It meticulously traces the evolution of Hindutva neo-fascism since the Narendra Modi-led BJP government came to power in 2014. The narrative bridges the gap between the incarcerated and the free, offering a painstaking scholarly dissection of Teltumbde’s persecution and the broader collapse of democratic principles. It powerfully conveys that in today’s India, free thought itself is a seditious act.

Teltumbde’s memoir provides an illustrative picture of prison conditions, the authorities governing them, and their role in undermining judicial processes, access to basic resources, and hygiene. His firsthand experience of systemic injustice makes this work a testament to the complexities of India’s judiciary. The book transcends the daily routines of prison life, beginning with an exploration of the state’s tightening grip on dissenting voices. It is both a narrative of confinement and an investigation into the farcical democracy that orchestrates it.

Comprising 22 of the over 100 notes Teltumbde wrote during his 31 months of incarceration, the memoir transcends personal catharsis to examine jail life, exposing the humiliation, cruelty, and high-handedness of prison administration.

The book’s symbolism lies in Teltumbde’s astonishment that a man of his stature—a professor of Big Data Analytics, an IIM alumnus, a corporate professional, and a practitioner of capitalism—could be branded an enemy of the state. “I was under the delusion,” he admits, “that because of my qualifications, integrity, and public image, I might not qualify for arrest.”

The memoir offers a grounded examination of how a so-called democracy imprisons its thinkers. Teltumbde recounts his shock at the blatant lies presented by the Pune police in their initial press conference, which formed the basis of the charges against him. His pleas to quash the case were repeatedly rejected, with courts accepting sealed envelopes from the prosecution. Despite his background in corporate and business academia, he never imagined a ludicrous charge of being a Maoist could stick—until his arrest shattered that illusion.

The memoir opens with a poignant observation: incarceration is often seen as a fate worse than death, especially for those who have committed no unlawful act. It begins with Teltumbde being woken by his wife, who received a call from the Director of the Goa Institute of Management (GIM) informing her that the Pune police had raided the campus and stormed their home. This moment captures a life upturned.

Teltumbde writes that watching a raid on television is one thing, but experiencing it at your doorstep is “like fluid from a festering wound seeping into your being.” His analysis extends beyond prison walls, drawing parallels between underreported COVID-19 deaths inside jails and those outside, reflecting the same insensitivity in both realms. For Teltumbde, prison mirrors India’s moral decay. “Prison is a mirror image of society,” he writes, “except that it does not pretend to be free.”

The most evocative passages focus not on physical suffering but on psychological torment, illustrating how a man whose life revolved around teaching, writing, and thinking was stripped of his intellectual freedom. The book shifts between the personal and the political, navigating Teltumbde’s longing to complete his course at GIM and his victimization in a neo-fascist state. This duality defines the work.

“These notes,” he writes, “are not just a glimpse of jail life but a commentary on the system that perpetuates problems while pretending to solve them.” Teltumbde condemns the judiciary for obscuring the truth and the police for their complicity, citing the case of Param Bir Singh to expose the farce of India’s “rule of law.” He describes the Bhima Koregaon case as a landmark in how democracies crush dissent and evolve into neo-fascist states.

The memoir is dedicated to Teltumbde’s late brother, Milind Teltumbde, killed by security forces and branded a Maoist, ironically also a co-accused in the same case. Their intertwined fates highlight the height of state paranoia, equating a brother in the jungle with one in an IIM classroom as enemies of the state. “It was my pursuit to make the world a better place that landed me in prison,” Teltumbde writes in the prologue, encapsulating the book’s moral gravity.

Despite his anguish, Teltumbde initially placed faith in the judiciary and media, hoping they would recognize the fabricated charges against him. However, a broken democracy and complicit media maligned his image, with letters meant for police custody inexplicably reaching news channels without scrutiny. Even when the judiciary warned the police of this unlawful act, the oppression of Teltumbde and other intellectuals persisted, as the government sought to silence those exposing the truth.

Teltumbde vividly describes life inside a prison cell, recalling his childhood curiosity about the fate of prisoners, many of whom were mascots of liberation. He examines how a repressive system sows inequality, injustice, and bitterness, breeding crime. Yet, he never imagined he would end up in a dark cell, with only a cheap cot for rest. The memoir urges readers to look beyond the spectacle of arrests and trials to the repressive state machinery behind them, reflecting that what happens in Taloja jail mirrors society at large.

In the Bhima Koregaon case, arrests during the COVID-19 pandemic weakened protests against these unconstitutional detentions. Accusations against Muslims, Tablighi Jamaat, and migrant workers served as a distraction, obscuring the false evidence and mass arrests.

Teltumbde questions why the government ignored the Kumbh Mela in Haridwar, which, according to the World Health Organization and The Lancet, significantly spread the virus, while targeting other groups. The pandemic exacerbated prison conditions, with social distancing imposed amidst overcrowding, and prisoners denied proper diets, hygienic facilities, and basic resources. Teltumbde asserts that the death of Father Stan Swamy was a custodial death.

In the chapter “Entering the Hellhole,” Teltumbde explores how the right to dignity, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, is trampled within prison walls. He requested a pen and paper from the Superintendent of Police to keep notes, but the request was denied. Despite a biometric database linked to Aadhaar, he was forced to provide fingerprints repeatedly, enduring constant harassment. At Taloja jail, he was stripped naked and searched under CCTV surveillance—a tactic to assert fascist power over prisoners and their loved ones.

The state’s prime targets, seen as adversaries, are not only imprisoned but barred from expressing their views, exercising fundamental rights, and maintaining their identity. In the Bhima Koregaon case, intellectuals were prohibited from writing to courts, and when permitted, the delivery of their letters was deliberately delayed.

Teltumbde includes an article he wrote in prison criticizing the Narendra Modi government’s privatization of Public Sector Units, falsely promoted as an economic boost.

The Superintendent summoned him for writing it, and despite Teltumbde’s argument that publishing from prison is not unlawful, he and his co-accused were banned from sending or receiving letters—a clear violation of constitutional rights.

Teltumbde compares Indian prisons to those in developed countries like Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, and Switzerland, where correctional facilities are regularly updated to avoid harming prisoners’ consciences. He holds little hope for Indian prison reform, given the dire reality, and advocates for their abolition to enable true rehabilitation.

In the chapter “Of Labels and Labelling,” Teltumbde critiques the hero-worship of Marxism and Ambedkarism, offering a nuanced analysis of their ideologies. He finds coherence in Marx’s framework but sees Ambedkar’s as incomplete. He views Ambedkar’s Buddhism as a rationalist reinvention rejected by traditionalists and subtly compares the opposing origins of Marx’s and Ambedkar’s ideologies. Teltumbde criticizes Ambedkar’s endorsement of religion, particularly his views on Dhamma, which he believes fueled a personality cult and sectarianism.

Harsh Thakor is a Freelance Journalist

Courtesy: Counter Currents

The post “The Cell and the Soul: A Prison Memoir” by Anand Teltumbde stands as one of the most powerful indictments of Indian democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this context, the Modi cabinet recently approved the recommendations of a committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which was set up to examine the feasibility of the proposal. The committee recommended conducting elections for the Parliament, state legislative assemblies, and local bodies simultaneously. However, this approach contradicts the federal spirit enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It undermines democratic values and threatens the essence of federalism.

According to the Constitution, both Parliament and state assemblies have a fixed five-year term. Implementing the One Nation, One Election system would require altering these fixed terms. For instance, if a state government collapses midway through its term, the assembly’s schedule would have to be aligned with the national election cycle. This means local issues and regional needs may be suppressed under a centralized system, thereby eroding the spirit of federalism. India is a nation of diverse cultures, languages, and regional problems. This proposal could potentially erase that diversity. It poses a grave threat to India’s democracy and constitutional federal structure.

Challenges of Constitutional Amendments:

To implement this proposal, amendments must be made to five key provisions of the Constitution (e.g., Article 83, Article 172, etc.). This requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament and approval from a majority of state legislatures. The Modi government currently does not have such a majority. In this backdrop, the Prime Minister appealed during his Independence Day address for all political parties to support the proposal, indicating an effort to mobilize public opinion. However, constitutional amendments are not easy and must take into account the opinions of the states, making the process highly challenging.

Threat to Democracy:

Though “One Nation, One Election” appears to be a move toward reducing expenditure and enhancing governance, it risks weakening democratic principles. If elections are held simultaneously, national issues could overshadow local concerns, diminishing the autonomy of states and local bodies. Furthermore, it would strip states of their authority over the conduct of elections. This approach could lead to an increase in centralized political power and open the door to authoritarian tendencies.

Potential Drawbacks:

Local issues and regional interests might take a backseat. As a result, citizens would lose the opportunity to question the government on fundamental issues during elections. Centralizing the election schedule would compromise the autonomy of state governments. If a government collapses mid-term, imposing President’s Rule or adjusting the term would go against the democratic spirit. It is essential to explain these dangers to the public and raise awareness.

Challenge to Federal Principles:

India is a federal country where powers are divided between the Centre and the states. Critics argue that this proposal undermines the autonomy of states and strengthens central dominance, contradicting the federal spirit embedded in the Constitution.

Stand of Political Parties:

Currently, when elections are held at different times, smaller parties can focus their resources and campaigns more effectively. But if all elections are held simultaneously, they will be forced to divide their resources, which may affect their electoral performance. Despite this, regional parties aligned with the BJP like the Telugu Desam Party and Jana Sena have supported the idea. However, national parties like the CPM, Congress, and several other regional parties have opposed it. The CPM has described it as an attempt at authoritarian centralization.

International Experiences:

In Sweden, national, regional, and municipal elections are held on the same day, and this has worked successfully. However, Sweden is a smaller country with a uniform political system. South Africa also conducts national and regional elections simultaneously. But unlike India, it does not have a diverse state-based federal structure. India, with its vast linguistic, cultural, and political diversity, cannot directly replicate these foreign models.

Safeguard India’s diversity La

“One Nation, One Election” poses a serious challenge to India’s parliamentary democracy. It must be recognized as a dangerous step toward centralization. Political parties and the public must engage in broad discussions on this issue. The public must be made aware that the real intention behind this proposal could be to establish an authoritarian regime. Everyone must stand united to resist it. It is our collective responsibility to safeguard India’s diversity and democratic strength at this crucial moment.

P.V. Kumaraswamy Reddy is a Social and Political Analyst

Courtesy: Counter Currents

The post “One Nation, One Election”: A Threat to Democracy and Federal Spirit appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The entire political class is silent.

The ruling party has not attempted to hide what easily could be called its genocidal actions in Bastar. Union home minister Amit Shah proclaims it loud and clear. But no opposition leader raises a voice. On the political stage, otherwise, Shah is cornered on a number of things he does. Except this. There is no delegation to meet the President, no hurried press conference, no demand for a white paper, or an investigation. The opposition seems to act as though it has not heard anything, not seen anything, not noticed anything.

Are we seeing the tragic and evil consensus of India’s political class? Are we witness to the outer limits of the democratic idea of India, even in the best version as proposed by the most progressive forces in India’s parliament? Rahul Gandhi, Mahua Mitra, Shashi Tharoor, Asaduddin Owaisi…they have all been silent.

Some of them might be privately attempting to wash their guilt by avidly following the news of the killings, but it is as though they are following a secret medieval covenant not to say anything in public. True to form, the media doles news of the killings as though these are reports of a natural calamity, like death due to lightning or a thunderstorm. What is there to discuss or deliberate? Nothing at all.

Various political parties represent or claim to represent the different social sections, castes, tribes, regions and religious communities that comprise India. Even Adivasi representatives sit in the parliament. They are all silent. In effect, the parliament is sanctioning vigilante action.

What is the covenant which binds them all? What tells them that it is best to quietly focus on other things, and look the other way?

They seem to agree on a so-called structural necessity of the Bastar killings.

Given this scenario, we must step up and act in conscience. We should lobby and sensitise parliament and go on to appeal to the legislators to uphold a moral conscience and intervene to “save democracy”.

But this will only add to the pool of self-righteousness ailing the world. Instead let us recognise how things really stand. Let us read the writing on the wall. Just pause and take note. And learn about the consensus – the silent and rather lethal consensus – which sustains India’s democracy. We must try to learn about the much vaunted “constitutional morality” the republic serves platitudes about – the constitutional morality which the opposition always claims to struggle to save, uphold and defend.

Perhaps the first thing we get to learn is that the political class as a whole has a common enemy. This opposition to that enemy binds all the stakeholders of India’s democracy. They all fear an enemy. And they must unite to kill and finish off that enemy.

Amidst the fractious squabbling between the BJP and the opposition parties, national and regional, it might be difficult to perceive the internal coherence of the Indian political class and the establishment. So consider this: Manmohan Singh might have declared that Maoists are the greatest internal security threat, but it is Amit Shah who acts on it. So does Salwa Judum and Special Police Officers, the others.

This is an issue on which Shah and Chidambaram are on the same page. If there is one thing RSS and the Congress agree on, it would be this. Secularism and communalism appear as one.

The struggle towards the just that morally and politically legitimises the republic loses its efficacy. The moral fibre of the republic is at its weakest here. No wonder then that the Indian parliament recoils from ever having to come face to face with such deep moral blind spots where hypocrisy runs free.

The post Why Indian Democracy Feels No Shame About the Bastar Killings appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Enforcement Directorate and other agencies arbitrarily target those who are perceived as dissidents or political opponents in violation of the rule of law.

The not–so–silent aim is to convert India’s diversity into a pro- Hindu state. This affects our democracy, secularism, federalism and civil liberties.

I cannot speak with any authority of the ‘deep’ state which our distinguished chairman for this meeting, Mr [N.N.] Vohra knows about but may not disclose. It exists under the cloud of secrecy and confronts, even eliminates many in the name of national security. The deep state covers many deals, conspiracies and atrocities hidden from public exposure.

I was asked to celebrate the achievements of India’s constitution from 1950 over 75 years. Much can be written and said about this journey and many experiences can be drawn from it.

Nehru is much criticised these days, but his tenure should be remembered. He interacted with other non-Congress politicians, hostile journalists and those who opposed him.

When he spoke of the Seventh Fleet in a public statement, he was threatened with a privilege motion in parliament because in those days, all major matters had to be first placed on the floor of the house.

He confronted this with an apology. He faced a contempt motion in the Madras high court
with humility, was represented and won his case.

The infamous President’s Rule imposed in Kerala in 1959 during his tenure was at the instance of Indira Gandhi, then president of the Congress, and home minister Govind Ballabh Pant.

I saw a picture in Justice Krishna Iyer’s house where Krishna Iyer, then a minister in the ill–fated government, was presenting a memorandum to a passive, even sad, Nehru. I asked Krishna Iyer to explain this photograph to me. The judge told me that he had informed Nehru that the Left coalition which had come to power and was threatened by President’s Rule was prepared to accept all of the Union’s demands. Nehru then told Krishna Iyer to speak to Indira.

Be that as if, may Nehru cannot escape responsibility for destroying the first elected communist government in the world. But to his credit, unlike now, he allowed a strong debate in parliament which took the government apart even if the Congress majority in parliament sustained the imposition of President’s Rule.

This episode also reflects on the need to separate political governance from constitutional decision– making. I will dwell no more on this. Those interested in my views on Nehru can read my long introduction to a book called Nehru and the Constitution (1992) where I invoke Milan Kundera’s evocative statement: “Metaphors are not to be trifled with. A single metaphor could lead to love.”

Nehru’s was a metaphor in India’s formative years and remains so and to be admired. He cracked down on powerful corrupt ministers and gave his all to democratic governance. Mistakes? Of course there were. Who doesn’t make them? Our present controversies about Nehru are political because the BJP and the Sangh parivar feel that by denigrating Nehru, Modi’s status will be enhanced.

There is academic controversy as well on Nehru’s economic policy, as seen in Arvind Panagariya’s The Nehru Development Model –  History and its Lasting Impact (2024); and more generally by Tylor C. Sherman’s Nehru’s India – A History in Seven Myths (2022) and others. His photographs are being removed and replaced by Savarkar’s. But Aditya Mukherjee’s Nehru’s India – Past, Present & Future (2024) stands out at a time when history is being corrupted.

Mrs Gandhi did subvert the constitution in the sixties with uncalled President’s Rule against opposition– ruled states which came into power electorally after 1967. There was the dreaded Emergency (1975-77). But she was humbled by Indian democracy, the greatest gift by India’s constitution to her people.

Today we celebrate Modi, whose contribution to India’s democracy is winning elections through fundamentalism supported by crony capitalism, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Sangh parivar with ‘gifts’ to the poor –  all in the name of growth and economic progress.

But I do not want to indulge in ungainly political dialogue or compare Modi’s rise to Hitler who also chose the path to power through democratic elections to the Reichstag to become chancellor. Nor am I interested in analysing his foreign policy as that of a flying salesman not just for India but himself.

Amidst speeches and oratory he has little time for governance; and has collapsed the distinction between governance and a constitutionally established state. My concern is less on the constitution’s journey over the past 75 years and more on the contemporary challenge to constitutionalism,  whose basis is being challenged from within. The past informs the present which, in turn, informs the future.

II. Checks and balances

The challenges of our present discontents are characterised by the collapse of the system of checks and balances to discipline constitutional power. I believe that the principles of checks and balances are a visible and invisible basis for a successful democratic, secular and federal constitutionalism. Without this the constitution would sink into the abyss and give rise to promote an elected dictatorship established from within the constitutional framework.

I am not really concerned with the elected dictatorship in America, Turkey and other parts of the world, which are countries that have their own grievances, their own challenges and their own impossibilities. Trump raises important questions on India’s foreign policy and the global economy where India, for all Modi’s travels, is at sea. Trump summons. Modi responds. Weapons deals are made to bolster America’s military industry and war machine.

Let us see how this system of checks and balances works. The powerful executive is responsible to parliament. The judiciary is empowered to challenge any high– handedness by the executive or any authority of governance including parliament, to protect the liberties of the people, prevent religion from entering electoral politics and to defend a balanced federalism. It has overseen the conduct of the civil services and resolved their disputes and has taken on authoritarianism at different times, succumbing during the Emergency (1975-77).

Part of the checks and balances of the constitution protects the states in the hope that there will be cooperative federalism with equities. Unfortunately, we now have a coercive federalism which divides people, favouring these governments which side with Modi’s political
centre.

The Modi government supported by the RSS and other elements of the Sangh parivar has, in many ways, promoted a Hindu state. There is a 501– page report of Sanghi intellectuals to replace the present constitution with a Hindu constitution.

Is this really possible in India, which is the greatest experiment of governance over the most diverse multicultural, multi–linguistic and multi–religious nation– state, housing several civilisations?

India with its around 200 million Muslims, is demographically second to Indonesia along with Pakistan and Bangladesh. It dwarfs all Islamic countries of the Middle East. Its Christian population is greater than many states in the world. It houses Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and many sects. People should realise that Hinduism is not a monolithic religion, but contains not only sects but religions within it. This is lost sight of by militant Hinduism and even the courts on which I am writing essays collected and titled  Conquest by Law:
Essays on Colonising Hindu Religious Endowments and Religious Freedom in India.

What is also disturbing is the aggressive linguistic dominance of Hindi. India has many officially recognised languages. Hindi is the official language, English is to be used for the ‘official purposes’ but surely is now an Indian language. Hindi is to be progressively used officially and developed. (Articles 343- 351). But few lay people can comprehend Hindi’s propagation in its neologised Sanskrit form, especially in government notifications, which is alien.

But there lies the rub. The Eighth Schedule of the Constitution officially recognises 22 languages to include Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, Bodo, Santhali, Maithili and Dogri. Of these languages, 14 were initially included in the original constitution. The Sindhi language was added in 1967. Three more languages, Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali, were included in 1992. Subsequently Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santhali were added in 2004.

These are the tip of the iceberg. The bewildering variety of Indian languages and their dialects can only amaze and define India’s diversity and linguistic federalism.

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has been at the forefront to protect Tamil. The assertions of BJP leaders including Modi will not absolve the party and its cohorts for promoting Hindi nationalism even in symbolic titles of legislations, the text of which is otherwise in English. On my impromptu test with lay Hindi–speaking, relatively poor people, they do not understand the ‘Hindi’ words for programmes and legislation promoted for acceptance. Linguistic federalism has become an important issue. DMK leader M.K. Stalin has led the charge against imposing Hindi nationalism.

We need to go back to controversies in the constituent assembly where K.M. Munshi and N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar agreed to Hindi being an ‘official language’, and Article 351 gives the duty to the Union to promote the spread of Hindi. But, as H.M. Seervai and others pointed out, given the diversity of languages in India, Hindi cannot be the “national language”.

I argued the case of Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P., (2014) 9 SCC 716, where the issue was whether the state of Uttar Pradesh could make ‘Urdu’ a second official language. I was in favour of Urdu being added as an official language.

A constitution bench led by Chief Justice R.M. Lodha found this decision of the state to be valid and said that the “constitution does not foreclose the state legislature’s option to adopt any other language in use as official language”. It noted that many states have followed such an approach including Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand, Madya Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi, which also recognises Hindi, English, Punjabi and Urdu.

The test is that the first or second language should be ‘used’ in that state. Tamil is used in Tamil Nadu and other languages in their respective states. The court said: “It is said that law and languages are both organic in their mode of development. In India, these are evolving through the process of accepting legitimate aspirations of the speakers of different languages. Indian language laws are not rigid but accommodative – the object being to secure linguistic secularism.”

The Union should back off from its archaic three–language formula and allow Tamil Nadu and other states to develop their own languages as official languages to be taught in schools. At present, we do not have a ‘national’ language – nor can the Hindi states impose one. The link language that has been effective is English and Hindi if they are agreed by the states mutually.

This is where an undeserving linguistic dictatorship can wreak havoc. Hindi is supported by demography in the North; the rest of the country speaks through different cultures and articulates in different tongues. Linguistic dictatorship will destroy the federation. Healthy checks and balances are needed so that all Indian cultures are articulated, expressed and nurtured in their own tongues. It is not for the Centre to impose a linguistic federalism on those who view themselves differently but are passionately Indian.

I will not dwell on the present government rewriting history officially and unofficially ignoring checks and balances; and secularism which is a part of the basic structure of the constitution to protect India’s unparalleled diversity.

III. The underlying texts of the constitution

At first sight, it is difficult to fathom India’s sprawling constitution. It has 395 Articles, many Sub-articles, 12 elaborate Schedules –each the size of many constitutions in the world. It has been formally amended 106 times, and through various legislations, under different allied Acts of parliament and under other provisions of the constitution, 46 times without reference to the complex process of amendment in the constitution.

Some people say we should redraft our constitution, which was a creative compromise with many elements of democratic surrender by her people to constitutional authorities. I have described this in a book titled he Constitution of India: Miracle, Surrender, Hope” (2017). I dedicated that book to Fali Nariman, my distinguished friend, who used to say that we will never be able to draft a new constitution now if we want, because people will fight over everything and come to a conclusion only through unwelcome crude political majorities.

But, in his last book, he advised, “you must know your constitution”, and showed how to maneuver its complexities –a notable and commendable effort. His latest, beyond the Courtroom: Reflections on Law, Constitution and Nationhood reminds us of India’s democratic gift to itself.

I need to explain that all constitutions invoke a surrender of rights, liberties, hopes and expectations during constitution–making and after. It is left to those who work out the constitution to ensure that this, or any other surrender, is not inimical to the people the constitution serves. It is in civil society that we will find hope for the future.

To understand the underlying thread of the constitution, I identify the following texts:

1. The Democratic and Political texts
2. The Justice texts
3. The Federal texts
4. The Civil Service texts
5. The Military texts

Each of them are fundamental in their own right, but interact with each other under a system of checks and balances.

The democratic and political texts are huge and contain many provisions to include a common electoral roll without discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex (Article 325), and elections to the parliament’s lower house and state assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage, which now means a right to vote if above 18 years of age (Article 326).

There are no special seats on the basis of religion, the kind demanded by Muslims and others which led to Pakistan. I sometimes feel that in those heady pre-Independence days, we could have conceded special or general electorates for Muslims to preserve an undivided continent to keep it together and save us from the horrors of Partition. I read the accounts from July 1946 with anger and dismay; though it may well have been that by that time the die was cast.

I canvass better relations with our neighbours, especially Pakistan, which I visited. Our fundamentalist friends cannot understand the importance of this.

The Election Commission is an independent constitutional body to ensure free and fair elections. There is some contemporary concern about appointments to the membership of the commission, which has ousted the chief justices in the selection process and admitted it to political domination. This is a blow to electoral constitutionalism and the system of checks and balances which accords independence and autonomy to the constitutional body. We need a wide-bodied committee to suggest names which are confirmed by parliament to save the neutrality of this important commission.

A Delimitation Commission organises the constituencies; and the judiciary determines electoral disputes. The South, with more birth control and lesser populations, fears delimitation will diminish their strength in the elected legislature. All this will affect the checks and balances of the constitution in these texts. The South should not get lesser seats due to the demography of the North.

But there is cause for worry. Justice Madan Lokur has rightly pointed out that executive responsibility to parliament is decreasing. Richard Crossman elaborated that with the rise of prime ministerial power, there are strong presidential elements in the parliamentary system. One can see this in his posthumously published Crossman Diaries and a lecture in Harvard.

But though insightful, we still have a president who has to act on the aid and advice of the cabinet, with some independent powers. Another check and balance. But Crossman was concerned with the prime minister ascending power over his own cabinet and the latter’s discourse. To do so is a failure of checks and balances enshrined in India’s constitutional texts (Article 78, especially Articles 75(3), 78, 163, 164(2) and 167).

In India, the rise of a powerful Prime Minister’s Office centralises power in a disturbing way. Modi has appropriated considerable power to himself. This should serve as a warning.

There is also concern about the Delimitation Commission re-organising constituencies in a politically biased way and the danger of the Election Commission losing its autonomy due to political pressure. In a significant decision called Abhiram Singh (2017), Justice Lokur led a thin 4:3 majority to hold that appeals to religion in election were not permissible. This trumped the minority view of the then–Justice Chandrachud, Justice Lalit and Justice Goel – all of whom had some saffron connections or tendencies.

I leave this discussion on the political and democratic texts with apprehension because of the danger they portend. The apprehension deepens because debates in parliament are lessening. I demonstrate this in my book Reserved! How Parliament Debated Reservation 1995-2007 (2008) and other essays on other legislations.

Excessive control of parliament discussion weakens faith in this prime body. Quite apart from the paucity of debates on legislations and on President’s Rule proclamations, governments’ majorities dominate committees as we can see on the Waqf Bill.

Discussion on issues is stage–managed by speakers and the dreaded Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar (a veritable hit man for Modi’s government who does not understand the importance of the neutrality of his role). The result is that when the opposition disrupts proceedings to demand discussion, they are blamed for subversion, overlooking the genuine demand for discussion and debate.

The justice texts: The justice texts are crucial for democracy, federalism and civil liberties. But two clarifications are necessary.

The justice texts are not just addressed to the judiciary but to all organs of government including the executive, parliament, civil services, the federal structure and the military.

There are special texts in the constitution to monitor and give justice to the untouchables (chedule Castes (SCs)) and Schedule Tribes (STs), who also have presence in the legislatures, and at a lower level in local government to SCs, STs along with the other backward classes (OBCs) and women.

Many years ago, I printed a long article arguing for one-third women’s representation in legislatures. That is now law waiting to be implemented.

There are several constitutionally appointed commissions to work towards the upliftment of the marginalised (Articles 338-342A). But there is concern that there is an over–concentration on ‘reservation’ by way of quotas in services and access to education. In many cases I have supported reservations but for principled limits on the inclusion and exclusion of claimants. I also feel that not enough is done regarding direct affirmative action programmes.

But the core of the Justice texts lies in the fundamental rights chapter (Articles 12-36). Here are provisions of equality, liberty, freedom, protection of religions, their faiths, beliefs and practice, enhancing cultural rights and, most important, reposing in the judiciary with the right to move to the high court and directly the Supreme Court when these guaranteed rights are in threat.

Crucial to the independence of the judiciary are appointments to the higher judiciary. In Nehru’s time, the executive consulted the judiciary and this worked reasonably satisfactorily even if Nehru bitterly complained that lawyers (surely including judges) had, in his phrase, “purloined the constitution”. The record of this cooperation is recorded in the second collegium case.

But although his parliament reversed some important judicial decisions, checks and balances were in play over judicial appointments. It was Mrs Gandhi who saw threatening clouds to her power that she wanted a “committed” judiciary. Committed to what? Her regime or the constitution? Principled constitutional governance? She fiddled with these appointments when she lost important judicial decisions, more so after her election to parliament was declared invalid by an Allahabad high court judge.

This led to the Emergency, where otherwise brilliant judges in the Supreme Court gave her unbridled powers over political and other preventive administrative detentions against the decisions of nine high courts.

The judiciary came out of the Emergency badly wounded. The judges responsible for the disaster apologised in different measures –some were defiant. I do not believe that the judiciary would have survived this debacle but for Justice Krishna Iyer inspiring Justices P.N. Bhagwati, Y.V. Chandrachud (those two being party to the Emergency decision), Chinnappa Reddy, D.A. Desai and others to rely on a new approach and jurisprudence.

But as far as judicial appointments were concerned, the end result was that the Supreme Court in three important decisions of 1982, 1993 and 1998 struck back to eventually give itself dominant control over appointment through high court Collegiums and finally, as the decider in the Supreme Court collegium.

But this dominant power has been thwarted by covert and overt government interference. In 2014 the constitution was amended to create an independent National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC). This was struck down by the Supreme Court as politically dominated in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. case (2016).

Although I participated in the case that led to the NJAC’s downfall, I am not sure if I was right. Maybe the NJAC would have been more transparent, as my personal faith in the collegiums has declined. But I remain unsure. What we need is a wide–based commission whose decisions are ratified by parliament.

I also believe that in Modi’s time, the judiciary has sought to be saffronised with independent judges like S. Muralidhar taken out and regime judges like Victoria Gowri and Shekhar Yadav brought in. How much saffronisation? I cannot say, as this requires more research.

The entire controversy over Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure was really over his failure to protect the checks and balances of the constitution, in his decisions as master of the roster to allocate cases, in judicial appointments with perceived religious biases, and his almost psychotic love for publicity.

So how have the justice texts fared? In response, the Supreme Court has spread itself into too many areas. The judiciary is overburdened. But the courts, especially the Supreme Court, still have the respect of the people. If the courts act independently and remain independent, there is more than hope for the future. However, we must remind ourselves again that the justice texts are not just to the judiciary but also to the other organs of government; and, of course, all of us.

The federal texts reflect India’s diversity. India now has 28 full fledged states and nine Union territories administered by the Union with some democratic governance in Delhi and Puducherry. After the dismemberment of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), there is one less state and two more Union territories, J&K and Ladakh.

These constitutional divisions are based on linguistic and cultural differences and strengthen diversity, secularism, democracy and governance itself. However, the working of Indian federalism has led to critical attention through public discourse, the Governors’ Report (1971), the Tamil Nadu Report (1969), the Sarkaria Commission Report (1988), the Constitution Commission Report (2002) and the Punchi Commission Report (2010). Of all these, the Sarkaria Report is the deepest.

One cannot ignore the vast research done by academics, of which my friend Balveer Arora who is on the stage, and Zoya Hasan are examples, amidst so many others including state governments and a vigilant media.

India has been called a quasi-federal state. The term has gathered currency because of the dominance of the Union and its huge powers. This argument of central domination is partly unsatisfactory, because all large federations are centralised in their power distribution but should be more sensitive in their working. Elsewhere I have argued in 1966 that India is quasi–federal because territorial integrity is denied to the states.

Gautam Bhatia, a distinguished jurist, in his latest book Constitution of India (2025) shows that the Supreme Court has contributed to this centralisation. This is only partly true, but the court has also tried to arrest the abuse of political federalism and has recently given greater mining rights to the states and chastised the outrageous behaviour of governors appointed by the BJP to behave responsibly in the discharge of their constitutional functions.

Governors have become political ‘hitmen’ for the government in power at the Centre. More recently, their conduct has become embarrassingly perverse.

The federal texts demand “cooperative” federalism. We can see this in Canada and perhaps Australia, but less so in America after the election of President Trump. Cooperative federalism is partly through institutions like the Inter-State Council (Article 263) or where there is meaningful exchange at formal and informal levels in respect of the distribution of power, the allocation of finances, interaction and mutual respect for each other’s governance. But this requires political will, often lacking in Indian federalism.

The Inter-State Council, which was resurrected after four decades, has fallen into disuse. Political interference is manifest in many ways. It began aggressively during the first reign of Mrs Gandhi when she used the President’s Rule provisions in Article 356 to oust and demolish opposition parties that had succeeded at the polls to establish their governments in many states.

Other political parties have also used these provisions mercilessly. The Janata government dismissed nine opposition governments in 1977 claiming a massive electoral mandate and the Congress returned to do the same in 1980.

These travesties continue. President’s Rule has been imposed 134 times, including 11 during the BJP’s tenure since 2014.

I believe that Article 356, which houses the power to impose President’s Rule, should be abolished, because as a result of these impositions, democratically elected governments simply disappear and consequently the state is run by parliament and the executive at the Centre.

External threats and public order problems can be dealt with by cooperative means. The general Emergency provisions (Article 352) or financial emergency provisions (Article 360) can be invoked with caution, because under this use of Emergency powers, democratically elected state governments survive as they should. This is also a part of the sustained duty of the Union under Article 355, which states that “it shall be the duty of the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”.

Although this has been emphasised because of the need to deal with war and revolts and also justify the imposition of President’s Rule in erring states, it gives the Union ample power to protect the nation; and properly interpreted, imposes a duty not to take over the democratic governance of the state but enhance it without imposing President’s Rule and abolishing legislative democracy in the states.

At the core of the abuse of political federalism are the governors appointed by the Union government. I believe that earlier some governors acted with constitutional honesty even though it was often with disastrous results. When I interviewed governor Dharma Vira for a book, he told me that he may not have been wholly correct in not giving the Mukherjee ministry the 18 extra days it wanted to face the assembly. I also believe that my father, governor Shanti Swaroop Dhavan, should have allowed Jyoti Basu to have formed a minority government in West Bengal.

Some but not all governors acted with honesty. But the BJP’s governors like Jagdeep Dhankhar (West Bengal), R. N. Ravi (Tamil Nadu) and Arif Mohammad Khan (Kerala) are a disgrace to the office. Dhankhar as vice president continues to espouse the BJP’s politics, refusing to maintain the neutrality of his office.

I believe governor selection needs approval by an evenly politically distributed parliamentary committee after extended consultation with the state in question to result in the appointment of non-partisan governors who should not be transferred until they complete their five–year term unless impeached earlier. After their term, they should be ineligible for further gubernatorial office more than twice after going through impartial selection again for a possible second term.

Who should form a ministry after election or otherwise cannot be decided in Raj Bhawans. Even a minority ministry of the largest party or coalition should not be enjoined to face a ‘confidence’ motion. Once sworn in, they should only be toppled by a ‘non-confidence’ motion. This should be true of parliament and state assemblies. An instrument of instructions needs to be devised.

Abuse of political federalism was addressed by the Supreme Court in the Bommai case (1992) and the Rameshwar case (2005) to provide for judicial review of the decisions to impose President’s Rule. When the Uttarakhand President’s Rule was struck down by the high court, the BJP government was indignant and discriminated against the judge’s elevation to the Supreme Court.

We should remember that judicial review is a backstop. It would be better for the Presidents Rule provisions to be abolished.

A distinguishable feature of Indian federalism is its asymmetry. Not all states are alike and cannot be treated as such. This asymmetry is manifest in special provisions in the constitution for the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa and Karnataka.

For Nagaland and Mizoram, even the parliament cannot interfere with cultural religious practices (Article 371 and 371 A to J). Areas of states with tribal populations are protected (Fifth Schedule) even if Supreme Court decisions in the Andhra and Chhattisgarh cases have been conservative in not providing for a protective shield in this Schedule.

Significantly for Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram, there are constitutions within the constitution in these states (Sixth Schedule), with other significant autonomies (Article 244A).

Given this, it should not surprise us that the state of J&K was governed by two interacting constitutions at the Union and state levels. The provisions for these two constitutions was called ‘temporary’ because the J&K state constitution was yet to be finalised not as the Supreme Court used this term to destroy the J&K state constitution through executive decisions and legislation passed hurriedly through parliamentary majorities.

Succumbing to the government, the Supreme Court upheld these decisions of a BJP majority parliament with no discussion. This merits an explanation.

In 1957, parliament enacted the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, whereby two provisions (Articles 152 and 308) ordained that parts of the Indian constitution relating to the constitutional governance of state governments (some 100 Articles) and administrative services (some 50 Articles) would not apply to J&K because they were covered by the J&K constitution. These important provisions could only be changed by the rigorous procedure of constitutional amendment (Article 368).

But, subverting this, the Supreme Court decided that they could be changed by executive order without confronting this argument at the bar.

The J&K imbroglio rested on provisions in the constitution to alter state boundaries or change their status (Articles 3-4). These are draconian provisions which could be used to deny the territorial integrity or constitutional status of a state. These provisions may have been necessary because many aspects of the Indian federation were incomplete when the constitution was inaugurated in 1950. These provisions provide for consultation of the state legislature which, the Supreme Court in Babu Ram’s case (1960) diluted.

In the case of J&K, since there was President’s Rule in the state, parliament was unable to consult the state legislature and de-facto consulted itself as a substitute. Those provisions should be reconsidered and amended for more and better consultation.

It is time that India realised that except for large States like Uttar Pradesh or the singular case of Vidarbha, the territorial process that forms the basis of Indian federalism is now complete. When the J&K case reached the Supreme Court, the judges colluded to reduce a mighty and respected state with Muslim dominance but cultural diversity into two Union territories with a vague promise that statehood would be restored in some uncertain future. This was not the Supreme Court’s finest hour.

All governments need adequate finances. Much can and has been written about India’s financial federation, which provides for fiscal levies by the Union and states with greater powers of taxation in the Union and their distribution and grants by the Union government. Reports of the Finance Commissions have been pivotal.

The Planning Commission was a supra-constitutional body now replaced by the truncated NITI Aayog. The 15th Finance Commission, which came into play in November 2017 in the aftermath of the then–recently introduced GST, was reposed with a continuing function to examine grants and review tax devolution to honour the conditions under which it was created and with a caveat on performance–based incentives which may eclipse endemic need–based requirements. This commission favoured the Union government.

GST poses a problem as the GST Council has recommendatory problems and an essential dispute–settlement machinery has not been set up.

A distorted political federalism has joined hands with economic federalism. There is rank favouritism towards those political parties in power that have joined or allied with the BJP–dominated National Democratic Alliance in power in the Union government. The other opposition states are under–resourced. In federal matters, existing checks and balances are being undermined and old statutory mechanisms are being dismantled. New mechanisms undermine a healthy financial federalism.

The civil service texts are important for the selection of the civil services. These are the backbone of Indian governance. To obviate political interferences, the selection of civil servants was entrusted to Public Service Commissions for the Union and states to ensure the independent selection of civil servants, including the police (Part XIV, Articles 308-323).

To ensure that civil servants act independently, there are provisions to ensure that they are not dismissed, removed or reduced in rank without due process (Articles 311-312). The idea was that they should be able to stand up to the political executive without fear or favour.

Unfortunately, successive political executives have violated these provisions, with the result that there is mighty litigation by civil servants in tribunals, high courts and up to the Supreme Court. What a colossal mess. The very size of this litigation shows that members of the civil services are disgruntled by constantly arbitrary and discriminatory treatment by executive governments. This does not augur well for the performance and independence of civil servants.

Remedial litigation also shows how civil servants are transferred if not liked by the political party in power – an issue where the courts have protected the powers of the executive.

Now, the Union government seeks to make outside special appointments in a relatively arbitrary and unregulated way. Checks and balances have gone and need to be restored and innovated.

I now turn to the military texts. Army recruitment is by the Union government, which has generally respected the autonomy of the army, which unlike Pakistan has not converted India’s democratic polity to hand over total powers to the military. But there are provisions in the constitution to modify the fundamental rights chapter in relation to the armed forces and when martial law is in force (Articles 33-34).

Why is this important? The army has a huge presence in the seven northeast states and J&K. They have enormous powers. We challenged the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 with shoot-to–kill powers in the Supreme Court which demurred, refusing to interfere or even lay down guidelines.

At one stage, Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, when chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, called a meeting of all the concerned top generals to meet with activists. This afforded a frank exchange, but the army did not yield to greater accountability even in respect of allowing independent observers in court martials.

Military operations also precipitate a ‘deep’ state where people are killed or illegally detained or imprisoned. This is hidden from view but surfaces. We need to know more about this deep state and have more accountability from the army and military without interfering in operations.

Since the topic for the day is federal democracy, I have addressed the issue more elaborately and mirrored my concern about checks and balances in the working of the constitution. The inauguration of more direct democracy at the village and city level is discussed in the next part although germane to India’s three–tier federalism.

IV. Separation of government from state

The state is created by the constitution which is permanent. Governments formed under te constitution come and go. The latter may make policies but must operate within the framework of constitutional limitations.

I was reminded of this by Balveer Arora’s recent and much publicised television speech. Today’s government and state are being unified as if the constitutionally created state is a play thing. I think Rahul Gandhi was prompted by his advisers to declared that the Congress will take its fight to the state itself. This was an ill-advised comment, which received much flak and reflects ignorance.

Our object is to save the state which is being taken over by the government to rewrite India’s history, diminish diverse cultures and claim absolute powers so that attention is diverted from the constitutional framework and its imperatives to the ambitions of the government in power and the iconisation of leaders to dwarf anything that stands in their way being undermined.

India is not Indira nor is Indira is India. Nor Modi is India and India is Modi.

V. Constitutional morality

When Ambedkar reviewed the constitution making of the Constituent Assembly, he expressed two caveats of considerable significance.

The first was that this ‘magnificent’ constitution would fail if good men failed to implement it.

The second connected concern was expressed by referring to George Grote’s view of constitutional morality in ancient Greece. This was generally ignored because the members of that august body believed that there were enough men and women of character amongst them and their successors who would take over constitutional governance even though they were wary that many constitutional provisions had flaws and could be politically subverted.

Even so, they believed that in the constitution’s processes and institutions with its checks and balances would work even after partition and Gandhi’s demise.

It is said that in one memoir written by someone other than Gandhi, it was projected that the latter believed in direct democracy at village levels which though inserted in the unenforceable Directive Principles emphasised the importance of panchayats at the grassroots level.

Perhaps this dream was fulfilled in part by the panchayats amendments in rural area and urban settings (Part IX – Article 243(H) to 243(T)). Added to this dream was the Panchayat Extension to Schedule Areas Act, 1996, which gives a dominant role to gram sabhas consisting of the entire village population to control predatory mining entrepreneurs and others.

My dear friend B.D. Sharma, in his weekly meetings with me, felt that the Act has lost its efficiency because the decisions of the direct democracy sabhas were not mandatory.

What our constitution needs are structural changes to promote democracy at all levels and also address the issue of an ‘operational’ morality to address not just the silences of the constitution but its operation across the board. This does not require a new constitution, but a partial re-examination based on consensus.

A new breakthrough came when the Fundamental Rights case (1973) decided that the basic structure of the constitution could not be altered by constitutional amendments. This could have been a doctrine of limited significance if it applied only to arrest constitutional amendments. But Bommai (1992) also used this doctrine to examine the executive action of imposing President’s Rule on various states and declaring that ‘secularism’ was part of the basic structure which was violated by these impositions.

Needless to say, democracy, judicial review and the independence of the judiciary are also part of the basic structure as well as aspects of fundamental rights as explained by Chief Justice Chandrachud (senior) in the Minerva Mills case (1978), which linked the equality, freedom and liberty provisions as part of a celebrated ‘golden triangle’.

It was not entirely clear whether the basic structure provisions could invalidate statutes and were only a means of interpretation. The better view is that it has more general application.

Perhaps born out of the basic structure doctrine, but standing tall as a self standing imperative for constitutional understanding and interpretation, it has bred more radical versions, described and articulated as ‘transformational’ morality on ‘constitutional novelty’. These are innovative doctrines not just, as Madan Lokur pointed out, to deal with the silences of the constitution, but of greater significance. It grew from Supreme Court decisions of Justices Dipak Misra and Chandrachud with some support from others.

My basic concern about constitutional morality is its relativism. Whose constitutional morality? The court’s? Or some judges’? Do Modi and the Sangh parivar have a different “Hindu” view of constitutional morality to rewrite history or legislate for change or even press for a new Hindu constitution which is being explored? Was a Uniform Civil code an issue of constitutional morality?

Judges have differed on its content and application. In the Sabarimala case (2019), Justice Chandrachud emphasised the egalitarian and libertarian provisions of the constitutional text as constitutional morality. Justice Indu Malhotra emphasised plural secularism. Both views led to different results.

At the end of my now dated book on President’s Rule in the States (1979), I talked all too briefly of institutional morality. By this I meant that every institutional authority, every constitutional or statutory functionary and every process of governance has a best practice.

Without elaborating, I wanted all those in power to yearn towards the best practice constituting institutional morality; and to advance the dharma of constitutional governance. Subjectively, this draws sustenance from the Mahabharata to ask each one to find their dharma and move towards its fulfillment of best practice. Many fall short of this requirement – as they do in our time. But I believe institutional morality to be a more workable solution.

VI. Conclusion

I will not attempt a summary of what I have said on elected dictatorship, the checks and balances of the constitution, its manifestation in the five texts of the constitution (the political or democratic texts, the justice texts, the federal texts, the civil service text and the military texts), the need to separate government from the state and exploring the morality of the constitution.

My concern reflects on our challenges in 2025 as they have now emerged after 75 years of governance with all their ups and downs. These challenges have to be addressed by civil and political society and all of us whose future destinies are invested in this great nation for now and generations to come.

To borrow from an American poet: India is large and contains multitudes.

This article is based on the author’s lecture delivered at the India International Centre on January 25, 2025.

Rajeev Dhavan is a senior advocate.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post India Is an Elected Dictatorship Where Constitutionalism Is Under Attack From Within appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This rising pattern of authoritarianism of ruling dispensation from last one decade was the major factor in the coming together of most of the opposition parties coming together to form INDIA coalition, despite many inner contradictions. The overall impact of the coalition, with Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo and Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra and the social groups forming the platforms like Eddulu Karnataka and Bharat Jodo Abhiyan impacted the Lok Sabha results and the target of BJP to cross 400 seats in Lok Sabha was quashed.

It is true that the progression of the INDIA alliance did not go in the desired direction of forming an ongoing platform for state elections. This was one of the reasons for the set back to the INDIA alliance partners in Maharashtra and Haryana election. The added cause was the renewed attempt by all RSS affiliates to work for BJP. This is nothing new but probably during Lok Sabha elections J.P. Nadda’s statement that BJP does not need the help of RSS as it is now capable of winning on its own.

It seems the important need of INDIA alliance to strengthen itself post Lok Sabha elections has been ignored with many constituents declaring their aloofness from this and the biggest opposition party, the Congress not having taken any major initiative. It is worthwhile to note that the CPI (M), the ideologically strong component of this alliance is having second thoughts on the issue as its Acting General Secretary Prakash Karat stated that “The opposition INDIA bloc was formed for the Lok Sabha elections and not state polls… and called for a broader platform of secular opposition parties.

He also said the alliance should be looked at with a broader perspective so that it would not be stifled solely by electoral politics. This is paraphrased by many left leaning intellectuals who are saying that BJP is not exactly a fascist party, Like “Patanaik reasons that while neoliberal capitalism generates a “fascist presence” – manifesting in right-wing authoritarian movements, xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, and eroded democratic norms – it does not necessarily recreate the conditions for full-fledged “fascist states” like in the 1930s.”

While many terms have been used for the rising politics of Hindutva Nationalism, Neo Fascism, proto Fascism and Fundamentalism, the point is that no political phenomenon repeats itself in the same way. Today Hindutva nationalism has many features close to that of Fascism, which was the initial inspiration for the founders of RSS particularly M.S. Golwalkar, who in his “We or Our Nationhood” said “To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races — the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.”

We in India are witnessing many of the traits of fascism, like the Golden past, aspiration for Akhand Bharat, targeting minorities presenting them as enemies of the nation, authoritarianism, promoting big business, stifling the freedom of expression and dominating the social thinking. Here we are witnessing the intolerance to freedom of expression as recently witnessed in the case of Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, saying that “…the RSS is poison. They are trying to destroy the soul of the country. We should be fearful about that because if the soul is lost, everything is lost.” Tushar Gandhi was asked to apologize and to take back his words. He did neither, and now he is facing death threats.

With the vast spread of RSS and hundreds of its organization, thousands of its pracharaks and lakhs of its activists, it is threatening the idea of India which emerged from the Freedom Movement. The values of the freedom movement got expression in our Constitution, which is based on the equal right of all the citizens and is inclusive to the core. RSS did plant its ideology, which is opposed to the values of freedom movement and Indian Constitution, through its vastly growing network.

It initially created hatred for Muslims by abusing history, as witnessed currently in Maharashtra where demands for uprooting the tomb of Aurnagzeb is priority number one for the ruling BJP. Currently it is also targeting the major leader of the freedom movement, Mahatma Gandhi by propagating that he had no role in getting us freedom, many of its social media posts going to the extent that Gandhi sabotaged our freedom movement.

The list is long. What is to be done today? Karat is right that a broader secular platform has to be created. The INDIA coalition was precisely the first step in this journey. The need is to strengthen this alliance much further. The rough edges in the coalition need to be sorted out and Karat’s party with over million members can play a major role in boosting this alliance further, despite some contradictions among the coalition partners. For bigger reasons, small sacrifices by the constituents; is mandatory.

To back this up the social groups also need to continue their great work done in the wake of 2024 Lok Sabha elections, which the National Secular Coalition can initiate. The exact characterization of the present regime, Fascist or having elements of fascism or whatever the strategy in India should be a broader platform, with more energy and dynamism, which we witnessed on the eve of 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Related:

Hindu festivals and sectarian nationalist politics

Attempts to Undermine Gandhi’s Contribution to Freedom Movement: Musings on Gandhi’s Martyrdom Day

Between Hope and Despair: 75 Years of Indian Republic

The post Striving to Promote Democracy: Values of the Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This article discusses how delimitation has become important to maintain political equity in the nation, why it is being opposed by some states now, and what can be done to overcome this deadlock.

Delimitation: why and how?

The very foundation of a robust democracy rests on the principle of fair and equitable representation. In India, this principle is periodically reinforced through a process known as delimitation – the act of fixing the limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies for legislative bodies. This crucial exercise ensures that the voice of every citizen carries roughly the same weight in the electoral process. As the nation approaches 2026, the prospect of a new delimitation exercise, mandated by the Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act of 2002, has ignited discussions and debates across the political spectrum. Concerns have been particularly vocal from the southern states, highlighting the significant political ramifications this redrawing of electoral maps –merely or solely on the basis of population parameters–could entail. Punjab too has voiced its concerns over delimitation and the potential loss of its political power.

The genesis of delimitation in India lies in the fundamental need to uphold democratic ideals. The architects of the Indian Constitution envisioned this process to guarantee equal representation for all citizens. This means ensuring that the number of constituents represented by each Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) remains largely consistent across the country, in proportion to the population of the state. That means, the larger the state in terms of its population, the higher the number of people it can send to Lok Sabha. Over time, populations grow and migrate, leading to uneven demographic shifts across regions. Without periodic adjustments to constituency boundaries, some areas would become significantly overrepresented or underrepresented, thereby undermining the principle of “one person, one vote, and one value”. To address these dynamic demographic realities, Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution explicitly require the revision of parliamentary and state assembly seats following each census.

What does the Constitution say?

Article 82 mandates that, after each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People (Lok Sabha) to the states and the division of each state into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by an authority determined by Parliament through law. This readjustment does not affect the current Lok Sabha until it is dissolved. The changes take effect from a date specified by the President, and until then, elections can be held based on the existing constituencies. Until the census after 2026, the allocation based on the 1971 census and the constituencies based on the 2001 census remain unchanged.

Article 81 of the Constitution talks about the composition of House of People (Lok Sabha). Article 81(2) states that, the seats allotted to each state shall be commensurate to the ratio between the number of seats and population of the state and will be the same for all states, as far as practicable. To understand this, with a simplified example: if State A has 50 million people and gets 50 seats, then State B with 30 million should get 30 seats to maintain the same ratio. This has however been changed with the freeze on delimitation under Article 82.

Article 170 outlines the composition of the Legislative Assemblies of states. Each Legislative Assembly must have between 60 and 500 members, chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies. The constituencies are divided in such a way that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it is, as far as practicable, the same throughout the state. After each census, the total number of seats and the division into constituencies are readjusted by an authority and in a manner determined by Parliament through law. This readjustment does not affect the existing Assembly until its dissolution.

India has witnessed four delimitation exercises since its independence. The first was conducted in 1952 based on the 1951 census, followed by exercises in 1963 (based on the 1961 census), 1973 (based on the 1971 census), and most recently in 2002 (based on the 2001 census). These commissions were tasked with redrawing constituency boundaries to ensure a more equitable distribution of population across electoral units. Notably, the delimitation exercise of 2002, while adjusting constituency boundaries, maintained the total number of Lok Sabha seats at 543, a figure that has remained constant since the 1973 delimitation. The table below illustrates the history of delimitation commissions in India:

What lies at the core of the issue now?

The journey towards the upcoming delimitation in 2026 has been marked by significant political decisions, particularly the freezing of the process for several decades. In 1976, during the Emergency, the government enacted the 42nd Amendment Act, which froze the delimitation of Lok Sabha and state assembly constituencies until after the first census following the year 2000. A primary motivation behind this freeze was to encourage states to actively pursue population control measures without fearing a reduction in their political representation in the Lok Sabha. The logic was that states making progress in family planning should not be penalised by losing parliamentary seats to states with higher population growth rates. Subsequently, the 84th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 extended this freeze until the first census taken after 2026. This extension reflected the continued concerns about disparities in population growth across different regions of the country. Southern states, having achieved greater success in implementing population control measures, were particularly apprehensive about a delimitation exercise based on more recent census data, fearing a potential decrease in their representation compared to states with higher population growth.

Implications of delimitation on the Indian Polity: lessons from past projections

The impending delimitation exercise after 2026 carries profound implications for India’s democratic polity, potentially reshaping the political landscape of the nation. One of the most significant anticipated impacts is the shift in the allocation of Lok Sabha seats among states. Given the demographic trends, with northern states generally experiencing higher population growth compared to their southern counterparts, projections indicate a potential increase in the number of parliamentary seats for states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, while southern states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana might witness marginal gains or even a decrease in their representation. This demographic redistribution could lead to a significant shift in political power within the Lok Sabha, granting more influence to the more populous northern states. Adding to this possibility is the speculation about an overall increase in the total number of Lok Sabha seats, potentially linked to the enhanced capacity of the new parliament building. While an increase in the total number of seats might cushion the impact on southern states, the relative balance of power is still likely to tilt towards the north.

Beyond the allocation of general seats, the delimitation exercise will also impact the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The number of constituencies reserved for these communities is determined based on their proportion of the total population in each state. Consequently, the delimitation process will likely lead to adjustments in the geographical distribution of these reserved seats to align with the latest census data on the SC and ST populations.

Southern States and opposition to delimitation: key concerns and arguments

These anticipated shifts have understandably generated concerns among certain states, particularly in South India. The apprehension stems from the possibility of reduced parliamentary representation, which could impact their ability to effectively voice regional concerns and influence national policymaking. A key argument put forth by these states is that they have successfully implemented population control measures and have also made significant contributions to the national economy. They argue against a scenario where their progress in these areas could lead to a diminishment of their political clout, potentially disrupting the federal balance.

There is also a concern regarding the potential impact of delimitation on the representation of Muslim communities in certain constituencies. The redrawing of boundaries or the designation of constituencies as reserved could inadvertently affect the existing representation patterns of religious minorities in specific regions. In the recently concluded delimitation process of Assam—a state with 35% of Muslim population— the number of assembly constituencies in Muslim-majority districts has decreased while those in areas inhabited by communities considered indigenous to Assam has increased. The state also saw its hard-line Hindutva Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of the BJP call for a delimitation “that should be done in such a manner that the rights of indigenous people are protected.” If Assam’s recent delimitation—where Muslim-majority constituencies shrank while those in indigenous-dominated areas expanded—serves as a precedent for the rest of India, the process raises serious concerns. When paired with the ruling establishment’s open hostility toward minorities, exemplified by hate speeches from leaders including the Prime Minister during the 2024 General Elections, it becomes difficult to trust the government’s intentions or the impartiality of the institutions overseeing delimitation, especially vis-à-vis representation of minorities.

Furthermore, the upcoming delimitation is intrinsically linked to the implementation of the Women’s Reservation Act, which mandates 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha. This landmark legislation is expected to be implemented after the delimitation process is completed in 2026, as the finalisation of constituency boundaries is a prerequisite for reserving seats for women.

The WHYs on both sides

Those who call for delimitation wants it for simple purpose that it was the original design to preserve and further democratic functioning and legitimacy of the state. Delimitation would allow more people to be represented by their own representative as the population grows in each constituency.

For example, under 2011 census—Uttar Pradesh has 80 Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha) for 19.98 Crore people. Means, a Lok Sabha MP for almost 25 lakh people. Similarly, the combined Andhra Pradesh state had 42 Lok Sabha MPs for 8.46 Crore people, one Lok Sabha MP per 20 Lakh people. Similarly for Kerala, there is one Lok Sabha MP per 16 lakh people, according to the 2011 Census. This means that the political will of 16 lakh people in Kerala is equal to 25 lakh people in Uttar Pradesh despite the latter being significantly higher. Delimitation, if carried out, would ensure that those extra 10 lakh people are also represented better.

However, the postponement of delimitation was agreed to by all the parties since then and last time it was done so, was in 2001 via the 84^th Constitutional Amendment Act. Therefore, the question of its democratic legitimacy does not arise. A major concern surrounding delimitation is its potential to reshape political influence at the national level. Southern states, where population growth has slowed, fear that losing Lok Sabha seats would weaken their voice in Parliament.

In a country with strong fiscal centralisation—where the Union government controls revenue collection and redistribution—political power at the Centre translates directly into financial security. This concern is reflected in the recent budgetary allocations to Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, where the NDA’s survival in the Lok Sabha rests on the mercy of regional allies TDP and JDU—an arrangement that has conveniently translated into generous financial support from the Centre.

Therefore, fewer seats could mean less leverage in securing resources, leaving these states at a disadvantage. The possibility of political manipulation through the strategic redrawing of constituency boundaries, also known as gerrymandering, is another concern highlighted by experts.

This issue is compounded by the original intent behind the freeze on delimitation. It was designed to prevent states that successfully implemented family planning measures from being penalized with reduced representation. While the extended freeze has been widely accepted, the core principle remains sensitive—why should states that stabilised their populations now be at risk of losing political power? To them, this feels less like a neutral realignment and more like a penalty for progress.

What are the proposed solutions?

Various alternative solutions have been proposed to mitigate the potential negative consequences of a purely population-based delimitation. These include suggestions to increase the total number of Lok Sabha seats to accommodate the growing population without reducing representation for any state, reforming the Rajya Sabha to provide greater weightage to states and ensure a more balanced federal representation, decentralising more powers to the states to reduce their dependence on parliamentary representation, and even considering a permanent freeze on interstate redistribution of seats. In the midst of these debates, the ruling establishment has offered assurances that no southern state will experience a loss of seats in the upcoming delimitation exercise.

In particular, the increase of seats overall has been widely suggested since that would not decrease the existing seats for southern states and for states with higher populations, higher seats would secure equitable representation. Even in this case too, a study has revealed that there would be a stark divide between Northern and Southern states. In this paradigm, the five southern states would have 164 seats i.e., 35 more than their current total seats. In the same projection, only Uttar Pradesh would have 143 seats.

Is there a structural issue?

Beyond numbers, delimitation also shapes India’s federal structure. Lok Sabha seats are allocated by population to uphold political equality, but the Constitution does not guarantee fixed representation for states. With each delimitation exercise, the balance of power shifts. A rigid population-based approach, without reforms in fiscal and political decentralisation, risks further centralising authority in the Union government—potentially undermining the very spirit of federalism.

This problem is essentially a contest between the rights of states as federal units and rights of individuals as equal citizens in the political process. One cannot come at the cost of another. However, there is no balancing provision, as of now, which can uphold the rights of states as federal units, where their voices could be given political heft irrespective of their population. This lack of political weight for states solely based on their existence, rather than population, reflects a spill over of the Constitution’s unitary tendencies. If the issue of delimitation is to be solved, once and for all, there needs to be a structural solution which deems states as entities with considerable political power, unlike the current state of things where the Centre can constitutionally redraw state boundaries at will, with or without consultation with the state legislatures. Without addressing such structural problems for states in fiscal, administrative and political arenas, even if delimitation issue is somehow solved, many more stress points will present themselves in the near future from these arenas.

What could be done to solve the structural issue?

If political power in Lok Sabha is what states fear of losing because their interests will not be protected, then more avenues will have to be created to ensure that states secure political power. Lok Sabha cannot be the sole place where states feel secure with their power.

To enhance regional representation, the Rajya Sabha should have greater legislative authority, including higher oversight on national resource allocation. Membership per state should reflect human development, and linguistic diversity, not just population. Rajya Sabha should truly become a house of the states where their concerns are given the utmost importance.

Decentralisation must go beyond constitutional provisions by mandating states to transfer at least 50% of centrally sponsored funds to local governments with decision-making autonomy. A National Local Governance Commission—having effective representation from states, should oversee resource distribution and capacity building, ensuring inclusive and effective governance.

Conclusion

As the nation approaches 2026, the redrawing of electoral boundaries is not merely a technical adjustment but a transformative moment that could recalibrate political power, reshape fiscal priorities, and redefine the social contract between the Union and states. The debate transcends partisan politics, exposing deeper fissures in India’s federal architecture and challenging the delicate balance between individual rights and collective regional aspirations.

At this juncture, the delimitation exercise presents not just a challenge but an opportunity—to reimagine federalism as a dynamic, equitable partnership rather than a hierarchical contract. The path forward requires dialogue that transcends regionalism or majoritarianism, grounded in constitutional morality and a shared vision of inclusive nationhood. Only by harmonizing the democratic principle of equal vote-weight with the federal promise of diverse voices can India ensure that its electoral map reflects both its people and their pluralistic aspirations. In this balance lies the future of the world’s largest democracy.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

What the 2026 delimitation process has in store for Indian Muslims

Election Commission of India receives 467 suggestions and objections over the proposed delimitation exercise in Assam

Protests erupt over ECI’s new delimitation draft in Assam which is embroiled in controversy

Assam: Delimitation of Assembly, Parliamentary Seats, Merging of Districts Raise Apprehensions

The post India at the Crossroads: The delimitation exercise and its implications for democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Many epithets have been used to describe the regime in place at the centre in India since May 2014 and it is no gratification to hear India, always a proud and growing democracy being increasingly described by international institutes as only “partly free” (Freedom House) and a “partially free electoral autocracy.” (Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute). One of the most fundamental and unique aspects of the Indian freedom movement that included within its scope vastly diverse but committed groups and ideologies who saw the exploitation of colonial rule, was the clear articulation for a “one person one vote” system, universal adult franchise.

Dr BR Ambedkar’s articulations before the Southborough Committee (2019) followed by the Motilal Nehru Report (1928) and the resultant Karachi Resolution of the Indian National Congress (1031) buffeted this clearly by ensuring that this – universal adult franchise with  no ifs and buts – became a non-negotiable part of the citizenship project. Not only did this ensure the inclusion of the most marginalised castes, genders and other sections in the Indian decision making process, it also compelled political forces to formulate policies geared to the largest common good. Ambedkar’s articulations was clear when he was categorical that a democratic government was inseparable from the right to vote, and it was voting that would prove to be (one of) the harbinger(s) of political education. India moved from a restrictive 15 per cent of Indians having (limited) voting rights to universal adult franchise, driven by the transformative impetus of the national movement and the ideals of equality and non-discrimination that it threw up.

The world’s largest democracy, India, therefore beat the oldest, the United States of America (USA) when it came to inclusive enfranchisement beyond qualifications. The USA, reeling under the ignominious Jim Crow laws[1] that indirectly disenfranchised racial minorities only gave all citizens the right to vote in 1964 after a Supreme Court’s ruling in Reynolds v/s Sims. [2]

In what seems like clear regression if not an outright counter-revolution, the party and ideological forces in places since May 2014, have in their manipulation and infiltration of institutions ensured that only a skewed version of democracy exists.[3] Post 2014 India has seen a reign of ‘undeclared emergency’ marked by normalisation of terror: a rule by police (law enforcement) raids or executive fiat; where terror and fear of targeted reprisal by the executive affects normative citizens voices and actions, the concentration of brute political power with the state and economic resources with chosen corporates combined with the steady decline of the federal structure of our Constitution has led to an erasure or erosion of democratic values. Crucial institutions of governance have been seen to crumble under this pressure.

On the last day of 2024 it is time to speak only and specifically of the Election Commission of India (ECI) one such that has clearly abdicated any and every semblance of transparency and accountability. If Articles 324-326 enjoin the ECI, a constitutional body to ensure free and fair elections, these articles of the Constitution as its Preamble underline that the ECI is answerable to the Indian people alone not the government in power.  Yet, election after election, especially those held after 2017 –when for the first time a standalone EVM machine was replaced by a three part system (VVPAT attached to a laptop and Symbol Loading Unit) making the EVS open to manipulation—elections have drawn sharp questions from a scattered but active citizenry. The use of hate speech, slur and vitriol by men and women in constitutional posts –including the prime minister and home minister—have gone unchecked despite election law demanding action from the ECI.[4] [5]

2024 saw these questions at their peak. From the general elections that took place in seven phases from April 19 to June 1 2024, to the Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir elections, and finally to the Maharashtra state assembly polls, the questions and anger towards the ECI has not stemmed nor stopped. Towards all these, the ECI has maintained an autocratic and obdurate silence.

Be it TN Seshan or James Lyndhoh in the past, not to mention, Yakub Qureishi these were all chief election commissioners that held governments to account. Today, the men in that position represent a stultified and manipulated Election Commission of India (ECI) that is both structurally and otherwise holding elections in an un-free and un-fair manner violating not just the Preamble of India but Articles 324-326 of the Indian Constitution. Be it in the manipulation of electoral rolls—bogus injection of voters or mass deletion of sections opposed to the BJP, or in the actual manipulation of the Electronic Voting System (EVS) through the vulnerable Symbol Loading Unit and the Microprocessors in the VVPAts. An external laptop is now connected to the Ballot Unit. Both have labile memories and ever since 2017 when the EVM stopped being a standalone unit the vulnerability of external malware changing/shifting and altering votes cast (from one to another candidate and party) began.  Citizens have asked whether it is this possibility of manipulation that is behind the reluctance of the ECI/system to allow the easy checking of the actual microprocessor through independent experts.

Besides these technicalities that are being raised by concerned and active citizens along with experts every day in the public domain, the manner and absence of any transparency in the ECI’s phasing of elections, its obdurate and blind inaction against hate speech during polls (especially when delivered by the prime minister, home minister and other functionaries), its refusal to make 17 C forms public, its flouting of election law and rules by not collecting Index Cards from Returning officers, its changing of data parameters and figures made public (*from 2019 Lok Sabha, 2024 Lok Sabha, Haryana 2024 Vidhan Sabha and 2024 Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha*) makes the actions even more opaque and open to suspicion. In July 2024 the Vote for Democracy Report compiled data and analysis into a report that raised serious issues and questions that remain, to date, unanswered. [6]

On July 19, Citizens served a notice to the ECI that has, to date received no response.[7] The utter and abject refusal of the ECI to answer key questions on the conduct of free and fair elections requires us as citizens to launch grassroots campaigns for a free and fair election, demanding that “Votes Cast be those Counted”, and the removal of the present Election Commissioner. The data collected by the ECI belongs to the Indian people and ECI must function in the interests of the people and not the regime in power.

Among the key aspects of the defaulting conduct by the ECI is its continuing failure to release all data of votes polled and counted, it’s shifting and changing parameters of data release (releasing percentages of voting that too not constituency but district wise) and its over-centralisation of the process, weakening of the Returning Officers role, powers and accountability. The fact that it is the BJP party that has emerged victorious in many if not all the elections as the process because more obscure has not helped matters.

In the latter part of 2023, in his Paper titled “Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy,” (2023) scholar Sabyasachi Das, formerly of the Ashoka University who studied the 2019 General Election to Parliament, says that electoral manipulation can take place at the stage of voter registration (registration manipulation) or at the time of voting or counting (turnout manipulation).  Both the recently conducted Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha elections (November 2024) and the upcoming Delhi state elections (2025) have been marked by serious allegations of mass deletions of legitimate voters and significant additions of possibly “bogus voters.” Between April-June 2024 and November 2024, ECI’s own figures show a 41 lakh increase in voters in the states. The opposition Congress has alleged that the seats that benefitted from this unusual and unaccounted increase benefitted the ruling combine. No coherent answer to the detailed representation has come from the ECI.

Das’ 2023 analysis showed how, at the time of voter registration, manipulation is also done in the form of targeted deletion of names of voters who are unlikely to vote for the incumbent party. At the time of voting, polling officers can strategically discriminate against registered voters, who are likely to vote against the ruling dispensation. Manipulation can take place at the time of counting of votes due to confusion created by variations in voter turnout data and percentages as well as weak or prejudiced monitoring by counting observers appointed by the ECI who are from the State Civil Service (SCS), as opposed to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) especially those coming from beneficiary states who are pliable. Both these manipulations allegedly happened in the 2024 election also and ECI neither took preventive steps, nor acted upon the many complaints sent to them.

Other questions that are blowing in the wind, answered and unaddressed are:

• Several candidates who lost by narrow margins have complained of a 99 per cent battery in the EVM machine when counting started in certain booths that is unlikely given the battery usage for polling on polling day
• There have been no answers for mismatch in Form 17C and final results displayed by CU (even if one machine shows this anomaly) –Lok Sabha polls
• The ECI has no answers as to why it did not disclose the ABSOLUTE NUMBERS in the first 2 phases of Lok Sabha 2024
• There was no explanation given for unexplained and sudden power cuts during counting
• There was no explanation given for –in certain cases—EVMs being taken out of strong rooms
• There has been no explanation for ruling party candidates accessing mobile phones used by DEOs feeding the data in the ENCORE APP
• There has been absolutely no explanation or answer given for the high, absurdly illogical and abnormal rise in Voter Turn Out (VTR) percentage over two to more days before counting. (In earlier elections pre-2019 this percentage did not vary beyond 1-2 per cent). With the general elections 2024 and state elections this year variations have been from 6-11 per cent!
• There have been no answers foe the ECI’s inaction for its inaction against prime minister, Narendra Modi’s communal slurs during the Lok Sabha 2024 polls and his open fluting of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and provisions of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951
• No answers for the sharp increase and addition of voters between GE 2024 and Maharashtra Elections 2024
• No answers for the time allowed to the Shinde-Fadnavis-Pawar Government to pay the instalments of freebies to the voters August to October 2024
• No answers for the valid questions raised by technical experts regarding vulnerability of VVPAT, due to its connection with the internet and its potentially dubious role in transferring spurious or manipulated votes to the Counting Unit (CUY)
• No answers as to whether the ECI is in independent control of the Source code in the EVS Unit and why this cannot be made public
• No answers as to why BJP’s members are on the Board of Directors of Government Companies viz. ECIL and BEL, which manufacture the EVMs

Rules that empower citizens and candidates

• Under Rule 32(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules (RER), 1960, the authenticated printed copy of the electoral roll is available at the District Election Officer, on a permanent basis.
• As per Rule 31(e) of the RER, 1960, all the related papers which led to the revision of the electoral rolls viz. enumeration pads, copies of the roll used for house-to house verification, manuscripts prepared on the basis thereof, claims and objections and applications for correction of entries and transposition of entries (Forms 6, 6A, 7, 8 and 8A), and all papers connected with their disposal, shall be retained for at least three years after next revision of electoral rolls.
• As per the Rule 33, the Electoral Rolls and connected papers, as mentioned above, are open for inspection for any person, on payment of the stipulated fee. These rules are not amended and can be used to verify the issues in question.

For India and Indians to celebrate our democracy, we must insist that these questions are answered, that the Election Commission of India bows to the questions raised by the We the People of India. If a weak and confused Opposition flounders, citizens and independent media need to carry the flag. Of Resistance and Accountability.

Happy New Year. Welcome 2025.

[1] The Jim Crow laws were a body of discriminatory legislation, state and local laws introduced in the Southern United States in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries that enforced racial segregation. ‘Jim Crow’ is a perjorative term used for African Americans. The last of the Jim Crow laws were overturned in 1965.

[2] Before this, The Warren Court’s decisions on two previous landmark cases—Baker v/s Carr (1962) and Wesberry v Sanders (1964)—also played a fundamental role in establishing the nationwide “one man, one vote” electoral system

[3] While India experienced a political emergency declared by a previous Congress government between 1975-1977 that also snatched basic human rights, caused disappearances and ran interference with the higher judiciary, the elections declared by prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1977 were free and fair, sweeping her out of power.

[4] In its Report titled “Is the Indian EVM and VVPAT System Fit for Democratic Elections?” released in January, 2021 and submitted to ECI, Citizens Commission on Election (CCE) had said that EVM system does not provide provable guarantees against hacking, tampering and spurious vote injections and the VVPAT system as practiced does not allow the voter to verify the slip before the vote is cast and the absence of E2E verification would lead to voting and counting manipulation and had suggested remedial measures. ECI did not bother to respond.[https://constitutionalconduct.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/citizens-commission-on-elections-vol.-i.pdf].

[5] In August/September 2023, civil society submitted a Memorandum to ECI signed by about 10,000 voters making a specific demand: “The VVPAT system should be re-calibrated to be fully voter-verifiable. A voter should be able to get the VVPAT slip in her hand and cast it in a chip-free ballot box for the vote to be valid. These VVPAT slips should be fully counted first for all constituencies before the results are declared.” [https://www.change.org/p/ecisveep-eci-must-implement-its-constitutional-mandate-to-conduct-free-and-fair-election]. ECI did not even acknowledged this Memorandum leave alone acting upon it.

[6] The report was made public and can be viewed and accessed here:
https://votefordemocracy.org.in/

[7] The Notice served to the ECI may be read here https://votefordemocracy.org.in/

The post Is India’s unique experiment on people’s democracy with the right to universal franchise being lampooned by a compliant Election Commission? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The concern arises from the much referred to conduct of the statutory body, the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the ECI’s refusal to disclose the exact numbers of votes cast in each booth of every constituency and to make form 17(C) of conduct of election Rules available to the public, along with the minimal action taken against hate speech targeting minorities and opposition parties by senior leaders of the ruling party, are major concerns.

All these former High Court judges, who have no affiliation to any political party, but strongly committed to the ideals enshrined in the Constitution of India, and to the values of electoral democracy, have penned this communication “with a deep anguish at the recent and present goings-on with regard to the parliamentary elections-2024.”

The signatories are G.M. Akbar Ali, former judge, Madras High Court,  Aruna Jagadeesan, former judge, Madras High Court, D. Hariparanthaman, former judge, Madras High Court, Anjana Prakash, former judge, Patna High Court, P.R. Shivakumar, former judge, Madras High Court,  C.T. Selvam, former judge, Madras High Court and S. Vimala, former judge, Madras High Court.

“India is going through an electoral process of immense importance that could determine the very future of its democracy and survival of its constitution. The polling is finally over and June 4, 2024 will be the final chapter of the eighteenth general elections to the Parliament of the world’s most populous country. During this protracted and massive exercise, more than anyone else, India’s working people, its farmers, its women and its youth have reaffirmed their abiding faith in India’s democracy by lining up in large numbers even in the searing heat of summer” states the letter.

The higher judiciary, the election commission, the chief electoral officers in every state and returning officers are the constitutional authorities vested with the onerous responsibility of the free and fair conduct of elections in such a way as to retain the faith of ordinary citizens.

“Several events over the past weeks are making for a very grim storyline; one that may possibly end in a violent conclusion. These are genuine apprehensions in the minds of the vast majority of our people. Reputed civil and human rights organizations and activists have also echoed the same apprehension. There was genuine concern about the way the General Election – 2024 is being conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and that if the present ruling dispensation loses people’s mandate the transition of power may not be smooth and there could be a constitutional crisis.

“In this context the signatories have also referred to the open statement issued by Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG) of former civil servants on 25 May 2024:

“… During the 2024 general elections, concerns have been raised at many points about the fairness of the elections… It pains us to say that no Election Commission in the past has been as reluctant as the present one to discharge its duties, despite violations being repeatedly brought to its attention by responsible organisations and respected members of society.”

Stating that they are constrained to agree with the scenario envisaged in the above statement: “In the event of a hung parliament, onerous responsibilities will be placed upon the shoulders of the President of India. We are sure that she will follow the established democratic precedent of first inviting the pre-poll alliance that garnered the largest number of seats. Also, that she would endeavour to pre-empt the possibilities of horse-trading….”

Since, “at this critical juncture, the Supreme Court of India, as the final authority vested with power by “We, the People” to defend and protect the Constitution and democracy, should be ready to take proactive action to prevent any potential catastrophe or to address any monstrous situations that may arise during counting and declaration of results of candidates who have contested in Lok Sabha 2024 elections, requiring immediate intervention by the Honorable Supreme Court.

Hence, therefore, “We, The People of India,” as Citizens of a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic hereby call upon the Supreme Court to ensure presence and attendance of the top five esteemed Justices of the Supreme Court even during the period of the ongoing summer vacation and be available to respond in the event of any constitutional crisis that might emerge in the present situation.

The letter also states that the signatories hope that their “apprehensions are wrong and the elections would end smoothly with counting of votes and declaration of results done in a fair and honest manner and formation of parliament as well as transition of power taking place as per the mandate of the people without a hiccup. Nevertheless, the undersigned believe in the old adage- ‘prevention is better than cure!’”

Hence the communication is a reminder to “each of the authorities and institutions charged with the integrity of the process of democratic government formation of their paramount duty to abide by and uphold the Constitution of India”.

The communication “brings forth the solemn pledge that India’s first citizen, the President of India, takes to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law” and to devote herself “to the service and the well-being of the people of India.” The signatories have expressed the expectation and faith that it is these principles that will be Smt Murmu’s guiding light and the. The guiding light of all concerned.

The letter may be read in full here:

The post Protect Electoral Democracy, defend the Constitution and the law: Judges to President of India, Chief Justice of India and ECI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Prabir Purkayastha, a 75-year old senior journalist, author, and founding editor of the independent newsportal Newsclick, whose office and home were repeatedly searched for weeks on end for incriminating evidence without any being found, has been arrested and, despite being imprisoned for nearly six months, is yet to be served a charge-sheet; the harmful effects of such an action on media independence are obvious for everyone to see, says the statement.

A group of prominent international scholars, academicians, and writers has sounded the alarm over the prolonged incarceration of critics of the BJP government in India. This open letter with known names such as Amitav Ghosh and Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has been published urging the global community to pay attention to the erosion of democratic principles in the world’s largest democracy, and released by SAHMAT.

“India has long been admired internationally as an exemplary democracy, and the largest in the world. Any abridgement of democracy in India is tragic, not only for the people of India, but for all of humanity. We write this letter to alert international opinion to these recent alarming developments in that country and to urge those holding positions of responsibility in the various organs of the Indian state,” reads the statement. The statement especially mentions the case of online media portal, Newsclick’s founding editor, 75-year-old journalist, author, Prabir Purkayastha who has been in custody for nearly six months without being charged. Some of the other signatories of the letter include academics Charles Taylor, Judith Butler, Wendy Brown, Sheldon Pollock, and David Shulman.

Others have been incarcerated even longer, such as those arrested in the Bheema-Koregaon case who (with the exception of those whom the courts have released on bail on medical or technical-legal grounds) have been languishing in prison for over five years without any trial.

Likewise, many accused in the Delhi riots case have been in prison for over three years without any trial –and often without complete charge sheets brought against them; some, who have been charged, but with no trial in sight, have spent even longer in jail than the maximum legal sentence warranted by the charges against them.

This extended incarceration without trial has been given legislative backing, through an amendment to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act passed by the Indian parliament.   But legislative backing provides no justification for such incarceration. Indeed, to use it as a justification amounts to saying that Constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights can be abrogated through a legislative majority; that, notwithstanding Constitutional provisions, someone can be imprisoned for any length of time by a government enjoying a legislative majority. This amounts to undermining the Constitution and overturning the structures of democracy. 

A separate note was also penned and released by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen directed to “my fellow citizens,”  where he highlighted a series of cases where journalists and activists have been detained solely for expressing dissent against the current administration. “There are, of course, many other unjust uses of compelling law that continue in India, despite our hope of building a fairly governed country, but imprisonment without trial and without fairness in the treatment of human beings is certainly among the worst injustices that the country has made into a regular arrangement.”

Recently, after the detention of Delhi chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal in relation to a liquor policy scam, the US state department released a statement citing the importance of ensuring a “fair, transparent and timely legal process” and that the US was closely monitoring the case of the chief minister. India soon summoned a top diplomat after the statement was made and the foreign ministry stated, “We take strong objection to the remarks”.

However, state department spokesperson Mattew Miller declined to comment  on the summons citing confidential diplomatic meetings the following day, also stated that the US government was  aware about how the Congress party’s funds were also frozen in their banks.

The statement by academics also states that, “India has long been admired internationally as an exemplary democracy, and the largest in the world . Any abridgement of democracy in India is tragic, not only for the people of India, but for all of humanity. We write this letter to alert international opinion to these recent alarming developments in that country and to urge those holding positions of responsibility in the various organs of the Indian state, in particular the judiciary, to ensure that the abridgements we are currently witnessing are reversed, and that no encroachment occurs on the fundamental rights of its citizens. Those holding such positions of responsibility will be remembered by posterity if they honourably stand up for Indian democracy.” 

Signatories include:

1. Amitav Ghosh, Novelist and Author, New York.
2. Wendy Brown, UPS Foundation Professor, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton.
3. Judith Butler, Maxine Elliot Professor, Department of Comparative Literature, and the Program of Critical Theory, University of California, Berkeley.
4. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, University Professor, Columbia University, New York.
5. Sheldon Pollock, Arvind Raghunathan Professor Emeritus of South Asian Studies, Columbia University, New York.
6. Martha C. Nussbaum, Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Chicago, Chicago.
7. Steven Lukes, Professor of Politics and Sociology, New York University, New York.
8. David Bromwich, Sterling Professor of English, Yale University, New Haven.
9. Marjorie Cohn, Professor,Thomas Jefferson School of Law,San Diego; former president, National Lawyers Guild, U.S.A.
10. Jonathan Cole, John Mitchell Mason Professor, Provost & Dean of Faculties (1989-2003),
    Columbia University, New York.
11. Janet Gyatso,Hershey Professor of Buddhist Studies and Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs, Divinity School, Harvard University, Cambridge.
12. Carol Rovane, Violin Family Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University, New York.
13. Jan Werner-Muller, Roger Williams Straus Professor of Social Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton.
14. Charles Taylor, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory, Oxford University; and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at University of Montreal.
15. 15. Akeel Bilgrami, Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy; Professor, Committee on Global Thought, Columbia University, New York.
16. David Shulman, Renee Lang Professor of Humanistic Studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Amartya K. Sen, Thomas W. Lamont University Professor, and Professor of Economics and Philosophy, Harvard University, Cambridge, supports this statement (see the supporting statement attached).

The separate statement released by Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen is below:

ON THE UNDERMINING OF ELEMENTARY FREEDOMS IN INDIA

 Amartya Sen

Some friends of mine have recently written a cogent statement on the violation of elementary freedoms in contemporary India, and, even though I do not, as a rule, sign joint letters, I would like to add my voice to theirs. So this is written as a general statement addressed to my fellow citizens.

Under British rule, Indians were often arrested and imprisoned without trial, and some were kept in prison for a long time. (As many of my family members were trying hard to free India from colonial rule, several of them experienced this kind of treatment of imprisonment without trial.) As a young man, I had hoped that as India became independent, this unjust system, in use in colonial India, would stop. This has not, alas, happened, and the unsupportable practice of arresting and keeping accused human beings in prison without trying them has continued in free and democratic India.

Along with others who are rightly outraged by this injustice, I must also strongly express my sense of indignation at this basic violation of human freedom in my own country, whose claim to being a democracy is strongly negated by such practice.

There are, of course, many other unjust uses of compelling law that continue in India, despite our hope of building a fairly governed country, but imprisonment without trial and without fairness in the treatment of human beings is certainly among the worst injustices that the country has made into a regular arrangement. We should very much hope that the judicial system of India will have the good sense to eliminate barbarities of this kind.”

Related:

UN High Commissioner of Human Rights raises concerns about minorities in India, government calls them ‘unwarranted’

India third highest across the world to enforce internet shutdowns

Day 23 of Farmers March: Mass withholding of social media ahead of march to Delhi, third time since the beginning of the protest

Extension of internet bans, suspension of social media accounts: state action on farmers’ protest focuses on suppression of voices

YouTube strikes again, independent channel Media Swaraj, critical of regime shut down without notice, back on after outrage

The post Top US academics, including Amartya Sen, condemn long incarceration of journalists & activists, erosion of Indian democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to a recently released report by the World Economic Forum titled Global Risks Report 2024 reveals that India has topped the list for when it comes to the countries that are having wide networks of misinformation and disinformation. According to experts, out of all potential risks India is the country which is most at risk for its citizens to encounter fake news and misinformation. This ranking comes before concerns about infectious diseases, illicit economic activities, wealth and income inequality, and labour shortages. Other nations at high risk for the impacts of misinformation and disinformation include El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Romania, Ireland, Czechia, the United States, Sierra Leone, France, and Finland. In these countries, the threat is considered to be among the 4th-6th most hazardous risks out of a total of 34 anticipated over the next two years, contrary to India where it is the number one risk. India seems to have carved a unique niche for itself as a landscape where misinformation persists. The Global Risk report links the spread of fake news to societal violence.

Al Jazeera also reported that on a global scale the misinformation circulating on social media since October 7 attack by Hamas in southern Israel revealed that that a considerable portion of it originates from or is propagated by accounts aligned with right-wing inclinations and are based in India.

What are the factors that are involved?

In India, according to Statista, about 687 million internet users are plugged into their mobiles, getting the lowdown. Furthermore, according to a 2023 survey by Reuters and the University of Oxford, a solid 72 percent of people in India are scrolling through for their news online on their phones, with social media playing a significant role in providing the news.

Thereby, in comparison, only 40 percent of respondents resort to print media during the same period. India, being the second-largest internet market globally. According to Statista, a big factor behind this is when back in 2007, Reliance Jio. Reliance Jio services in 2007 played a pivotal role, introducing enticing schemes and subsidies that transcended income levels and socio-economic classes. The repercussions were fast and quick as Jio services took control over 60 percent of mobile data traffic within a decade of their launch.

How is India’s press fairing at this turn? Continuing a downward trajectory observed since 2017, India witnessed a further decline in its press freedom ranking, landing at 161 out of 180 countries in the 2023 World Press Freedom Index unveiled by Reporters without Borders. Scoring 36.6, India has found itself as one of the countries where the liberty of the press faced significant threats. The assessment of the Press Freedom Index for 2023 takes into account various factors and is based on a survey of the country’s political, economic, and sociocultural contexts, as well as the legal framework and safety levels within the country.

The government in 2023 also publicised attempts to tackle fake news. In January 2023, the Editor’s Guild of India had called upon the government to stop the amendments to the IT Rules - 2021 that were being made by the Ministry of Electronics and Technology.

EGI is deeply concerned by amendment to IT Rules 2021 made by MEITY, giving authority to PIB to determine veracity of news reports, and directing online intermediaries and social media platforms to take down content deemed as ‘fake’. Guild feels this is akin to censorship. pic.twitter.com/uy49cOwTcT

— Editors Guild of India (@IndEditorsGuild) January 18, 2023

They were asserting that this new step would include changes to the country's information-technology regulations and thus would amount to censorship. The proposal would give the government power to prevent social media platforms from sharing any information that could be flagged by authorities as false. The move was seen by journalists as a means to gather power and control over the internet and journalism. The changes proposed by the government included that if there were any information categorised by the government as “fake” by the government’s Press Information Bureau then the government would deliberate actions to prevent that information being shared or disseminated in any way on the internet.

India marked as country most prone to ‘social polarisation’

Health, religion, and politics are the most common topics that fake news revolves around, according to a survey by the Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research. Similarly, the Global Risk Report has found strong links between misinformation and social polarisation. It has ranked polarisation among the top three risks across both the present and the next two years across the globe.

Just like the incident of riots in England cited above where rumours from social media abounded and led to heightened communal sentiments, rumours have been historically linked to propagating riots. With the coming of social media and the surge in fake news, the ground becomes even more worrisome for fakes news to lead to violence. Thus, the report by WEF further highlights that polarisation is made worse with technological threats as they are often not kept in mind by the government. Furthermore, the report identifies India as the country most susceptible to experiencing heightened social polarisation in the upcoming year due to the surge in misinformation and the proliferation of false narratives.

A recent report from BOOM Live's survey of fact checks revealed an alarming conclusion where it was noted that Muslims in India are the primary targets of misinformation and disinformation campaigns which are fuelled by communal sentiments. The examination was based on data accumulated over the past three years and highlights a consistent pattern of fake news disproportionately affecting the Muslim community. According to BOOM Live's findings spanning from 2021 to 2023, the Muslim community remained the main focus and arguing point in numerous disinformation campaigns.

The Global Risks Report 2024 by the WEF had highlighted how vulnerable the global scene and landscape has become due to the effects of the pandemic. It states that pandemic has created “fertile ground” for the rampant spread of misinformation and disinformation.

During the pandemic, a report by Vice detailed that there was an alarming surge in misinformation. Some of this, according to the report, would often come from government sources. The report details that the spread of fake news has generally been associated with issues ranging from Islamophobia and conspiracy theories to unverified herbal remedies and the congregation of migrant workers. Presently, unverified assertions, like the questionable ‘COVID-19 cure’ promoted by herbal company Patanjali and flagged by official bodies as misleading, continue to circulate.

BJP and its multiple links to fake news campaigns

According to a report by The Print from 2020, a recent study was conducted by a software analyst who looked at the prevalence of propaganda and fake news on Twitter which revealed an alarming pattern. He noted that for every account that promoted the Congress and shared misleading information, there were reportedly about 120 accounts who did the similar task but favouring the BJP. The study further showed that there were 17,779 such accounts that were supporting the BJP compared to 147 linked to the Congress.

Similarly, a field report by Washington Post uncovered an operation that there's a hidden campaign behind the trolls present online. This is behind the scenes and is separate from the official social media trends. Insights from BJP staff, campaign consultants, and party supporters, shared in the ground-breaking report by Washington Post in September 2023, has exposed the party's covert partnerships with anonymous content creators who oversee what they term as "third-party" or "troll" pages. These content creators excel in producing incendiary posts which are designed to polarise and communalise sentiments on platforms like WhatsApp. This is done to cater to the party's base. Furthermore, the Washington Post report delves deeper into Meta, the parent company overseeing WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram. It revealed that Meta's repeatedly failed to sufficiently act against the dissemination of hate content, including fake news. There are also claims of leniency towards BJP leaders who breached its terms. SabrangIndia's coverage earlier last year had looked at Meta's annual human rights report and noted that activists are unhappy and critical and have pointed out that the platform is uninterested in curating a strategy to quell rampant hate.

Related:

BJP’s “parallel” IT Cell exposed by Washington Post

India’s Struggle for Social Harmony: Challenges Amidst Surge in Hate Speech

Imposters posing as Muslims: A sinister ploy to further stigmatise

The post India tops list of countries at risk due to misinformation: what does this mean for India’s democracy? appeared first on SabrangIndia.