Latest news with #RavishKumar
The Wire
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
Bihar Rolls: Why Is the Election Commission Sending Out Conflicting Notifications?
Could the EC's confusing ad be encouraging people without documents to submit a form, thus allowing it to build a list of those who cannot prove their eligibility? In this image released by @ECISVEEP via X on June 9, 2025, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar during an interaction with the Indian Diaspora in Stockholm, Sweden. Photo: PTI The Election Commission of India's voter re-verification drive in Bihar descended into chaos this weekend after it sent a volley of conflicting messages. The signals suggest the ECI is scrambling to shield itself from rising legal and public pressure. It began with a newspaper ad in Bihar that seemed to reverse the ECI's strict document rules. 'If the necessary documents and photo are not available,' it said, 'then just fill the enumeration form and make it available to the BLO.' Critics immediately called it a retreat. Journalist Ravish Kumar declared it an opposition victory, posting on X, 'The Election Commission has made a significant change... Now, let the Commission explain why this campaign is happening?' But the ECI quickly rejected this view. It insisted on X that its activities followed its June 24 order and that voters could submit documents later. Officials then told The Times of India the list of 11 documents was always 'indicative, not exhaustive.' Annexure C in the ECI's June 24 order says the same. This flexibility, however, had a catch. Aadhaar, a document held by over 90% of Biharis, would likely still be rejected. The state's political opposition condemned the mixed signals. Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Yadav said today, July 7, that his alliance had 'deep worry over the contradictory directions and advertisements issued by the Election Commission of India.' Yadav's statement captured a growing suspicion; that the ECI, facing a Supreme Court hearing on July 10, is making a strategic move. Analysts see two possible motives. First, the ECI may be trying to save a failing project. The logistics have been repeatedly questioned. With just 18 days to the deadline, its own data showed only 21.5% of 7.9 crore forms had been collected. The digitisation bottleneck is worse: only 7.25% of forms are uploaded to the central portal. By getting people to submit forms even without documents, the ECI can tell the Supreme Court that millions of forms are already in. It can then argue that stopping the process now would be wasteful. Second, and more alarming, the ad may be a Trojan horse. By encouraging people without documents to submit a form, the ECI could be building a list of those who cannot prove their eligibility. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) could then use this list under the controversial Clause 5(b) to refer 'suspected foreign nationals' to citizenship tribunals. The ad would become not a concession, but a tool to efficiently target people for disenfranchisement and potential deportment. Representing the RJD in the Supreme Court today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal called the one-month timeline an 'impossible task.' Across the petitions, the core arguments warn of a looming constitutional crisis: RJD MP Manoj Jha argued the process is a 'tool for institutionalised disenfranchisement' that ' disproportionately targets Muslim, Dalit and poor migrant communities ' by excluding documents like Aadhaar. Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra argued the drive introduces citizenship rules not found in the Constitution and alleges the plan will be repeated in West Bengal. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) noted the ECI failed to provide the legally required 'reasons to be recorded' for such a drastic step so soon after a routine revision. The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) called the process obsolete and costly, risking the defeat of 'democracy using the very tools of democracy' by creating 'exclusionary administrative mazes.' A sharp opinion from former Chief Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa adds weight to these fears. He questioned why the ECI would use a rule that risks stripping citizens of their vote, instead of its own 'time-tested procedure,' especially in a country 'where no citizenship document is issued by the government.' While scheduling the hearing, the Supreme Court offered a clue to its thinking. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that the July 25 deadline 'doesn't have sanctity as elections have not been notified as yet.' Caught between a logistical mess, a storm of legal challenges, and sharp criticism from a former election commissioner, the ECI's efforts to control the story have only deepened the crisis. All eyes now turn to the Supreme Court, which will rule on a process that threatens the fundamental rights of millions. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
The Print
21-04-2025
- Entertainment
- The Print
Vinay Shukla's ‘While We Watched' wins inaugural Henry grand prize at Harvard Kennedy School
Directed and produced by Shukla and produced by Luke W Moody and Khushboo Ranka, 'While We Watched' follows journalist Ravish Kumar for two years as he battles a barrage of fake news, falling ratings and the resulting cutbacks at his organisation. The award is given for Public Interest Documentary by The Documentary Film in the Public Interest Initiative. It recognises nonfiction films that advance public understanding of the critical issues of our time while demonstrating outstanding cinematic achievement. Mumbai, Apr 18 (PTI) Filmmaker Vinay Shukla's multiple award-winning documentary 'While We Watched', a turbulent newsroom drama featuring Ravish Kumar, has won the Grand Prize at the inaugural 2025 Henry Awards at the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. ''While We Watched' premiered at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival where it won the 'Amplify Voices Awards'. Starting with the 2025 Henry Awards, a grand prize of USD 100,000 will be awarded annually while each of the four finalists will receive a prize of USD 25,000. The award winners, finalists, and honorable mentions were recognized at a celebratory dinner on campus on April 16. Shukla said it was an incredible honour to receive the Henry Grand Prize – especially from an institution like Harvard, which has long stood for 'intellectual rigour, public service, and the pursuit of truth'. ''While We Watched' is a deeply personal film – not just about one journalist, but about what it means to hold on to your values when everything around you is shifting. We made this film against impossible odds: with no money, partners dropping out mid-production, and constant uncertainty about its future. To see it capture the zeitgeist the way it has over the past few years has been truly heartening,' the filmmaker said. Shukla said he feels like he has won 'Kaun Banega Crorepati', a popular quiz reality show hosted by Amitabh Bachchan as the prize money is the same. 'I feel like I've just won KBC – which is quite something, considering I wasn't the smart sibling,' he added. The jury for the 2025 Henry Awards, comprising Ra'anan Alexandrowicz, Mandy Chang, Petra Costa, Ron Nixon and Michèle Stephenson, said, ''While We Watched' is an exceptional cautionary tale that takes an unflinching look at the State's violent crackdown on freedom of expression through the experience of a journalist who dares to defend his integrity. 'Ravish Kumar is an unforgettable character. His specific story manages to instantly transcend its locality and become a real time documentation of the attack against the free press. The film is a brave effort by the filmmakers that should serve as a warning to us all.' PTI BK BK BK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
