In a letter to Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar on Tuesday, July 15, written by TDP parliamentary party leader Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu and signed by five other party leaders, the party has written: “The scope of the SIR must be clearly defined and must be limited to electoral roll re-correction and inclusion. It should be explicitly communicated that the exercise is not related to citizenship verification, and any field instructions must reflect this distinction.”

The letter was submitted to the statutory body (ECI) after the TDP leaders led a delegation there, as part of an ongoing exercise by the poll panel to take suggestions from political parties to strengthen electoral processes.

CEC Gyanesh Kumar and ECs Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi had an interaction with a delegation from the Telugu Desam Party led by its State President Shri Palla Srinivasa Rao and received their suggestions at Nirvachan Sadan, New Delhi today. pic.twitter.com/PgKOZsNAA6

— Election Commission of India (@ECISVEEP) July 15, 2025

When queried about the letter, the TDP national spokesperson and one of the signatories, Jyothsna Tirunagari, said there was “no link” between the ongoing SIR in Bihar and the party’s suggestions. “We just met the EC and, as we were asked for suggestions, made our stand clear on the electoral process. We are a democratic party and would want transparency in the electoral process,” she told The Indian Express.

These suggestions by the TDP follow the communication by the poll panel to Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) of all states on July 5, directing them to begin preparations for a ‘Bihar-like exercise — this time with January 1, 2026, as the qualifying date’.

Days after the Supreme Court questioned the EC on July 10, over the timing of the SIR in Bihar, the TDP letter says that any such electoral roll revision should “not ideally be within six months of any major election”. “To ensure voter confidence and administrative preparedness, the SIR process should be conducted with a sufficient time lead,” the letter says.

The N Chandrababu Naidu-led party has also said that voters included in the electoral rolls must not be required to re-establish their eligibility “unless specific and verifiable reasons are recorded”, and called for a third-party audit under the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to identify anomalies.

Among other suggestions in the letter, include district-wise data on voter addition and deletions with explanations on the EC portal, permission to Aadhaar-based cross-verification, penalties for inaction by EROS (Electoral Registration Officers) and DEOs (District Election Officers), a state-level ombudsman under the EC to handle unresolved grievances, and targeted re-enrolment campaigns for migrant workers, tribal groups and senior citizens.

“Temporary address declarations must be permitted with basic documentation to prevent disenfranchisement of the mobile population… where voters are unable to submit documents at the time of visit, age-wise verification must be permitted,” the letter reads.

Signatories also included party MPs Byreddy Shabari and D Prasada Rao, and TDP state president Palla Srinivasa Rao.

Related:

Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision 

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

The post ‘Define Special Intensive Revision scope… make it clear not linked to citizenship’: BJP ally TDP writes to CEC Gyanesh Kumar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Professor Kancha Ilaiah

While it is nobody’s suggestion that India was a tolerant land some three years back and suddenly has developed intolerance, none can deny the fact that the goons threatening intellectuals and activists have certainly become more arrogant and encouraged by the absolute ‘disinterest’ shown by those in power. In the past few years we have lost number of persons in the cause of human rights and secularism and probes have reached nowhere even though links with organisations associated with Hindutva groups have been reported in the media.  

Activists are being threatened; intimidated and street goons have taken it upon themselves to provide ‘justice’. Where the person is a bit powerful, cases are filed against him in the court while goons are let loose to physically intimidate him.

Kancha Ilaiah is a well-known Bahujan philosopher who has been actively critiquing the Brahminical social order and its injustices meted out to the Dalits-OBCs and adivasis. Should he not be allowed to do this under the garb of ‘hurt’ community sentiments? It is not the question of any outsider writing a critique but a person from the community historically denied right. The only difference this time was that his new book that has come out is about the Vaishya (also spelt Vysya) community which is basically a trading community.

Normally Brahmins are the target but this time the Vaishyas (Banias) have taken it upon themselves to protest against Ilaiah for writing against them. The main contention of the community is that they have been called ‘social smugglers’ by Kancha Ilaiah in his book. One Member of Parliament from Telugu Desam Party, TG Venktesh, has reportedly threatened to kill him and asked for his hanging. Yesterday, his vehicle was attacked and a prompt action by his driver saved his life.

So shocked was Prof Ilaiah that he felt deeply isolated and decided to confine himself to his home for the next one week. It is said that an intellectual at this stage is facing so much threat of physical violence and no assurances from the authorities for his safety. Now the issue is being deliberately being politicized to create a Hindutva frenzy in the state so that corrupt politicians can reap the benefit of the emotional blackmailing of people.

This is the ‘New India’ where the Brahminical Hinduism will come through violent means. No criticism would be allowed or countered through a fair critique. It is not that Ilaiah wrote for the first time. His thought provoking books are there in open and should be welcomed. One can disagree with him and for that we have all avenues to not merely protest peacefully but also to write counter arguments to denounce him but that is not happening.

With so much of the media and the publishing world in hand, these power elite are still fearful of a few who critique them. We are informed that Gandhi was a Bania. None deny that. We are not here asking anyone to be unhappy where they are born. None come here with a fixed birth record except in the Brahminical system where your caste and occupation are fixed with your birth. That is what we call caste based varnashram dharma and it must be rejected.

We cannot hide the fact that caste system and caste discrimination are the biggest obstacle in the development of this country. In fact the caste system remains our biggest hurdle in national unity and integration. The caste system creates prejudices in the minds of people and limits your mobility beyond your own castes. Once you confine yourself within your caste, everything outside it looks as suspect and dangerous. Can we have a united India with so many thousands of caste and each considering it superior to other?

Critiquing India’s notorious caste system is nothing wrong but will ultimately help India get stronger and united. Even then if Ilaiah has said anything academically or factually wrong then there are options before the people to go to the court or even write rejoinder, engage in a democratic debate. Huge number of upper caste members dominate our media, academia, intelligentsia and they can write a counter critique of Ilaiah. But the street protests that we are witnessing in Andhra and Telangana are merely for political purpose and need to be unconditionally condemned.

The videos of protest using innocent children to urinate in public on the photograph of Ilaiah is nothing but the sick mindset of people who are using children to reap the rich harvest of hatred during the election. It is deeply despicable and condemnable. Why should children be used in a debate which is academic debate? And even if they are used, is this the best way to use their ‘creativity’. Is this not an imposition of male supremacy as we find no girls or women in the protest?

Kancha Ilaiah has not killed anyone, nor is he spreading hatred against particular communities or people. He has not threatened anyone but only spoken through his writings against what he and many like him consider historic wrongs. Isn’t it his right to question and speak up against the social injustice that prevailed for centuries in our society?

Isn’t it for Indians to ponder as why one community is in business or knoweldge while other is purely for cleaning human excreta? Is this not a reservation which has existed in this filthy society where a few protested but those who enjoyed kept quiet? When this hegemony is challenged then the question of merit is raised as if all those in the Dalal Street in Mumbai are the most meritorious people. Caste system is nothing but hidden apartheid and you cannot hide from the fact that it needs to go and should be abolished as Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar as well as many others like him, had wanted.

What is more disturbing is the failure of the two state governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to provide him protection and take action against those threatening him. The way political protests have been launched against him is clear indication of the local politicians who are being encouraged by their respective parties to intimidate a scholar through street goondaism. The two chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are the same persons who refused to speak up against institutional murder of Rohith Vemula.

Even when the entire country stood up for Rohith’s cause, the two upper caste governments actually were determined to treat him as a ‘non-Dalit’, a deliberate ploy to divide people on caste lines and deviate from the real issue of the prevailing caste prejudices in their system. A Member of Parliament of TDP has openly threatened to Ilaiah him but there is no action from the party head and chief minister Chandrababu Naidu. The goons are openly attacking him and monitoring his physical movement but the two chief ministers remain shamelessly silent on the issue.

Another appalling thing is the conspicuous silence of intellectuals and political parties as Kancha has himself said. This is a very disturbing fact. We know he has been a critique of Brahminical system in our political parties and intelligentsia including the Left. This is not for the first time that any intellectual has spoken about the Left and other political organisations. It was a critique of Dr Ambedakr, Phule, Periyar and many others who have followed their path over the years. There are of course upper caste people who acknowledge their faults and happily engage in a fruitful discussion on the issue which is a welcome sign.

This is the period of a great crisis. Those who are targeting Ilaiah know it well that there are wide differences among the non-Hindutva groups. This is not merely the problems of the Left forces but also of the Ambedkarites and Bahujan forces. It is not the time to get into digging history and then taking a stand. In my opinion every Ambedkarite or a true intellectual of any variety, Left or socialist or freethinker will always defend an individual’s right to freedom of expression and engage in democratic debates.

Moreover, it is not a street brawl that Ilaiah has engaged in but a purely academic work which can and should only be countered through academic exercise or democratic protests. The pain is that we have not heard intellectuals, academics taking any stand on it particularly outside Andhra and Telangana except for some individual responses on social media. It is good that the Congress Party has issued a very strong statement in the media as their spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewallah demanded action against the threatening MP and protection to Ilaiah. This is certainly a positive sign and we appreciate it.

India is fast becoming a mob republic where the power elite has developed various ways to not only intimidate you but also to put you in deep distress, go to the extent of physical hurt or even elimination. The mobs are being encouraged to take law in their hands and they have the fullest backing through the PR agents who can easily convert a wrong into right and the vice versa but then these should be the finest hours for all of us who are fighting against the subjugation and discrimination as it is the right time to see the truth, decide our stand and our attitude.

We need to develop a culture of debate and discussion as that is the only way to save us as a society and as a nation. Once people start taking law in their hand and deciding to judge everyone in the street we will have none to blame but ourselves. It is better to learn from the experiences of others. People in Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere know well the importance of democracy where in the name of identities and national interests people have killed each other. India survived as a democracy and fared well because despite all our weaknesses, we promoted ideas through constructive debates. We agreed to disagree.

If you don’t like Ilaiah or any one like him, don’t read him, switch off your TV or counter him ideologically through various mediums. Each one of have various options including social media and it should be used to strengthen debate. But don’t fall prey to the political goons who are only using sentiments to spread hatred and promote their political interest. Professor Ilaiah must be provided all the security that he needs and those threatening to kill him must be prosecuted.
 
 

The post Why are we silent on the grave threat to Kancha Ilaiah? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was an embarrassing moment for many secularists in India watching Bihar’s Laloo Prasad Yadav’s response on Star TV, prime time, as election results from his state pronounced the near rout of his party in Bihar. “Mr Yadav, do you think this is due to the voters’ disenchantment with the government for lack of any development in the state”. “No”, replied Yadav bravely, “the issue in the election was secularism, not development”.

 Can secularism ever be a one–point agenda unrelated to other concerns of people?  
In the midst of the election campaign in August, a Muslim petty trader, Rehman, was burnt alive at a village market in Orissa. One of the eyewitnesses told the police that Dara Singh — the man charged with the torching alive of Graham Staines and his two sons, in the same state earlier this year — was the man responsible for the latest incident. A week later, a Christian priest, Fr. Arul Doss, too, was done to death in the same state. 

The Bajrang Dal, the RSS and the BJP were quick to condemn such brutal killing of minorities in Congress–ruled Orissa. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad even issued a press statement, maintaining that whoever was responsible behind such killings “could not be a Hindu”. But, ironically, the Congress party — the party that swears by secularism, the only party capable of challenging Hindutva on a national plane, the party that depends crucially on minority votes — maintained a deathly silence. 

Is secularism a mere mantra  — to be enshrined in the party manifesto and chanted reverentially on convenient occasions — which has nothing to do with issues like the security of life and property of all citizens, irrespective of their faith? 

Was secularism an issue at all in the Lok Sabha polls of 1999? To begin with, what does one mean by secularism — not in the academic sense but in terms of how it relates to the lived experience of people?
In the 1991 polls, with the Shiv Sena as its only ally, the BJP secured 120 Lok Sabha seats. With three more allies on its side in 1996, the Akali Dal in Punjab, the George Fernandes–led Samta party in Bihar and the Haryana Vikas Parishad (HVP) in Haryana, the BJP’s tally climbed up to 161. Having emerged as the single largest party, the BJP was invited to form the government and given two weeks to prove its majority in the Lok Sabha. 

But it was still a different India three years ago where the BJP was a political untouchable for most politicians. In the 13 days that his government lasted, Atal Behari Vajpayee and the rest of the saffron stalwarts were unable to win over even a single MP to their side. Leave alone party politicians, even those who had fought and won as independents were unwilling to shake hands with the party whose manifesto contained ‘contentious issues’ — 

Ø Building of a Ram Mandir where the Babri Masjid once stood in Ayodhya; 

ØRemoval of article 370 from the Indian Constitution which grants a special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir;

Ø Introducing a Uniform Civil Code (to replace the different existing personal laws for different religious communities).

Until the BJP’s electoral drubbing in the Assembly elections in UP and elsewhere in late 1993, then BJP president, L.K. Advani, used to revel in the ‘majestic isolation’ of his party. But the acute isolation of 1996 confronted the BJP and its sangh parivar with a difficult choice: retain ‘ideological purity’, remain a political untouchable and make a solo bid to power by hard–selling Hindutva. Alternatively, adopt tactical flexibility and put ‘contentious issues’ on the backburner so as to break out of political isolation.

Since the prospects of coming to power on the strength of its own divisive agenda seemed remote, at least in the current scenario, the BJP and its parivar deviously chose the latter. And reaped rich dividends in the elections of 1998 and 1999. 

The BJP entered the electoral arena for the Lok Sabha polls in February 1998 with 18 allies. Thanks to the alliances, the party improved on its own tally of seats — from 161 in 1996 to 182 in 1998 — and, more importantly, headed a coalition government. But the wafer–thin majority of the BJP–led coalition made Vajpayee hostage to some of his mercurial allies — Jayalalitha being the most obvious. 

On the eve of the 1999 polls, the BJP made yet another quantum leap. In June this year, the Janata Dal, which formed the core of the ‘Third Front’ (the Congress and the BJP being the first two), disintegrated with virtually the entire bulk of the party choosing to ally with the BJP. Leaders like Ram Vilas Paswan and Sharad Yadav, who for years had shouted themselves hoarse at the communalism of the BJP, suddenly had no qualms rallying behind the saffron bandwagon. 

The acceptance of the BJP by virtually the entire political spectrum today is as comprehensive as its political isolation was stark in 1996. If it was Jayalalitha’s AIADMK which teamed up with the BJP in 1998, this time it’s the DMK in Tamil Nadu. If Farooq Abdullah’s National Conference decided to extend support from the outside to the Vajpayee–led government in 1998, this time it fought elections as part of the NDA and is now a part of the government at the Centre. The Telugu Desam Party’s Chandrababu Naidu fought against the BJP in the 1998 polls, agreeing to extend support to the Vajpayee government from the outside only subsequently. This time, the TDP and the BJP jointly fought the Congress in Andhra.

The BJP, which led an 18 party alliance in 1998, now counts on 24 allies. In theory, it now has to lean on many more parties to stay in power. But in practice it also means there are over 300 MPs behind Vajpayee in the Lok Sabha against the precarious figure of 273 in a House of 544. 

What does this augur for secular politics in India?  
Even for some secularists, the present political arrangement is not such a bad thing after all. With only 182 seats of its own — exactly the same number that it had in the last Lok Sabha – the BJP depends crucially on people like Chandrababu Naidu, M. Karunanidhi, Mamata Bannerji, Ramvilas Paswan, Ramkrishna Hegde and others. None of them can afford to ignore minorities’ votes in their respective regions and constituencies. The continued dependence of the BJP on these leaders and parties for their continued hold on power also means, according to these secularists, that issues like Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code continue to be kept in abeyance. Such a grand alliance also means strengthening the ‘moderates’ and the ‘liberals’ and weakening the hold of the hawks within the sangh parivar. 

If Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code was all that Indian secularism was about, there may have been some merit in such wishful thinking. But the ‘evil genius’ of the sangh parivar lies precisely in its ability to have, for all practical purposes, reduced the issue of India’s secularism to the BJP’s postponed agenda. 
Be it the reporters who raised questions at BJP’s press conferences during the electoral campaign, or TV anchors and even unsympathetic expert commentators who quizzed BJP leaders before and after the election results, or political parties who in their electoral campaign charged the BJP with playing communal politics. Hardly anyone went beyond asking the BJP to state for how long the issues of Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code would remain postponed. 

Responding to these queries was, at the worst, a little awkward. Being past–masters in the art of double–speak, different leaders of the BJP and different segments of the sangh parivar said different things at the same time; or the same leader said different things at different points of the electoral campaign. The net result of this was Advantage BJP – the statement of one general secretary, Venkaiah Naidu, convinced the ‘liberals’ and the fence sitters that the BJP is turning ‘moderate’; the statements of another party general secretary, K. Govindacharya, reassured the core supporters of Hindutva that the party remains committed as ever to the Hindu Rashtra ideology.  

Neither the avowedly secular political opponents of the BJP, nor the print and electronic media thought it necessary to educate the voter how in the brief tenure of the BJP at the Centre and in states like U.P. and Gujarat —
Ø Life has come to mean endless anxiety, at best, for Christians and Muslims in Gujarat for nearly two years. After several independent fact–finding teams sent by civil liberties organisations and the National Minorities Commission had established numerous instances of attacks on minorities in Gujarat, Prime Minister Vajpayee, the most ‘liberal face’ of the BJP, visited the state only to return with a call for a “national debate on conversions”.  

Ø There is a sustained effort to infiltrate, capture and pack educational and cultural institutions with men and women known primarily for their commitment to RSS ideology. One such RSS leader, who is now going to decide what children should be taught in schools, proudly asserted in his autobiography how he killed a Muslim woman in 1947 because too many Hindus wanted to enslave her for their own lust! (See Pg. 22). 

Ø For the sangh parivar, Kargil became a convenient pretext to communalise the Indian armed forces.

Ø Attacks on minorities have continued before, during and after the present polls in Gujarat, Orissa and Kanyakumari by votaries of Hindu majoritarianism.

Ø It is not for nothing that both in the previous government and yet again, the home ministry (crime and punishment), the human resources development ministry (education and culture) and the information and broadcasting ministry (mass communications) were retained by the BJP at the insistence of the RSS. 
There can be no doubt that through Vajpayee’s earlier tenure as Prime Minister, and now, the saffron project continues to be advanced through other means, even while ‘contentious issues’ have been put on the back–burner — postponed agenda. Avowedly secular parties, political pundits and the print and electronic media have no perspective of building mass campaigns to raise public awareness on these very concrete issues that directly concern people. They could also be used to mount pressure on many of the BJP’s allies who still claim to have nothing in common with saffron politics. Otherwise, secularism will be progressively reduced to a mere chant, while the sangh parivar increases its stranglehold over society, and state. In preparation for the future Hindu Rashtra..

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999, Year 7  No. 53, Polls 99 1

The post Secularism: a mere mantra? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Here are some messages that the result of the 1999 polls conceals:

l The entire campaign of the BJP was hinged on the tried, tested and trustworthy leadership of Vajpayee, the Prime Minister who had delivered — ‘The man you can trust. In Peace and in War’. In short, the BJP would have us believe that a Vajpayee–wave, thanks to his statesman-like handling of the Kargil crisis, won the day for the NDA. The fact is that in his own constituency, Lucknow, Vajpayee’s victory margin was reduced by over a lakh compared to the ’98 polls.

Besides, in U.P., the state from where Vajpayee contested, and the state which was crucial to the BJP’s meteoric rise in the ’90s — 51 out of the BJP’s 120 seats in 1991, 52 out of 161 seats in ’96, 57 out of 182 in ’98 — the BJP received a severe drubbing. Against the 60 seats in UP last year (its allies won three), it was down to a mere 32 seats this time.

UP is just one example of the story of many other states where the Vajpayee and his handling of Kargil factor, failed to work.

l With a mere 112 seats in its kitty, this was the worse performance of the Congress since independence. Yet, Sonia Gandhi, the Congress president whose foreign origin was a major campaign plank for her opponents, romped home from Amethi with the highest margin — over three lakhs — of victory.

Nationally, her party which had secured 25.82 per cent of the total votes in ’98, logged in 28.4 per cent this time. The BJP, on the other hand, went down somewhat — from 25.59 per cent in ’98 to 23.7 per cent now.

l Andhra Pradesh is touted as the example where Vajpayee’s national stature combined with Chandra Babu Naidu’s reforms, resulted in the TDP–BJP sweep of the state. The fact, is that the Congress polled four per cent more votes in the state this time, and but for the last minute seats agreement between the TDP and the BJP, the Congress would have dealt a drubbing to Naidu.

l As many analysts have pointed out, victory for a party in the different states this time was determined by a combination of two factors — the arithmetic of alliance and the chemistry of governance. The Congress lost out because it believed it could come to power on its own; the BJP alliance won only in states where people were not too unhappy with the state government’s performance.

l Before and during the electoral campaign the media and political pundits were full of stories about how Indian politics is finally moving towards a bi–polar system — Congress and the BJP. The fact is that this time as in 1998, between them, the Congress and the BJP could pool just around 50 per cent of the popular vote, the remaining being spilt between a plethora of parties. Of the over 300 Lok Sabha MPs rallied behind Vajpayee, only 182 belong to his own party.

Moral behind the story of Polls ’99: One, none can take the Indian electorate for granted; two, the victory of ‘secular forces’ is impossible, if secularism is not even posed in a meaningful way before the people, which must include their other day–to–day concerns.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999, Year 7  No. 53, Polls 99 2

The post The Story of Polls ’99 appeared first on SabrangIndia.