SIR Row: Shashi Tharoor Hits Back at Kiren Rijiju Over Bangladesh, France Comparisons

The growing political confrontation over the revision of electoral rolls has taken a fresh turn, with Congress MP Shashi Tharoor questioning the Centre’s attempt to associate the protests with upheavals witnessed in other countries.

Tharoor’s response came after Union minister Kiren Rijiju suggested that forces seeking to create disorder in India were drawing inspiration from developments in Bangladesh and France.

The Congress leader rejected the comparison, arguing that the dispute in India was centred on the credibility of elections and the protection of voters’ rights.

Speaking to ANI on Monday, Tharoor maintained that demanding changes in the way elections are conducted should not be interpreted as an attempt to overthrow an elected government.

He also made it clear that peaceful political mobilisation was legitimate, while acts such as setting buses on fire or attacking police stations could not be justified.

Dispute centres on missing names in voter lists

At the heart of the controversy is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), which has triggered opposition protests and questions about the removal of names from electoral rolls.

Tharoor argued that the scale and manner of the deletions had raised serious concerns about whether the process was being carried out properly.

He maintained that the Opposition wanted safeguards to ensure that eligible citizens were not deprived of their right to vote.

Figures published by a media house indicate that more than 13 crore names were removed from draft electoral rolls covering 30 states and Union Territories.

Opposition parties have cited the scale of these exclusions while demanding greater scrutiny of the exercise.

The Election Commission, however, has defended the revision, saying its purpose is to maintain accurate electoral records by including all eligible voters and removing entries belonging to those who do not qualify.

Tharoor argues that the controversy should be judged based on the electoral process itself, rather than being portrayed as a campaign against the government.

He has also distinguished between questioning the Election Commission’s decisions and undermining the constitutional institution.

How the ‘regime change’ remark escalated the row

The phrase “regime change” has become a major point of contention following remarks made by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan at a press conference last week.

Bhushan used the expression while describing the campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Neha Bora, associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA), also invoked Bangladesh’s youth-led protests while expressing support for student demonstrators there.

These remarks subsequently became part of the wider political argument over the nature and objectives of the protests in India.

Rijiju amplified the issue through social media posts. On Saturday, he circulated a video featuring Opposition figures and activists speaking about regime change.

The following day, he alleged that some groups were attempting to provoke unrest on the lines of events in Bangladesh and France.

The minister also stressed that a government in India could be replaced only through the electoral process. His remarks effectively framed the agitation as a potential threat to political stability, a characterisation that Tharoor has rejected.

Opposition protests put Election Commission under pressure

The dispute has intensified as the Congress, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and Left organisations continue to oppose the SIR exercise and demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

For the Opposition, the central question is whether the revision has been conducted transparently and whether voters whose names have disappeared from draft lists will have an effective opportunity to establish their eligibility.

For the Election Commission, the stated objective is to clean up and update the rolls without excluding anyone entitled to vote.

The opposing positions have widened the debate from a technical exercise in electoral administration into a larger political contest over institutional accountability and democratic rights.

Tharoor’s intervention seeks to bring the focus back to that question: whether the electoral revision protects the integrity of the voting system while ensuring that eligible citizens retain their place in the democratic process.