Union Minister Ramdas Athawale on Thursday, 22 October defended the Opposition's right to hold peaceful protests over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, but sharply questioned the logic behind their 'vote theft' narrative — asking whether the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) should make the same allegation after falling short of its 400-seat target in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

The SIR Controversy and Opposition Protests

The Opposition has raised concerns about the accuracy of electoral rolls under the SIR process, alleging bogus voting and the wrongful deletion of legitimate voters' names. Athawale acknowledged these concerns as legitimate areas of scrutiny. 'If their demand is legitimate, that vote theft occurred or that SIR is not right, their stance is that the electoral roll must be correct, and bogus voting or wrongful deletion of voters should not happen,' he said.

However, he drew a sharp distinction between raising procedural concerns and using those concerns as a political instrument to challenge the government's legitimacy. Demonstrations, he argued, cannot substitute for the democratic process.

Athawale's '400 Paar' Counter-Question

Athawale turned the Opposition's logic back on the ruling alliance, pointing to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ambitious pre-election target of winning more than 400 seats. The NDA ultimately secured 237 seats — well short of that goal. 'When PM Modi announced the '400 paar' goal and we didn't achieve that many seats, should we accuse them of stealing votes to get more seats?' he asked. He alleged that the Opposition 'simply has no other issue' and invents excuses to sustain its protest momentum.

Criticism of Opposition Leaders

Athawale also took aim at specific Opposition figures, dismissing what he described as repeated, unfulfilled predictions about the government's collapse. He specifically named Sanjay Raut, saying, 'Even earlier, Sanjay Raut used to say that the government would fall in 2024, but there was no possibility or indication of the government falling.' He characterised the Opposition as 'completely restless, unstable and agitated' over the electoral outcome, alleging that 'immense arrogance has built up in their minds.'

Constitutional Framework and the Bangladesh Contrast

Invoking the Constitution drafted under the leadership of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Athawale reiterated that governments in India change only through elections held every five years — not through street protests. He drew an explicit contrast with Bangladesh, where mass demonstrations led to a government change, stating that India's constitutional framework makes such an outcome impossible here. 'It is not Bangladesh, it is India. And there is the Constitution of India. But regime change is not possible through protests,' he said.

What This Signals

The remarks come as the Opposition's anti-SIR campaign gains traction ahead of upcoming state assembly elections, making the electoral roll row a politically charged flashpoint. Athawale's counter-narrative — reframing the protest as political desperation rather than democratic accountability — signals that the ruling coalition intends to go on the offensive on the issue rather than engage it only defensively.