, why is he praying so loud at this hour, and found Mitthu happily busy with his tilawat.

We lived in the Rourkela Steel City. In Odisha, it was very cosmopolitan with neighbours from all over India. Many of my non-Muslim neighbors used to join us during Iftar (breaking the fast during Ramzan) and similarly we used join in the feasts after their Pooja(s) and Havan(s) (Hindu prayers).

I remember my first Roza, a serious Roza of not eating the entire day, it was one of the biggest achievements of my life; I wanted to prove that even I was grown up, I could achieve this; I was about 6 years old.

My mom dissuaded me initially saying it is not a compulsory ritual for children, but I did not think I was a child and insisted on keeping the Roza. Getting up during Sehri was an adventure, the most exciting part of keeping Roza, (Sehri was at about 4am in the morning) and the excitement lay in eating the last meal before fasting.

There was a Durga Pooja Pandal near our house, and those days the artisans used to make large installations of the Durga goddess on the site itself. Their work used to begin 2-3 months in advance. I was completely fascinated by the making of those elaborate Durga Pooja installations. Sometimes I used to spend entire day admiring the process and Amma (Mom) used send someone to call me for lunch.

When I insisted on keeping my first Roza, Amma knew I would not feel hungry if I was at the Pandal; so she asked my elder brother to drop me off at the Pandal in the morning. There I spent the entire day, at the Durga Pooja Pandal, chatting with the artisans, playing with their clay. Amma was right, I did not feel thirsty or hungry, did not even realize it was my first Roza, it was almost evening when my brother came to call me home, for Iftar.

After 40 years of my first Roza, when I look around at our mohallas and cities, society at large, I see a huge difference. Practising the faith was easy and relaxed, there was little conflict, parents had no problem sending Muslim children to play at the Pooja Pandal, non-Muslims never had any issue with Muslim festivals. There was no television and no religious preachers entered our lives. Our faiths and religious sentiments were not so fragile that we needed religious fatwas.

With the increasing influence of Arabian practices on Indian Islam, (an Arabisation, a sort of purification of Islam started taking place) and many Indian practices have started changing. “Khuda Hafiz” has become “Allah Hafiz” because Khuda is a Persian word. Ramzan is becoming Ramadan, because in Arabic it is pronounced with a “d”, not a “z”. And visiting Durga Pooja Pandal has become Shirk (the sin of practicing idolatry or polytheism).

I see similar changes in Hindu society, where people are going back to the so called “Vedic Era” and becoming more intolerant towards each other.

Ramzan Mubarak,
Khuda Hafiz.

The post My First Roza was in a Durga Pooja Pandal: Amir Rizvi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Thursday, October 15, Justice Saugata Bhattacharya directed the Superintendent of Police of Bongaon Police District and the Inspector-in-Charge of Bongaon police station to ensure public order and deploy adequate security so that the CPI(M) could erect its bookstall and sell books during the Durga Puja festivities. The permission extends to a location within a 100-metre radius of the party office, which is situated near the pandal. The police have also been directed to prevent others from disrupting the party’s activities and to submit a compliance report at the next hearing on November 23.

According to the report of LiveLaw, Justice Bhattacharya observed that the dissemination of different political thoughts and ideologies was welcome in a democracy, making it “fruitful, deep-rooted and mature”.

“It is expected of the present ruling dispensation to create an atmosphere where persons owing allegiance to different political ideologies will not hesitate to voice their views,” the judge said.

The observations came amid allegations that the CPI(M) had been prevented from setting up its traditional bookstall while a stall belonging to the Hindu Jagran Manch was allowed to occupy the area. The Left party told the Court that it had been setting up bookstalls near Durga Puja pandals for decades, with its petition referring to a tradition extending over approximately 50 to 60 years. It alleged that the Hindu Jagran Manch had obstructed its efforts to erect a temporary structure while operating its own stall in the vicinity without comparable interference.

Court questions unequal treatment

The matter came before the Court on Wednesday, October 14, when Justice Bhattacharya questioned the State’s position on the CPI(M)’s request for permission. As reported by LiveLaw, the judge asked why the party should be prevented from setting up its stall if other organisations were permitted to erect structures along the same road. “I don’t deny that permission is needed. But if you are allowing one group then allow the others as well,” the Court observed.

Questioning the apparent disparity, Justice Bhattacharya also asked, “How is this stall (Hindu Jagran Manch) allowed? It is a huge stall.”

The State government contested the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the dispute concerned the use of land belonging to the Public Works Department (PWD), rather than police inaction. It maintained that informing the police of the proposed bookstall did not amount to obtaining permission from the competent authority.

The State further argued that both groups had lodged FIRs, disputing the contention that the matter arose from police inaction. The Court, however, questioned whether the alleged obstruction and removal of the CPI(M)’s proposed structure warranted police intervention. It also emphasised the need for a uniform policy governing the erection of stalls on PWD land.

Justice Bhattacharya directed the investigating officer to report on whether other stalls had been established along the road without permission. The CPI(M) was also granted liberty to place additional facts and documents on record through a supplementary affidavit.

Appeal fails to halt order

The police subsequently challenged Justice Bhattacharya’s Wednesday order. According to PTI, a Division Bench presided over by Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge disposed of the appeal filed by the officer-in-charge of Bongaon police station on Thursday. The State respondents’ request to stay the operation of the order was also refused by Justice Bhattacharya.

The subsequent directions place the responsibility on the police not merely to maintain order but to ensure that the CPI(M) can exercise its right to political expression without being driven out of a space it has traditionally used.

The dispute raises a question that extends beyond the placement of a seasonal bookstall: whether access to public spaces and the ability to communicate political ideas are being governed by consistent rules or by the relative influence of competing organisations.

Related:

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Bombay High Court orders Maharashtra DGP to review arrest forms, flags failure to communicate grounds of arrest

‘Serious Grievances’: Bombay HC backs students’ concerns, MPSC protests continue in Pune

The post Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The three were among 14 CJP members who allegedly climbed over a locked gate and barricades to enter the area, unfurled the national flag and raised slogans demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The protest was part of the CJP’s continuing agitation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Cockroaches with the Tiranga sneaked into Jantar Mantar early this morning before they were picked up by Delhi Police.

@AshutoshRanka, @SauravDassss, @AjinkyaCJP along with other team members have been detained.

You cannot denotify the resistance, @narendramodi https://t.co/x7B40akCVO

— Abhijeet Dipke (@abhijeet_dipke) October 13, 2026

The Delhi Police has justified the arrests by citing alleged trespass, obstruction, breach of bond conditions and repeated attempts to disturb public peace. But the sequence of events is significant: after Jantar Mantar was stripped of its designated protest status, activists attempting to demonstrate there were detained, and two were sent to judicial custody under preventive proceedings. The case raises questions about the increasingly coercive response to political mobilisation and dissent in the capital, particularly when the protest concerns the functioning of a constitutional institution and the exercise of a fundamental right.

Waving the Tricolour at Jantar Mantar in a peaceful protest is not a crime. Jailing youth for it is an act of cowardice.

Students. Youth. Journalists. The INDIA bloc. Different banners, one cause. All protests are one: citizens demanding their constitutional rights.

Jantar Mantar belongs to the people of India. We will reclaim it.

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 14, 2026

SEM orders five-day judicial custody

In an order dated October 14, Special Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena remanded Das and Ranka to five days of judicial custody under preventive proceedings initiated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The order records that notice under Section 130 BNSS was to be issued to the two respondents and that the matter would be listed for further inquiry on October 19.

The order relies on the account presented by Sub-Inspector Mohit Bhati, who alleged that CJP members entered the area through premises associated with the Janata Dal (United) office at around 9 am on October 13, raised slogans and created a disturbance. The police also alleged that the group had used social media to mobilise people to assemble at Jantar Mantar despite its denotification.

The SEM recorded that preventive proceedings had previously been initiated against the leaders following their detention on October 10, when they arrived in Delhi for a proposed protest. They were subsequently released after furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year.

According to the police, the leaders’ subsequent mobilisation and their October 13 entry into the area violated those undertakings. The SEM accepted the material placed before it as sufficient to proceed with preventive action. The order also cited the absence of what it described as “sound surety” as a reason for remanding Das and Ranka to judicial custody.

Jantar Mantar denotified as protest site

The arrests followed the Delhi Police’s decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site. The order was issued on October 11, following recommendations from a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, as reported by Hindustan Times. The decision came amid denial of permission to protest to left parties, CJP, opposition parties and student groups demanding accountability from the ECI over the SIR exercise. 

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here.

According to the police account cited in media reports, 14 CJP members entered the area on October 13 by climbing over a locked gate after approaching through premises associated with the JD(U) office. Videos shared by the group show members carrying the Tricolour and raising slogans, including “Inquilab Zindabad” and “Gyanesh Kumar Isteefa Do”, before police personnel detained them.

The police have alleged that the group surveyed the area in advance to identify an entry route and that some members jostled with officers attempting to stop them. These allegations remain distinct from any final determination of criminal liability. As reported by Hindustan Times, the Delhi Police told the Delhi High Court that the denotification followed consideration of alternative venues where citizens could exercise their democratic rights without compromising public safety. The authorities have identified Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in Shahdara as alternative protest locations. However, naming alternative venues does not, by itself, establish that the right to protest remains practically accessible. 

CJP alleges denial of access to lawyers

The Delhi Police has registered two cases in connection with the October 13 incident, according to Hindustan Times. One was registered at Connaught Place police station and the other at Parliament Street police station. Reported allegations include disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant, trespass and criminal conspiracy.  The police described the leaders as having made repeated attempts to disturb public peace and violate the law. It also said their social media activity, which allegedly encouraged others to participate in similar actions, had been taken into consideration.

Delhi police lied in front of court today that a call was given for other protesters to join at Jantar Mantar yesterday.

Absolutely false! No public call was ever made.

I feel bad that police has to act on orders from “top”- itni wafadari!

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 14, 2026

Before the remand order was passed, CJP legal affairs head Ratna Singh alleged that Das, Ranka and Shinde had been denied access to their lawyers until late on Tuesday night. In posts on X, Singh said the leaders had been moved to Parliament Street Police Station during the early hours of October 14 and were expected to be produced before the SEM. Singh further alleged that lawyers and volunteers had been prevented from meeting the detained activists despite repeated attempts. 

#BREAKING: Delhi Police arrests Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka, and Ajinkya Shinde at Parliament Street Police Station in today’s Jantar Mantar case.

Trespass, bond violation, obstruction of public official’s duty, etc.

They’ll be produced before the SCM Court in the morning. A possibility of Judicial Custody (JC) in the Tihar Jail is possible.

They were not allowed to meet their lawyers till late at night. They were brought to Parliament Street PS at 3 AM in a private van.

Despite these illegal actions, their spirits are high.

@Cockroachisback

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) October 13, 2026

Rahul Gandhi backs CJP leaders

The remand has drawn criticism from opposition leaders. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi said that waving the national flag during a peaceful protest was not a crime and described jailing young people for doing so as an “act of cowardice”.

“Students. Youth. Journalists. The INDIA bloc. Different banners, one cause. All protests are one: citizens demanding their constitutional rights. Jantar Mantar belongs to the people of India. We will reclaim it,” Gandhi said in a post on X.

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke also condemned the remand, questioning whether unfurling the Tricolour had become an offence and accusing the government of using coercive tactics against dissent.

The last time I remember Indians being jailed for waving the Tiranga at a public place was under colonial rule, when foreign rulers saw us as inferior and treated us as such.

— Abhijeet Dipke (@abhijeet_dipke) October 14, 2026

VIDEO | Delhi: CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke arrives in Delhi and says, “Is unfurling the Tricolour in this country a crime? Ashutosh and Saurav have been sent to jail for five days. Why? Because they went to Jantar Mantar and unfurled the Tricolour. The last time this happened was when the British ruled us. During British rule, freedom fighters who unfurled the Tricolour in public places were arrested and jailed. Narendra Modi is doing something similar.”

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/bIyFWTfmBd)

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 14, 2026

Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal questioned whether waving India’s national flag could be treated as a crime, while Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and DMK chief M.K. Stalin also condemned the action.

We, and many generations before us, have fought strongly for our democratic rights. We must continue to do so.

I strongly condemn the arrest of Ashutosh and Saurav of the CJP. These moments are about us all, pledging and standing up to fight unitedly to protect our great democracy. This is an attempt to intimidate and silence an entire generation. This is unacceptable.
We must never surrender our constitutional rights.

This murdering of democracy is happening in many parts of the country. At this moment, 14,000 of our people in Bengal are facing the brunt of police and political atrocities.

A government that has forgotten that ‘it is of the people, by the people, for the people’ is nearing its end.

To the millions of young people I say: Your Didi is with you – today and forever! Let us stand together and save our Mother India.

Jai Hind!
Vande Mataram!
Joy Bangla!

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) October 14, 2026

— Derek O’Brien | ডেরেক ও’ব্রায়েন (@derekobrienmp) October 14, 2026

Is waving our own flag in our own country a crime? This is absolutely ridiculous

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) October 14, 2026

How many protestors can this government detain? How many young voices can the BJP silence?

The more young people they jail, the more ordinary citizens, with no political affiliation, will take to the streets and show them the true power of the people!

Solidarity with @AshutoshRanka and @SauravDassss! The DMK stands ready to provide them with all necessary legal representation and support.

#CJP #GyaneshKumarMustGo

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) October 14, 2026

Related:

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

The post Jantar Mantar shut to protest, CJP leaders sent to jail, Delhi police invoke ‘breach of peace’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to a report by The Indian Express, Ansari was arrested in connection with a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He was allegedly being taken to Sahodra police station when he sustained serious head injuries.

The suspended personnel have been identified as sub-inspectors Ravi Shankar Kumar and Arun Kumar, and constables Saudagar Kumar Yadav, Raj Kumar Rishi, Kundan Kumar and Suman Kumar. All six were posted at Sahodra police station and have been suspended with immediate effect, police said.

In a statement issued on Monday, Bettiah Police said Ansari had jumped from a moving police vehicle while being taken into custody, resulting in grievous injuries. He was taken to a subdivisional hospital in Narkatiaganj and subsequently referred to the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Bettiah, where doctors declared him dead on arrival.

Ansari’s family has rejected the police version of events and alleged that he was assaulted in custody.

Following the death of Dilshad Ansari in police custody in #Bettiah, #Bihar, six policemen including the Station House Officer have been suspended. The family alleges that Dilshad was beaten and his death occurred due to a head injury.
The Bihar Police should conduct a fair investigation into the matter.

— Siraj Noorani (@sirajnoorani) October 12, 2026

दिलशाद अंसारी की मौत पर कई गंभीर सवाल हैं। आखिर उस रात क्या हुआ? @Bettiah_Police से माँग है कि CCTV फुटेज, पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट और सभी साक्ष्यों के आधार पर निष्पक्ष जाँच हो। सच्चाई सामने आए, पीड़ित परिवार को इंसाफ मिले! @bihar_police

#JusticeForDilshadAnsari https://t.co/beZXydymQg

— Sartaj Alam Champarni سرتاج (@YouthSartajAlam) October 12, 2026

Family disputes police account

Speaking to the media, his wife, Nagma Khatoon, said a police team took him from their home at around 2 am on October 12. She alleged that the officers assured the family he would be released by morning after questioning. The family later received a call from Banuchhapar police station asking them to reach GMCH in Bettiah, reportedly on the grounds that Ansari had fallen ill. They found him dead on arrival at the hospital, she said. Ansari’s father, Akhbar Ansari, alleged that police personnel had struck his son hard on the head and called for a thorough inquiry into his death. 

Ansari, a resident of Badhayi Tola in Auraiya, under the Banuchhapar police station area, was named as an accused in NDPS case number 65/25, registered on August 8, 2025. Ansari leaves behind his wife and their six-month-old daughter. His family is seeking a high-level investigation into the death.

Calls for accountability

The incident has also drawn criticism from former Rajya Sabha MP Ali Anwar, who heads the All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz. In a statement, reported India Today, Anwar urged Bihar Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary to take action against the police personnel allegedly responsible for Ansari’s death.

Citing accounts from social activists in West Champaran, Anwar questioned the claim that Ansari had jumped from a moving vehicle, arguing that the reported absence of injuries to his arms and legs warranted further scrutiny. He also urged the National Human Rights Commission to intervene and called for ex gratia compensation for Ansari’s family.

Related:

When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Protect the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How September’s festivals became stages for anti-Muslim hate

Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths

The post Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Most decided Form 7 requests resulted in deletion

The Wire examined annexures R/1 and R/2 of the Election Commission of India’s counter-affidavit in proceedings brought by Prasenjit Bose. The data covered claims and objections received between December 17, 2025, and August 7, 2026. Form 7 can seek deletion from the electoral roll, including through an objection by another person; Form 6 concerns inclusion. Of the 6,39,049 Form 7 applications, 5,72,330 resulted in deletions and 14,506 were rejected. Together, these decisions accounted for 91.83% of the applications received. Almost every decided request—about 97.5%—resulted in removal.

The Form 6 figures were different. Of 34,13,481 applications, 7,07,606 resulted in additions, 14,079 were separately recorded as accepted, and 7,26,660 were rejected. The analysis also identified 4,86,395 applications marked unprocessed. An application marked accepted is distinct from a name recorded as actually added to the roll.

The share of all applications resulting in an actual roll change was more than four times higher for Form 7 than for Form 6. The figures show how many applications reached a recorded outcome, but do not show how long each application took to decide.

Large gaps across constituencies

Dabgram-Fulbari recorded 16,514 deletions from 16,559 Form 7 requests, compared with 1,056 additions from 31,976 Form 6 applications. Bagda recorded 15,307 deletions from 15,561 requests and 4,826 additions from 29,831 applications. These were the two largest totals of completed Form 7 deletions in the analysis, followed by Sonarpur Uttar with 9,354.

Rajganj recorded 3,866 deletions from 3,891 requests, but only 143 additions from 18,528 inclusion applications. Just ten deletion requests were rejected in Dabgram-Fulbari, three in Bagda and one in Rajganj.

Chopra recorded 948 deletions from 954 requests, while only 28 names were added from 28,701 inclusion applications. It also recorded 1,570 rejected inclusion applications and 3,600 unprocessed claims.

Several other constituencies recorded few additions compared with the applications received. Kaliaganj added 24 names from 14,477 applications and had 5,191 unprocessed claims. Basanti added 54 from 12,195; Swarupnagar 71 from 12,106; Madhyamgram 115 from 17,717; and Islampur 439 from 16,767. Noapara added 187 names from 17,403 applications, with 9,249 marked unprocessed. These were the recorded outcomes for the period examined; they were not final decisions on every application.

The gap remained when the comparison was limited to applications that had been allowed or rejected. In Chopra, only 1.75% of those inclusion applications succeeded. Kalyani recorded 585 additions and 6,097 refusals, giving an inclusion rate of 8.75% among those outcomes. It recorded 9,063 deletions and only 21 rejected deletion requests.

Nakashipara recorded 934 additions against 9,339 refusals, alongside 3,214 deletions and eight rejected deletion requests. Matigara-Naxalbari recorded 2,264 additions against 9,754 refusals, while 8,491 deletion requests succeeded and 55 were rejected. The data records these differences but does not provide the reasons for every decision.

Border seats and areas with large Scheduled Caste populations

Across the 24 district units analysed, none recorded a higher share of successful inclusion applications than successful deletion requests. Uttar Dinajpur recorded additions from 8.16% of inclusion applications and deletions from 96.11% of deletion requests. The corresponding figures were 8.21% and 98.59% in Jalpaiguri, and 10.58% and 87.71% in Murshidabad.

The gap also appeared in districts with higher inclusion rates. Jhargram recorded 52.16% for inclusion and 62.52% for deletion; Kolkata South 42.91% and 85.91%; and Purbo Medinipur 42.20% and 66.70%.

In 43 constituencies classified as border seats, 30.62% of inclusion applications had been decided, and 34.70% of those decided cases were allowed. For deletion requests, 95.37% had been decided and 99.67% were allowed. These seats recorded 6.28 additions and 10.57 deletions for every thousand electors on the pre-SIR roll.

Non-border constituencies recorded 9.76 additions and 6.92 deletions per thousand electors. Among decided applications, the reported approval rates were 51.83% for inclusion and 96.96% for deletion. Thus, non-border seats recorded more additions than deletions, even though deletion requests had a much higher approval rate.

A similar gap appeared in 31 constituencies where Scheduled Castes made up at least 40% of the population. Of the inclusion applications, 31.19% had been decided and 36.82% of those were allowed. For deletion requests, 95.52% had been decided and 99.67% were allowed. These constituencies recorded 6.12 additions and 13.76 deletions per thousand electors.

Across the lowest and highest Scheduled Caste population bands, additions fell from 12.62 to 6.12 per thousand electors, while deletions rose from 5.74 to 13.76. The analysis noted that several of these constituencies also fall in border areas and the Matua belt. The figures therefore do not show a separate effect attributable to caste composition alone.

In constituencies with larger minority populations, the reported gap concerned inclusion. Additions fell from 9.89 per thousand electors in areas with low minority populations to 7.14 where minorities made up at least 60%. The analysis did not find a similar concentration of Form 7 deletions in Muslim-majority seats.

Low registration among young voters

Age-wise figures in the Commission’s affidavit, reported by The Hindu, showed low registration among young adults. Against a projected population of 22,26,101 people aged 18 or 19, only 5,23,229 were registered—23.5%.

Registration was reported at 70.3% for people aged 20–29, 92.7% for those aged 30–39 and 99.9% for those aged 50–59. The final roll of about 6.45 crore represented 84.9% of the State’s projected adult population of 7.59 crore, within a projected total population of 10.40 crore.

For people aged 60–69 and 70–79, the ratios were 104.5% and 109.1%. These figures compare electoral entries with population projections, rather than an exact population count. The low registration rate among young adults is not a count of young voters deleted during SIR.

The Hindu reported the case of Faruk Kazi, a 19-year-old labourer in Rejinagar, who registered in 2025 but could not vote in the Assembly election after his name was excluded. He had linked his entry to his grandfather Hossain Ali in the 2002 roll because his parents registered later. His parents and elder brother remained on the revised roll. When the report was published, his tribunal appeal was undecided, putting his participation in the October 6 by-election in doubt as well.

Appeals remain largely undecided

The Form 6 and Form 7 figures are one part of the wider revision process. Other concerns voters whose cases went before judicial officers and who later appealed against the decisions.

On February 20, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to bring judicial officers into the verification exercise. Officers from West Bengal, Odisha and Jharkhand examined unresolved cases under arrangements made through the Calcutta High Court.

On March 10, the Court directed the creation of an appellate mechanism. Nineteen single-member tribunals were established later that month. The Hindu reported that they began functioning around April 13. An April 16 Supreme Court direction provided for successful appellants to be included through supplementary lists.

Assembly polling began on April 23. According to the same report, only 136 names had been cleared by then. Two tribunal judges later resigned for personal reasons and were replaced.

In its September 18 submission to the Supreme Court, the Commission said 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed: 22.21 lakh challenged deletions, while 16.10 lakh challenged inclusion and sought removal of names. Only 1.26 lakh appeals had been disposed of by September 10.

That disposal figure covers both categories and does not indicate how many voters were restored. A later Hindu report described 22.21 lakh deletion appeals as pending, but the material cited does not provide separate disposal figures for each category.

Fresh enrolment drive and pending tribunal cases

The Commission’s October 1 letter to Chief Electoral Officers instructed Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to compare current rolls with pre-SIR rolls, identify people whose names were missing, visit them and help eligible voters apply through Form 6.

A senior Commission official told The Hindu that cases already before Bengal’s appellate tribunals would be treated differently because they were under adjudication. Voters with pending tribunal appeals would therefore continue through that process, while other eligible people could seek enrolment through Electoral Registration Officers. The report said Form 6 applications were to be cleared within one or two months.

Before the October 6 by-elections in Nandigram and Rejinagar, West Bengal Congress leaders said more than 6,000 appeals in Nandigram and 12,000 in Rejinagar remained pending. They said these voters could miss another election.

As reported by The Times of India, Pradesh Congress president Shubhankar Sarkar and the party’s SIR committee chairperson Prasenjit Bose asked the Commission to provisionally restore the 22.21 lakh appellants until their cases were decided or treat their appeals as Form 6 applications before the respective Electoral Registration Officers. The reports cited did not record acceptance of either proposal.

Judges report problems with the appeal portal

Judges of more than a dozen of the 19 tribunals discussed problems with the appeal system at an August 11 meeting. The minutes were sent to the Election Commission and the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, according to The Indian Express.

The judges reported that the Commission’s portal lacked a common system for serving notices, obtaining additional documents, holding virtual hearings and giving appellants copies of orders. Some judges had approved a notice format in May, but it had still not been implemented by August.

Where documents were incomplete or did not match the enumeration form, tribunals had no proper mechanism to seek further material. Individual tribunals were trying to communicate through District Magistrates and District Election Officers, but the minutes recorded poor responses.

The portal also did not allow a disposed appeal to be reopened when a judicial direction or another reason required it. This was a problem with reopening proceedings on the portal, separate from the question of restoring a voter’s name.

Appellants could neither download tribunal orders nor obtain certified copies through the portal, the judges said. This made it difficult for them to obtain the reasons for a decision. The minutes also recorded uncertainty over the handling and digitisation of physical appeals submitted to district authorities.

An April 6 Supreme Court order had referred to appeals being submitted through ECINET or at designated district and sub-divisional offices, which were required to digitise and upload them promptly. An April 1 order had required tribunals to revisit records and communicate reasons.

The August meeting followed an earlier warning. On May 22, a tribunal judge wrote to the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice that the lack of a notice mechanism was slowing disposal. The judge also alleged that incorrect disposal figures were being circulated to the press through unnamed Commission sources without explaining the administrative difficulties.

The Indian Express said it sought responses from the Commission and the High Court’s Registrar General on October 1 but received none by publication. Its account documents repeated complaints; it does not establish whether every problem recorded in August remained unresolved in October.

Deletions at different stages of SIR

The report Inside the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), prepared by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Vote for Democracy (VFD), records several stages of exclusion and verification in Bengal. At the stage it examined, it recorded a draft electorate of 7,08,16,630 and cumulative deletions of 63,66,952, including removals before the draft and further deletions before the final roll.

It separately recorded 60,06,675 cases under adjudication. Those cases were still pending at that point and were not all confirmed deletions. Later reporting on 27.16 lakh deletions following judicial scrutiny described a subsequent stage, taking the reported overall figure to nearly 91 lakhs.

The Hindu reported that 58,20,898 names were excluded from the December 16, 2025, draft roll under the Absent, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate (ASDD) categories. Its rounded breakdown was 24.16 lakh marked dead, 32.65 lakh shifted or absent, and 1.38 lakh duplicates.

Separately, 31,68,424 people were identified as “unmapped”, meaning they could not be linked to the 2002 electoral roll. Approximately 1.36 crore were flagged for “logical discrepancies”. Notices and hearings followed, but around 60 lakh cases remained unresolved when the final roll was published on February 28.

The CJP–VFD report describes discrepancies involving fathers’ names, ages, family relationships and entries linking more than six children to one person. It also reports difficulties with Bengali names transliterated into English and with matching current details to older records.

The report recounts the Supreme Court’s January 19 directions to display discrepancy lists locally, allow submissions through authorised representatives, provide additional time and enable affected people to be heard. Its account of the February 24 order explains that supplementary lists could follow the February 28 final roll, with subsequently included voters treated as part of that roll.

Voters describe spelling and family-record problems

Several voters interviewed by The Hindu said differences in names or family records had led to exclusion despite their attending hearings or supplying documents.

Imamuddin Sheikh, 53, an elected panchayat member in Rejinagar, said his father Wahab Sheikh appeared as Kalu Sheikh in the 2002 roll. Kalu was his father’s nickname, he said, and the EPIC number matched. Nevertheless, Imamuddin’s name was deleted.

Najmatara Khatoon, a 29-year-old Anganwadi worker in Samserganj, said her father’s name appeared as Abdul Haq Sheikh in the old roll and Abdul Haq elsewhere. She said she attended a hearing and submitted documents but was excluded. Both she and Imamuddin approached the tribunal. Khatoon also said local officials questioned her nationality when she sought help.

Md. Mojahar Hossain, a 39-year-old teacher who served as a BLO in Samserganj, said six other people were linked to his father in the old records, although he had one sister and three brothers. His father’s surname was also recorded as “Hosen” instead of “Hossain”, despite a matching EPIC number. His three brothers remained on the roll, while he, his sister and his father were excluded. He said three other teachers at his school who had performed BLO duties also lost their entries.

Md. Alauddin Sheikh, 47, who contested an election in 2021, described deletions affecting his brothers and their wives despite their attending hearings. He alleged political targeting, but the newspaper account did not independently establish that allegation.

Md. Shamim Akhtar, a 49-year-old retired Indian Air Force Wing Commander in Entally, said both his and his father’s names appeared in the 2002 roll. His case nevertheless went under adjudication in February, and his name was missing from a March supplementary list. He said he received neither a hearing nor an explanation of how to resolve the problem.

In Medinipur, 24-year-old student S.K. Riaz said a discrepancy in his father’s name affected the family’s entries. Their cases remained unresolved despite repeated visits to officials when they spoke to the newspaper.

VFD: Earlier findings on mapping and documentation

The CJP–VFD report cites a December 2025 SABAR Institute study examining unmapped voters. The 20 constituencies with the highest proportions of unmapped voters reportedly had an average Muslim population of 13.75%, while the 20 with the lowest proportions averaged around 40%.

Full report can be accessed here

It also describes documentation difficulties faced by Matua families, particularly in North 24 Parganas and Nadia, and reports pressure on members of the community to apply through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act route. These findings concern mapping and documentation at an earlier stage and are separate from the later Form 6 and Form 7 results.

The report records complaints about tight deadlines, digital uploading problems, language barriers and the workload of teachers and Anganwadi workers carrying out BLO duties alongside their regular work. Its Bengal accounts include the reported deaths by suicide of Rinku Tarafdar in Nadia and Shantimoni Ekka in Jalpaiguri, discussed in the context of work-related pressure.

It also records deaths and distress among voters facing documentation problems. Broader death estimates in the report are attributed to political leaders and are not an independently verified official total. The accounts do not establish a single cause for every reported death.

Ask for public access to revision records

An April 11, 2025, memorandum to the Election Commission, reported by SabrangIndia, called for public access to electoral rolls and revision records. Coordinated through VFD and endorsed by 83 individuals, it followed a three-hour national consultation and an earlier notice issued in July 2024.

The memorandum sought searchable past and present electoral rolls showing additions and deletions; booth-wise Form 17C records and aggregate vote counts; searchable revision records in Forms 9, 10, 11, 11A and 11B; public inspection of EVM source code; disclosure and independent technical oversight of Symbol Loading Unit contents; and a revised VVPAT system in which voters would manually deposit slips in a separate box, with all slips counted and results based on those records.

Signatories included M.G. Devasahayam, Madhav Deshpande, Harish Karnick, Justices D. Hariparanthaman and B.G. Kolse Patil, Aruna Roy, E.A.S. Sarma, Venkatesh Nayak, Anjali Bhardwaj and Teesta Setalvad. The accompanying campaign raised concerns about Commission independence, enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and unexplained changes to electoral rolls. Its demand for searchable revision records would allow the public to examine additions, deletions and the steps taken before those decisions.

Separately, a September investigation by The Indian Express reported 14 objections raised by two Election Commissioners over ten months, including restricted ECINET access for officers responsible for electoral rolls. The Commission subsequently announced a committee, including an independent expert, to examine the system and its compliance with the law.

The Supreme Court’s March 10 order had also recorded technical difficulties faced by judicial officers and called for prompt repairs and logistical support. The later tribunal minutes set out specific problems with notices, documents and access to decisions while large numbers of appeals remained undecided.

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 SIR West Bengal: Most Form 7 requests lead to deletions; Form 6 additions remain low appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Now his parents, Ravindra and Sonali Wakode, are sitting on a hunger strike at Azad Maidan, seeking answers and justice after their son’s death at IIT Bombay.

Teesta Setalvad asks a larger question: when a student dies inside one of India’s most prestigious institutions, who examines the environment around that death? And what happens when the institution is effectively examining itself?

The post When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The form of “majoritarianism” may vary from one society to another. If there is an authoritarian regime, the manifestation of majoritarianism will be very severe. It will be very crude. It will be very harsh. It will be more reactionary. It may be more brutal in appearance.

But we should never forget this key point: majoritarianism is not only found in non-democratic or illiberal societies. Today, majoritarianism poses a serious threat to democracy.

What is the idea of democracy?

Democracy is understood to be opposed to dictatorship. Democracy is not authoritarianism. Democracy is not monarchy. Democracy is not oligarchy.

This is the definition that is generally accepted by most liberal thinkers.

But Dr. Ambedkar added one important dimension to the idea of democracy and went beyond liberal thinkers. The messiah of the downtrodden said that a true democratic system is one where marginalised community are given opportunities; they are given a space to make laws, and they are in a position to implement policies. In other words, power is shared with the marginalised castes and communities. It is not just the government of the people; it is also government by the people.

If a “democracy” is to be called a democracy, it should not just feel content with holding elections and sending people to legislative assemblies. Unless marginalized communities such as Dalits and Adivasis, and religious minorities such as Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists, among others, are given proper representation, it will not work. If they are not given effective representation, if they are not involved in the process of law-making, and if they are not given a space to implement policies, then that is not democracy.

Dr. Ambedkar has also added another thing: democracy is the system through which we have to bring about social change.

So, in Ambedkar’s view, if society is becoming more and more egalitarian, if inequality is reduced, if marginalised communities are given power and representation, then we can call it a true democracy.

In fact, majoritarianism is the perversion of Dr. Ambedkar’s idea of democracy. While Dr. Ambedkar’s definition of democracy lays stress on effective and proportionate representation and safeguarding minority rights, majoritarianism is the dominance of a particular religious community, caste group, or racial group over the rest of the population.

Under a majoritarian system, a particular caste, a particular religious community, or a particular social group starts believing that they are the “real” citizens of the country. They are the “sons of the soil”. They are the “warrior” race. They are truly “patriotic”, while the rest of the population are “inferior”, “subordinate”, “second-class citizens”, and their culture and their way of life are a “threat” to the nation.

The dominant sections of society, believing in a majoritarian ideology, make efforts to enact laws or promote social practices to disempower minority communities and other weaker sections.

We see the irony in a democratic society most clearly. It is possible that, in the law books, everybody is given equal rights. But in practice, what is happening is that those equal rights are not translated into reality, and a large section of the population is denied what is promised in the Constitution. This is because the majoritarian forces are rising and they sabotage democratic processes.

Friends from Nagaland leave their homes and go to Delhi to pursue higher education. They study at the University of Delhi, JNU, Jamia, and other educational institutions. They also go to other north Indian cities for education and jobs.

Outside their homes, friends from the northeast face discrimination. They are discriminated against at colleges and workplaces. They are made to suffer when they go to get a house on rent. People in north India pass inappropriate comments on them. They create stereotypes about the people of Nagaland and other north-eastern states. These are all manifestations of majoritarianism.

However, in the rule book, in the Constitution of the country, everybody is given the same rights. A person born in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, or Delhi has the same rights as a person living in Arunachal Pradesh or Nagaland.

But in actual reality, a large number of people, such as Dalits, Adivasis, lower-caste people, religious minorities, and women, are victims of discrimination because democratic processes are being distorted. They are tampered with, and reactionary elements and communal forces that are spreading hatred have become more active in the recent past.

And why are they so active?

Because they get political patronage and support from the system. And this is an ugly manifestation of majoritarianism.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar has made a wonderful observation that when the dominant groups, when the upper castes, when the caste Hindus serve their own interests, they call it “nationalism”. They call it national interest.

But when a person belonging to the Dalit community or religious minority communities, according to Dr. Ambedkar, and in today’s context, the residents of Dimapur or Nagaland, speaks about their genuine rights, they are dismissed, rejected, and demonized by the dominant sections as “communal” or “sectarian”.

That is why I would like to argue that majoritarianism today is one of the biggest threats to democracy. It lays bare its fangs not only in India but elsewhere also.

Look at the scene at the international level. So much racism is rising across the globe. People from the Black community and other marginalised social groups are discriminated against. They are discriminated against on the basis of colour, on the basis of religion, and on the basis of language. These are against the spirit of humanity.

This is against the message of Jesus Christ. He says that we should love our enemy. And what are we doing today? We are discriminating against our own neighbours and our own fellow citizens, our own people. Today, minorities and other marginalised social groups in India are being attacked in the name of beef, in the name of the “holy” cow.

Indian democracy has given all Indians equal voting rights. But in Parliament, some states dominate policy-making and discourse. Similarly, some castes dominate the process of enacting laws. Are then, the sentiments and interests of the minorities safeguarded while making laws?

I doubt if our rulers and politicians are concerned about protecting the rights of minorities. I would argue that today our ruling classes sitting in Delhi and controlling the system from other north Indian states have been infested with the reactionary ideology of majoritarianism. They believe that India belongs to one race. In their perverted thinking, India is a home of a few upper castes. For them, India belongs to the Aryan race.

We are students of Political Science. There is a paper on Indian Knowledge System, which is almost compulsory at the undergraduate level. Everybody has to opt for it.

And if one goes through the syllabus of the Indian Knowledge System, what does one get?

In the syllabus of the Indian Knowledge System, most of the themes are centred on “Vedic/Aryan culture”. Sanskrit is given the dominant position. The contributions of Christianity and Islam are erased. The history and contributions of Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism are suppressed.

The syllabus is designed in such a way that instead of working towards national integration and promoting true knowledge, it is creating division. It is injecting suspicion among a large section of the people. It is alienating a majority of the people because they do not find their own history in the syllabus, reading materials, and textbooks. Non-Brahmin history is almost deleted, and they are nowhere to be seen.

Our rulers and administrators are fast implementing majoritarian agendas in every walk of life. Road names are being changed, and monuments are being renamed. The Islamic past and the contribution of Muslims are special targets. Minorities are attacked in the name of beef and the “holy” cow. They are the worst victims of mob lynching. The so-called liberal cities are also not safe for minorities. There too, students from minority communities and other weaker sections are attacked on different pretexts. Dalits and Muslims find it hard to get rooms or flats in savarna localities.

The lifestyles of minorities and weaker sections—their culture, their food habits—they are all being attacked.

Recently, I read a book. The name of the book is The Adivasi Will Not Dance. It is a collection of ten stories written by a Jharkhand-based doctor and author, Hansda Sowvendra Shekhar. The author is a Santhal Adivasi, and what is he saying in the book?

In one of his stories, he has narrated the story of an Adivasi family. The family was earlier working in Bhubaneswar, in Orissa. They were then transferred to Gujarat. They were asked to go to Vadodara.

The Adivasi family, when they landed in Gujarat, had difficulty finding a house on rent. Somehow, they got a house, but the landlord told the Adivasi family that they should not eat eggs, fish, and meat.

Facing cultural dominance, the Adivasi family secretly boiled eggs. They peeled them, wrapped the eggshells in a paper, and secretly went far away to throw them in the dustbin. The Adivasi family feared that somebody might notice that they were eating non-vegetarian food. They feared that they might be caught. They feared that they might be abused or beaten up.

This incident points to the majoritarian nature of Indian society. It is totally against the spirit, values, and laws of the Constitution.

Our Constitution has given us fundamental rights. Liberty is one of them. Whatever you want to eat, whatever religion you want to follow, you can marry anybody, the Constitution gives freedom to individuals. But in practice, what is happening? Our fundamental rights are being eroded by orders and laws enacted by the rulers. Even the food habits of minorities and other weaker sections are being demonised, and they are attacked in the name of the holy cow.

Since the dominant sections of society have political power, they are imposing their own food habits on the rest of the people. People from the north make laws without thinking deeply about the fact that those living outside the Hindi belt may have different food habits, lifestyles, and cultural practices. It is dangerous to national integration that the dominant sections are imposing their own food, dress, and rituals on the rest of the people.

The sad part is that majoritarianism is happening in the “largest” democracy of India.

It is to be kept in mind that majoritarianism is not confined to any social group or any region. For example, Hindus are dominant in one region and they are dominated in another region. Christians are dominated in one region, but they are dominant in other regions. Muslims are suppressed in one particular part of a region, and they suppress other communities in another region.

In brief, majoritarianism is a disease that has spread far and wide. It is becoming something like a pandemic, as it is found in both democratic and non-democratic societies.

As I have argued earlier, the challenge of majoritarianism is greater in a democratic system like ours because sometimes majoritarian forces appropriate democratic logic to suit their own interests.

While majoritarian groups have little regard for the rule of law, they spread the propaganda that it is the minorities who do not follow the Constitution and are guided by religious-based Sharia laws in opposition to secular and democratic values.

While the majority groups are least interested in initiating social reform movements within their own society to get rid of caste and gender-based discrimination, they are at the forefront of giving lip service to the rights of Muslim women and tarnishing the image of Muslim men as “patriarchal”, “cruel”, and “violent”. The right-wing groups that promote majoritarian thinking manipulate democratic and electoral processes to perpetuate their dominance and attack minority rights.

While we have a good Constitution, its laws are often not implemented in the true spirit. In fact, the processes are being tampered with to marginalise the weaker sections. Our leaders have no willpower. They are driven by petty interests.

The rulers want to remain in power at any cost. They are not following the spirit of the Constitution. They believe that India can only be strong when it is coloured in one religion, one language, and one race. In fact, this is the process of weakening India. This is not the process of strengthening India.

National integration can only happen when people from Arunachal Pradesh to Gujarat, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, are given a share in power, if they are given representation, if they all come together to make laws, and if their food habits, their culture, and their religion are protected.

Without protecting minority rights, India will not become strong. But today, the terms “minority” and “minority rights” have been given a negative connotation under right-wing propaganda. The media, too, has become complicit in the anti-minority narrative. The values of diversity and pluralism are being attacked. Uniformity is being promoted as a desirable value.

But in both our social and natural worlds, we find that diversity is the reality. Around our surroundings, we find multiple varieties of flora and fauna.

That is why we need to learn from each and every community. Every community has something great to offer.

Humayun Kabir was the secretary of Maulana Azad, the first Education Minister of India. After Maulana Azad, Humayun Kabir also became the Education Minister of India. He wrote somewhere that a society which has people from different religions, different communities, different castes, and different social groups has more power and more strength to face challenges.

Take the example of cricket. If a team has only good batsmen, the team will not win the match because the team also needs good bowlers. Similarly, if a team has only good bowlers, who will score runs? If a team has only good fast bowlers, who will spin the ball? That is why a team which aims at winning the match needs all kinds of players. It must have diversity in the team.

Similarly, our ideals should be diversity and pluralism. Power-sharing and minority rights are integral parts of democracy. The bedrock of democracy is social justice and minority rights.

And in practice, what is happening? Majoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, communal violence, and discrimination are rampant.

So today, I argue that majoritarianism is one of the biggest challenges in the modern world. I put forth my hypothesis that it is a more serious challenge than deadly weapons because deadly weapons can destroy some buildings and can kill some human beings. But majoritarianism may destroy everything.

Majoritarian thinking may destroy society. It can create violence. It can give rise to hatred at the mass level. Majoritarianism is against humanity.

Some right-wingers say that giving minority rights is weakening the nation. I disagree with those people. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar has said at many places that caste Hindus are wrong to think that majority rule is sacred.

Babasaheb says that without the protection of minority rights, without safeguarding minority rights, democracy cannot be successful.

Let’s assume that your class has fifty students. Forty students want to eat chow mein, and ten students want to eat rice and curry.

If you apply democratic processes mechanically or in a vulgar manner, you will hold an election to decide the choice of food. In an election, forty students will definitely win by majority vote. It may be the case that the winners make a law that both at lunch and dinner, only chow mein will be served and everyone will have to eat it. But imposing the majority view on the minority through the electoral process is not democracy. In fact, this is majoritarianism.

A true democracy is one where minority rights are protected, where the will of forty people is not imposed on ten people. A true democracy is one where the minority’s views and interests are safeguarded.

It is very sad that minority rights are seen as a “threat” to the nation. Scholars advocating minority rights are seen as “anti-national”. But I differ with such a view.

Instead, I would argue that the social groups and organisations promoting majoritarianism and speaking against minority rights are, in fact, anti-national because they are weakening national integration by creating division in society.

Irrespective of what the right-wing propaganda is, India belongs to everybody. India belongs as much to the people of north India as it does to the residents of the southern and north-eastern states.

That is why the whole debate about “Indic” and “non-Indic” religions is nothing but an example of majoritarian thinking.

That is why I argue that Christianity is not alien. Nor is Hinduism indigenous.

Soon after the emergence of Christianity, churches were established in the coastal areas of India. The history of Christianity in India is over two thousand years old.

The history of Christianity in India cannot be tied to colonialism.

It may be true that some Christian missionaries might have come through colonial interventions. Some Christian missionaries might have been supporters of colonialism.

So what?

There were so many Hindus who supported the British Raj. There were so many Muslims who sided with the British Raj.

So, the very idea that an Indic religion is Hinduism and that Christianity is a foreign religion, or that Islam is the religion of the “invaders”, is a manifestation of majoritarianism. It is weakening national unity. It goes against the fundamental values of the Constitution. In brief, majoritarianism is against the values of liberty, equality, fraternity, and secularism.

V. D. Savarkar wrote the book Hindutva in the early 1920s. The book is mandatory reading in your Indian Political Thought course. In this book, Savarkar argued against the liberal and social notion of citizenship and created a social division based on religion through his fake theory that Hindus are patriotic because their religious places are located in India, while Christians and Muslims cannot be patriotic because their religious places are somewhere else, in Mecca or perhaps in Palestine or Jerusalem. Such a view is a manifestation of majoritarian thinking.

Savarkar was one of the major architects of the majoritarian narrative in India. I am afraid that majoritarianism has gained strength in recent years as his ideological supporters have assumed power at the national level.

If you go through the writings of right-wing thinkers in the colonial period, you will find that an aggressive current of Hindu nationalism promotes majoritarianism because they make the argument that Hindus and Hinduism is indigenous and minorities and their religions are foreign.

I think today we need to seriously conduct research and reading about the challenges to democracy posed by majoritarianism and the demonization of minority rights.

In this endeavour, the Department of Political Science can contribute. But it should be ready to learn from other disciplines such as history, sociology, literature, and anthropology. We, as intellectuals, need to learn from social and political activists as well, as they have first-hand knowledge. We all need to work collectively towards making this society, this country, and this world more egalitarian.

Before I conclude, let me make a quick reference to a book by the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy. Leo Tolstoy was a great disciple of Jesus Christ, and in the book, he said that only principle in this world is love. According to him, love is the only principle through which we can bring humanity together. Love is the only principle that is the bedrock of humanity. Violence has no place in the spirit of love.

So, I would like to conclude with what Tolstoy has said about love. He said that the message of love was given by all the prophets. With the spirit of love, we need to work to promote humanity, brotherhood, and sisterhood.

We need to work hard to ensure that the democratic rights enshrined in our Constitution are implemented on the ground, and that minorities, weaker sections, and marginalized communities are given their due rights.

And all those who have become self-appointed guardians of the country, who are promoting majoritarianism, must be challenged. But our struggles should always be democratic and guided by the true spirit of love.

This is how we can make India stronger.

 [This is an excerpt from the speech delivered online by the author, to the students of St. Joseph University, Dimapur, Nagaland, on October 5, 2026. It has been slightly edited for clarity and flow.]

Related:

Why are reading habits among Indian students declining?

Understanding power through caste: Dr. Ambedkar’s contribution to the sociology of law

My Ambedkar is a leftist Ambedkar

The post Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.