‘India is not Bangladesh or France’: Shashi Tharoor rejects Kiren Rijiju’s ‘regime change’ charge amid SIR row

The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is the Election Commission’s exercise to revise electoral rolls. The stated aim is to ensure that eligible voters remain included and ineligible people do not remain registered. Electoral rolls matter because they determine who can vote in elections.

Opposition parties are protesting because they allege that large numbers of voters were removed during the process. Tharoor called the exercise “completely troublesome, irregular, and partially illegal.” The reported scale has intensified concerns that eligible citizens could be left out.

The Election Commission maintains that the revision is designed to protect the accuracy of the rolls. Congress, the CJP, and Left organisations are demanding action over the exercise, including the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Their stated demand is to undo the disputed exclusions and secure free and fair elections, not to topple the government.

More than 13 crore names have reportedly been dropped from the draft electoral rolls. The figure covers 30 states and Union Territories, according to data reported by The Indian Express. It is the most striking numerical detail in the dispute.

The concern is not simply the number of deletions. Opposition parties say the process may have removed eligible voters, while Tharoor described it as irregular and partially illegal. If valid voters are excluded, they may be unable to participate in elections unless their names are restored.

The Election Commission says the revision seeks to ensure that no eligible voter is excluded and no ineligible person remains on the rolls. The disagreement therefore concerns both the scale of the deletions and the way they were made. Opposition parties are demanding that the exclusions be undone and that electoral institutions ensure free and fair elections.

“Regime change” refers to replacing a government or ruling political order. In this dispute, the phrase became controversial after Prashant Bhushan called the agitation a battle for “regime change,” while other activists discussed movements in Bangladesh and France.

Tharoor rejects that description. He says the Opposition is asking for free and fair elections and wants alleged wrongful deletions from electoral rolls undone. He also says its protests are peaceful and that it does not support violence, including the burning of buses or police stations.

The distinction matters because the government has framed the language as a warning about unrest. Rijiju alleged that groups and politicians were trying to provoke Bangladesh- or France-like violence. Tharoor says the issue is constitutional and concerns the conduct of elections and institutions. He challenges how the Election Commission is functioning, not its existence as an institution.

Accurate electoral rolls are a basic condition for meaningful elections. If eligible citizens are wrongly removed, they may be unable to vote even though they have the right to participate. That can weaken public confidence in the fairness of the election process.

The article describes the concern through the reported removal of more than 13 crore names across 30 states and Union Territories. Opposition parties say the process may have excluded eligible voters. Their demand is that these exclusions be undone, while the Election Commission says its goal is to keep eligible voters on the rolls.

The broader consequence could be an election that does not fully reflect the people entitled to choose their government. Tharoor calls the matter constitutional and says citizens are democracy’s custodians. The immediate dispute is over restoring names and ensuring that future roll revisions are conducted accurately and fairly.

During a roll revision, the Election Commission is expected to maintain accurate electoral lists. Its stated objective is clear: no eligible voter should be excluded, and no ineligible person should remain on the rolls. That responsibility makes the process central to free and fair elections.

The Opposition alleges that large numbers of people were removed through a troublesome, irregular, and partially illegal process. The reported draft-roll exclusions exceed 13 crore names across 30 states and Union Territories. These figures have led opposition parties to question whether the revision was carried out properly.

Tharoor carefully separates the institution from its conduct. He says he is not challenging the Election Commission as an institution, but the way it is behaving and performing its duties. The Opposition is demanding that disputed exclusions be undone and that the Commission follow constitutional expectations. The disagreement is therefore about accountability and procedure, not abolishing the institution.

Changing a government through elections means voters choose among candidates or parties, and the result determines who governs. It uses the constitutional electoral process. Protests, by contrast, are a way to express opposition or demand action, but unrest and violence can try to force political change outside an election.

The distinction appears in the dispute over the phrase “regime change.” Rijiju warned that attempts were being made to provoke unrest like that in Bangladesh and France, and said government change must come through elections. Tharoor responded that the Opposition supports peaceful protest and does not condone violence.

Tharoor says the current demand is for free and fair elections, not for the government to be toppled through agitation. The immediate issue, in his view, is the alleged removal of eligible voters and the conduct of the Election Commission. The forward test is whether electoral institutions can address those concerns through constitutional processes.

The constitutional principle at stake is that citizens are the custodians of democracy and should be able to choose their government. Electoral rolls translate that principle into practice by identifying who can participate in elections. Their accuracy therefore affects the legitimacy of the voting process.

The article gives a concrete warning: more than 13 crore names were reportedly removed from draft rolls across 30 states and Union Territories. Opposition parties fear that eligible people could be left out. The Election Commission says its exercise aims to prevent exactly that outcome by retaining eligible voters and removing ineligible names.

If the rolls are inaccurate, some citizens may lose their opportunity to vote, and election results may not represent the full eligible electorate. That is why Tharoor calls the matter constitutional rather than an attempt to topple the government. The dispute now focuses on correcting alleged exclusions and ensuring institutions conduct revisions properly.