Why and How Congress would get 110+ Seats
- Among the pre poll surveys two surveys looked most trust worthy- CSDS – Loknithi and Rajdeep Sardesai’s channel. According to CSDS the likely seat Congress would get jumped from 90 in April to 100+ in May. This increase was predicted while Modi was busy with his rallies. (Those who are in the know, know why CSDS is credible).
- Though Rajdeep Sardesai is not pro BJP he had predicted that BJP would win in both 2014 LS elections and UP assembly elections in 2017. Presently he predicts that Congress would get 106-118 seats in Karnataka. Moreover his exit poll base is much bigger (around 70000)
- Though C-Four seems pro Congress, its exit poll base too is significantly large (27000). Even if we deduct around 5% vote share it predicts, even then the outcome seem to favour Congress.
- The polling percentage is highest in 2018 in the post independent era. For this kind of record voting either there should be a visible wave or women must have voted in large numbers as they did in 2013.
- If Modi wave were to be factor, then the voting in cities should have been significantly higher. As the data in other districts do not provide city based voting percentage, let us take Bangalore as an indicator. The polling in Bangalore is 10% less than what it was in 2013. It suggests that those who were influenced by Modi did not feel like voting!!
- If that is true then, higher polling must be due to the voting by women, backward communities and minorities. In 1978 when similar polling occurred (71.8 ) Congress led by Devaraj Urs had registered a massive victory.
The present scenario is akin to that. According to India today, over 48% Dalits and 80% Muslims have supported Congress. In 2013, where Muslim voters were over 40% BJP had won 6 out of 15. This time Modi & co must have contributed for a greater polarization of Muslim votes.
Generally 70% of the voters vote for their traditional favourite party. Hence we should look for the trends in voting pattern. We have only CSDS data regarding this (of April-May) that trend seems to favour Congress.
If someone wants to debate this logically, a discussion is worth it! I am subject to correction. But merely stating that Today’s Chanakya or C-Four predicts so does not prove anything.
If results prove this wrong, then
- The polling did not happen according to this logic
- EVMS should be doubted.
- The methodology and inference of the surveys must be faulty.
My analysis does not mean that I am pro Congress. This is an attempt to understand an electoral exit poll survey scientifically. Anyway, we have our role cut out.. Whoever wins, we may have to function as a vigilant opposition!
DR. H.V. VASU
SHIVASUNDAR
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
