Talk:2019 Indian general election

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

Why seats needed= 228 already filled for Cong ? It should be removed which makes no sense Lesenwriter (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 13:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Just saying. INC has 48 seats in the Lok Sabha right now. They need 272 to form the government. Simple arithmetic would tell you that 272-48=228. @Lesenwriter:, this is why it is prefilled. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of Arithmetic , but what is the logic behind for 48 seats and 228 when there is upcoming election for all 543 seats... it would be then 272 needed to form government . How do you determine 228 only needed ? 48 seats strength is over by 2019 May and now it's complete new election ... so current strength should not be pre-filled and needed shall be 272 for majority . Whatever i don't see issue there now as it is removed by someone else ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesenwriter (talk • contribs) 10:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I came here just to point out that the 'seats needed' is a very flawed conception. A better concept would have have been a common indicator of the majority to form government -- instead of a party specific indicator. The reason why I think it is stupid is because the seats a party holds in the previous parliament has no bearing on the seats in the impending parliament. That is, all parties have a clean slate when they enter Parliament -- they cannot continue to hold the seats they have right now by virtue of having been elected to it once. As a result, the seats needed thing kind of venture in psephology predicting that the parties will retain the seats they have presently -- which is particularly improbable in the case of BJP, making their seats needed flawed. Please relook at the whole concept as it is confusing, and very much flawed. VicHouse (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Prime Ministerial candidate

The template Template:Indian general election, 2019 stated that Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi are Prime ministerial candidates of their individual parties. Do we have reference for this? No media speculations or implied candidature; but a formal press release or press conference reporting wherein these two have been declared candidates? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

In case we are adding Rahul Gandhi as PM candidate we need to add other cadidates too including Mamata Banerjee, Akhilesh Yadav, Mayacati and Chandrababu Naidu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Have removed all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.This is not a presidential contest or even a two party contest.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Lok Sabha members are directly elected by the people of India and the party holding a majority in the Lok Sabha elects its leader as the prime minister of India. So remove [1] [2],Opinion polls,Leader,Party,Alliance,Leader since,Leader's seat,Last election,Seats needed etc.from infobox and add [3].Further consider to remove [4] [5] [6] 122.179.18.243 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 13 April 2019

Campaigning

Manifesto

Please rewrite Manifesto section content like

• The Congress released its manifesto, titled Congress Will Deliver on 3 April.
• ON March 28, the CPI(M) released its election manifesto for the 17th Lok Sabha in the country. The Manifesto was released by Sitaram Yechury, general secretary of the Party along with Polit Bureau members Prakash Karat, S R Pillai, Brinda Karat, Hannan Mollah, Nilotpal Basu and Subhashini Ali.
• The National Manifesto of All India Trinamool Congress
• Tejashwi Yadav releases RJD Lok Sabha election manifesto, supports Congress's NYAY yojana
• The TDP president N Chandrababu Naidu has released the party Manifesto for the 2019 General Elections on the eve of Ugadi, Telugu New Year, at his residence at Undavalli in Guntur district on Saturday 6 April 2019.
• The much awaited YSR Congress Party 2019 elections manifesto is finally released on the Telugu new year day 'Ugadi' on Saturday.6 April 2019

• CPI(ML) (Liberation) Manifesto for 2019 Lok Sabha Elections
• DMK has released its manifesto in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The manifesto has promised to make efforts for release of all seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. It has also promised compensation to victims of demonetisation.

• AIADMK manifesto promises national poverty eradication scheme

Campaign controversies

During the course of the campaign, several controversies arose, with parties being accused by one another and the Election Commission of India of violating the model code of conduct that was in force during the election.

• During campaigning for Modi, Chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, stated that "Congress people used to serve terrorists biryani and Modi ji's sena (Prime Minister Narendra Modi's army) gives them only golis and golas (bullets and bombs)". This statement of his was widely criticised by opposition, as he had supposedly insulted the Indian Army, by exploiting the achievments of the Army, for the benefit of Modi.

• The governor of Rajasthan Kalyan Singh, allegedly told BJP party workers that he is one among the"BJP ‘karyakartas". the Election Commission has found that his statements had violated the Model Code Of Conduct of elections, and seeks to ask the President to take further actions, as the governor had lowered the “prestige of the high office occupied by him”

• The Election Commission seeks information and broadcasting ministry's report on launch of NaMo TV, as the Congress party has lodged a complaint against it.

• The Election Commission has sought an explanation from the Railway and Civil Aviation Ministries on railway tickets and Air India boarding passes carrying Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s photographs.

• Among the interventions by the EC was a ban on the use of images of Pulwama martyrs. Later, CEO Teeka Ram Meena put a ban on the use of issues related to the Sabarimala temple during the poll campaign.

• Niti Aayog vice-chairman Rajiv Kumar violated the Model Code of Conduct by speaking against the Congress's NYAY or minimum income guarantee promise plan, the Election Commission said on 6 April 2019, rejecting his reply as not satisfactory.

• Revenue Secretary A B Pandey and CBDT Chairman P C Mody have been called to explain the raids amid allegations by the Congress that the ruling BJP was using enforcement agencies to target it during the poll season.

• In a letter to the Election Commission, the AAP legal cell alleged that the Prime Minister talked about Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, who was captured by Pakistan, during the interview to obtain political gains.

• Election Commission seeks report on PM Narendra Modi's Balakot strike remarks

• Mayawati and Navjot Singh Sidhu appeals Muslims to vote for Congress going against Election Model Code of Conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Participating parties

Please remove alliance column to exclude Sumalatha (Independent Candidate supported by BJP in Mandya) from National Democratic Alliance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.248.12 (talk • contribs)

References

• 112.133.248.12 / 112.133.248.26 / etc: You have been edit warring and replugging OR in the past. Wikipedia articles are not a laundry list of every allegation filed with the Election Commission against a particular party or politician – Congress or BJP or Kerala Communist parties or zillion others in India. You seem to be targeting one political party and providing a list of allegations against them. That raises NPOV issues. The same sources state that that counter-allegations have been filed with the same commission against almost every party on all sorts of issues ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc). This article cannot become a list of one-sided 10, or 100, or 1000, or 10,000 or 100,000 EC complaint one-line summaries. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor a laundry list of allegations, advocacy, attacks, praise that are pro- or anti-Congress, pro- or anti-BJP, and pro- or anti-whichever party that interests you or another editor. Wikipedia is not the place to run a campaign against and in favor of any particular party, or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:WWIN guidelines. I am looking into the manifesto list you provided, and will add them shortly where appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Ms Sarah Welch: Thanks for the editing and suggestions. You and or others too targeting one political party and providing a list of allegations against them in alleged institutional undermining (In response, Modi termed the allegations "a big joke", commenting that Congress and the communists had themselves undermined institutions including the police, CBI and the CAG, and cited the murder of BJP activists in Kerala and Madhya Pradesh.), Economic performance, and Income tax raids sections etc. So we need to add details about Campaign controversies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.248.24 (talk • contribs)

References

112.133.248.*: That section and those words were there before my first edit to this article. Those are contributions from other editors and okay because they cover the different sides, meet the NPOV and other core wikipedia community agreed content guidelines. The new sub-sections have tried to include issues / controversies-related content from secondary sources that cover the different sides per our NPOV guidelines. Please do not reformat this talk page sections or where the reflist is. Please follow the style and chron guidelines for this talk page. Also, please sign your posts on this talk page [by including ~~~~ without the nowiki markup]. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Unemployment section /Jobs data: Misinformation?

@Abecedare and RaviC: and others: This article states, "According to this [National Sample Survey Office] report, the 2017–2018 unemployment rate in India was at 6.1%, a four-decade high". It cites a newspaper, that does check out (other newspapers / tabloids in India mirror the same or something similar). That "low unemployment rate" is a very strong, exceptional claim to make for 40+ years, when in the same 40+ year period, the US, Canada, European nations, China, etc have seen much higher unemployment numbers. So, I sought scholarly papers as well as the NSSO survey archives at Harvard, and data files of the ILO and the World Bank. The easiest one to access and read is a paper in an Indian journal Economic and Political Weekly. In 2013, Abhishek Shaw published a paper titled, "Employment Trends in India: An Overview of NSSO’s 68th Round" (Vol. XLVIII, No. 42, pp. 23–25, Link). The Shaw paper, its table 5 on page 25 in particular, states that the 1999-2000 unemployment rate was well above 7% (unemployment rate for rural male: 7.2%, rural female: 7.0%, Urban male: 7.3%, Urban female: 9.4%). The 2005 unemployment percentage was even worse. The 2010 and 2012 unemployment numbers do not look too good either. Thus the newspaper claims about "6.1%, a four-decade high" is either false, or the Shaw 2013 paper in a peer-reviewed Indian weekly journal was false/wrong. In the interest of keeping wikipedia as honest as our abilities allow, and avoid being a source of misinformation, what should we do about this? Clearly the "6.1%, a four-decade high" claim is in the newspapers and thus meet our WP:V guidelines. Yet, given the Shaw paper analysis, and given the latest NSSO survey has not been released yet, these newspapers may not be WP:RS for the "four-decade high" historical claim that has not been vetted by scholarship. For now, I am leaving it in. Should we attribute it and add a ref-note? Keep it as is. Remove it completely? Suggestions and comments welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The 6.1 unemployment rate for 2017-18 reported by Business Standard is as measured per the 'usual status' approach. The unemployment rates in Table 5 of the Shaw paper are as measured per the 'current daily status' approach. The two measures are not directly comparable. Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Another article that talks about the data's unreliability. A statistical embarrassment --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the data has been proven to be unreliable, I think it's probably best to either remove it or alternatively make reference to its unreliability in the text. --RaviC (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare: Thanks. For those wondering what Abecedare is talking about, please see this and study the related appendices from NSSO. I will study these closer, and call some scholars in this field of expertise. May take me a day or few. RaviC: I suggest we let it remain in the article until then (and till we have a consensus on the talk page), since it is verifiable and in so many newspapers published over there. Leaving it in may be fair to the editors who added it in the first place and help avoid unnecessary edit warring. I urge patience. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sarah, you can likely download the data for all the post-1983 surveys from here (I haven't done so myself). The 2004-05 and 2009-10 data are easiest to access in this report (page 27 of pdf); the 2011-12 data is accessible here (page 18 of pdf).

As a cross-check, these can be used to verify the last three columns in Table 5 of Shaw's paper. The UR_{usual status, rural+urban, male+female} for 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12 are recorded in these reports as 2.3%, 2.0% and 2.2% respectively, which is consistent with the Business Standard claim. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare: Thanks again. The data is odd and not comparable with the unemployment data from the US, EU and other major economies. The data is odd because it is difficult to believe (or understand) how India can have "usual status" unemployment rate of 8 per 1000 or 0.8% (see 2009-2010 report, page 56, Table S28, all-India male+female data)? This implies 99.2% of those 1000 were "usual status" employed in 2009-2010. Incredible! Even full employment situation in a major economy has people between jobs and therefore about ~3% to ~6% unemployment rate. How can the Indian population have below 1% "usual status unemployment" (or extremely low "current weekly/daily status" unemployment rate, Tables S29 etc) in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s but also report high poverty rates and low per capita income rates in the same decades. Were the masses working for no wages, producing nothing of economic value, and yet fully employed (I still need to complete reading through their methodology pages)? From this article's perspective, that 6.1% unemployment rate-related sentence is unclear and confusing since NSSO's "usual status unemployment" terminology is different than "unemployment" terminology in use in the US, Europe and elsewhere. We do not have an article on Usual status unemployment, so we can't link it and let any interested reader understand what NSSO means by unemployment. Either a ref-note or a link to another wiki article that better explains all this could be helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the definitions of these terms are non-intuitive and country-specific.

For example it is not true that "usual status" unemployment rate of 8 per 1000 or 0.8% ...implies 99.2% of those 1000 were "usual status" employed in 2009-2010.. If you follow along the definitions on page 13, you'll see that "Proportion employed" (not that that is a term used in the document) = Labour Force Participation Rate (LPFR) - Proportion unemployed (PU) = 39.2% (of the total population).

The two main factor that make unemployment numbers for India and, say, US not directly comparable are (a) the significantly lower LPFR in India (esp among women), and (b) and the much laxer definition in India for counting as employed, for example per the CWS standard, working 1 hour in the preceding week places a person in the employed category (cf, different standards used for defining literacy). The 'usual status' standard, is more complicated, but even laxer! There are other secondary factors that effect things on the margin eg seasonal adjustment; whether total population or working-age-population is used in the denominator; how seeking-employment is defined etc. And beyond these definitional issues there are issues related to how-frequently and how these measures are estimated (eg, issues, as Bhalla says, regarding how the population is sampled)

(TL;DR)  All this may be too-far-afield for this article, but could/should be better explained at Unemployment in India. Abecedare (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare: I heard back this evening from someone in this field of expertise. His comments pretty much are along what you wrote above plus those in the Bhalla article (thanks Rsrikanth05 for that link). It may be best to keep that Business Standard source supported text in the article, but for NPOV, we could add a few disputing lines from the Bhalla article as a ref-note. The Bhalla article mentions this election thus is relevant to the subject, and as an economist with a PhD from Princeton and publications, he is an RS. I should have some time on Wednesday, or the day after, to add that clarifying ref-note, but anyone else willing to dive into these and other relevant sources is most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a source where a scholar / respected economist defends the unemployment data collection every 5-year in India rather than monthly or quarterly, or supports NSSO's sampling methodology and the 2017–2018 report? If someone knows of one or few, please provide. FWIW, according to Raghuram Rajan – the former RBI governor and current professor at Univ of Chicago – "We need to collect better jobs data. Unfortunately, the issue has languished, as various arms of the [Indian] government have never settled on whose responsibility it is. I believe, there are still various efforts on, but I am unsure of their progress. It is one reason why we need to push a thorough look at our statistics" (Link1) and "Jobs statistics have been very poor for a long time [in India]. We need to improve the collection of these... cannot rely on EPFO or other make-do versions, need to collect better jobs data." (Link2). Perhaps, as Abecedare notes above, all this could/should be better covered in the Unemployment in India article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeated RTIs have revealed that Labour Bureau's report on employment-unemployment data is supposedly ready and was to be released in 2018. Why then is the BJP continuing its deafening silence on the matter? (Link1) Results of a survey on jobs created under the Micro Units Development and Refinance Agency (Mudra) scheme, conducted by the Labour Bureau, will not be released before the 2019 elections, the Indian Express has reported.(Link2) Gujarat Unemployment: 8 RTI Queries, 1 Answered and 7 Stonewalled [https://www.thequint.com/voices/blogs/gujarat-elections-2017-rti-employment (Link3)122.172.253.60 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

'Issues' section too long

There is too much content in the 'Issues' section and people will get lost in the same. I strongly feel that the 'Issues' section must be shortened or other sections like manifestoes etc must be brought at the top Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dheerajmpai23 I suggest you create a summary at the top of the section which covers all the issues for people with low attention span.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Jonathansammy: That "people with low attention span" motive is inappropriate. Dheerajmpai23, you and we all must respect and follow the MOS and our content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ms Sarah Welch, I believe the summary you deleted at the beginning of the issues section can go in the lede section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.The lead section as it stands also does not summarise the contents of the article. It can be expanded.Please comment.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If you draft a proposed summary of that section in the main article per WP:Lead, we can discuss it. I do not think we should paste into the lead the sentence I deleted. We should strive for a better and more complete summary of the most important points in the main article. Or, just wait a few weeks when the results come out. The article would expand then and so would the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, however, we should not wait for the election to conclude.We should have a lede for the article as it stands now.Once the results come out much of the content will change and as a consequence, the lede will too.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dheerajmpai23 I think Income tax raids, Social media abuses and fake news, NaMo TV and Modi biopic, Dynasty Politics are controversies and not issues. So please restore "Campaign controversies" section and move them to "Issues" section along with some other main controversies.122.172.178.174 (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with 122.172.178.174 (talk) . I think we should seperate out the sections. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

@Ms Sarah Welch, Political Observer 2019, Abecedare, and RaviC: I propose to merge Campaigning in the 2019 Indian general election,Bharatiya Janata Party campaign for the 2019 Indian general election and Indian National Congress campaign for the 2019 Indian general election articles into 2019 Indian general election.Requested to tag the destination page.122.172.249.1 (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Different topics. Once the voting data and the state-by-state results start pouring in, this article will grow (see the 2014 Indian general election and study the editing history in 2014). Better if those other campaigning-related articles are expanded and we keep a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for all except campaigning in the 2019 Indian general election, which is a poorly sourced fork of the main article created by an IP, so should definitely be redirected (at least for now). The other two are more specific so shouldn't be merged. --RaviC (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The article 2019 Indian general election is already too long. I agree with @RaviC that campaigning in the 2019 Indian general election can be merged. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Hi RaviC,Please transfer Background, Issues and Campaign controversies sections to 2019 Indian general election before redirecting the Campaigning in the 2019 Indian general election to 2019 Indian general election. 122.166.149.105 (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's an unsourced fork full of empty sections and you need to stop editing from here without your account; if not I will need to file a SPI report. --RaviC (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Campaign controversies section is missing

@GVOLTT, Dheerajmpai23, Aswin8, Rsrikanth05, Abecedare, RaviC, and Ms Sarah Welch: I think Income tax raids, Social media abuses and fake news, NaMo TV and Modi biopic, Dynasty Politics are controversies and not issues. So please restore "Campaign controversies" section and move them to "Issues" section along with some other main controversies.122.172.178.174 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No. We summarize the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ms Sara Welch. In addition, if you want to edit here, use your account instead of editing with different IP addresses. --RaviC (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, they don't warrant more than a mention here. They van very well go into a controversies article by themselves. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced content, WWIN and BLP issues

@Rams are: The cited sources do not support much of what you added, and your edits seem to be one-sided pro-BJP, anti-Congress. For example, this source does not mention the Benjamin property act which you inserted into the cited sentence, then you edit warred by re-inserting it back. As I mentioned in the sections above, any OR or one-sided cherrypicked summary in favor of or to attack the Congress, the BJP, or any individual or a party/organization violates our OR, NPOV and other content guidelines. Similarly, per WP:BLP and WP:WWIN guidelines we need to be careful with fresh allegations against any individual, no matter how much you like, dislike, love, hate that living person. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Please explain your edits and how they meet our content guidelines. Please do not edit war. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: The Election Commission of India has now responded to the complaint by an independent candidate (not from BJP). The candidate Dhruv Lal is one of many competing in Amethi. Dhruv Lal questioned whether Rahul Gandhi is a citizen of the United Kingdom and why his nomination papers do not show the income from the company named BackOps Limited that was registered and existed between 2003-2009. The Election Commission of India rejected the objections on April 22 2019, ruling that Rahul Gandhi's candidacy is valid.

This is not a new issue to those with good access to archived documents and published sources. Yesterday, I had done a quick search which had yielded the following: In November 2015, several sources (1, 2) described that Rahul Gandhi had started a consulting company as 65% owner, with someone else named Ulrik McKnight (35% owner). At the time of incorporation in 2003, Rahul Gandhi is shown as a person of "Nationality: Indian" in the UK's Companies House filings (McKnight was shown as American). The next document filed about a year later was typed as "Nationality: British", but this was manually crossed out by someone at some point of time and changed to Indian. In the years after 2005, Rahul Gandhi's nationality [citizenship] is typed in as British, year after year. This evidence became public and the issue of his citizenship was raised in 2015. At that point, Congress party denied that Rahul Gandhi ever became a British citizen, and claimed that the BackOps papers were an error. It is unclear what BackOps did, who its customers were, but except for two years when it made a very small profit, the company was very small and was closed in 2009.

Given the EC ruling above, I do not consider this as a significant and notable issue for this article at this point. I suggest we leave it out, because this is little more than sensationalism, there are a zillion sensationalist allegations and stories against BJP leaders, Congress leaders, regional party leaders and per our WP:WWIN and other guidelines that is not what our articles try to summarize. However, if others offer persuasive reasons in this particular case and a consensus emerges that we include it, I will go with the consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

OR:Synthesis issues in Dynasty politics

Jonathansammy: Tish Sanghera's report is largely a historical analysis of elected representatives from dynasties/those with extended family links, since 1952. The report cites a student (don't know whether the student compiled data has been peer-reviewed), and has other issues. We cannot summarize much from it, nor can we synthesize or imply new conclusions to 2019 elections, per our WP:Synthesis guidelines. A source such as this may be relevant to Political families of India or some other article, but here we must focus on the 2019 elections. @Kautilya3: any 3O? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree with that sentiment. What content are we talking about?

From the source, I think the best line to be taken seems to be the nam-dar vs kam-dar slogan. That captures the BJP strategy quite brilliantly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This, in particular the historical claims about various parties including the Congress and the BJP. Sanghera's report seems to be poorly researched and quite likely incorrect given the extensive tables, charts and discussions in this scholarly source published by Cambridge University Press about dynasty politics in India. It would have helped if Sanghera's report had disclosed or provided the underlying data on their IndiaSpend website, but I couldn't find it. Admin Nyttend has been right all along in reminding that newspapers can be a good source for the latest news, but they are typically not WP:HISTRS or RS for critical reviews and other areas where we must seek peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Chandra's book has many interesting chapters written by various scholars on political dynasties in India, it compares them to political dynasties in over 100 countries including those in Europe and in the USA (and South Asia), how this is a universal phenomenon, how Indian realities differ and are complicated, the bad and the good amongst these, and so on. This is not the right article though for all this because such a discussion would be offtopic and WP:Coatrack-ing. Perhaps someone with time and patience could expand Political families of India, or another appropriate article, or start a new article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge sections

Consider merging of Election schedule, Reschedule, Cancellations, Voting and Turnout sections.

Extended content

The election schedule was announced on 10 March 2019, and with it the Model Code of Conduct came into force. Election schedule The election is scheduled to be held in seven phases, with counting starting on 23 May. In Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, the election will be held in all seven phases. The polling for the Anantanag constituency in the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be held in three phases, the first of its kind, due to violence in the region that had prompted the ECI to cancel a bypoll in 2016, leaving it vacant since then. Vellore, Tamil Nadu: Over ₹11 crore (US$1.3 million) in cash was seized in Vellore from DMK leaders – a regional party in Tamil Nadu. According to the News Minute, this cash is alleged to have been for bribing the voters. Based on the evidence collected during the raids, the Election Commission of India cancelled the April 18 election date in the Vellore constituency. The DMK leaders have denied wrongdoing and alleged a conspiracy. Tripura East, Tripura: The Election Commission of India deferred polling from April 18 to 23 due to the law and order situation. The poll panel took the decision following reports from the Special Police Observers that the circumstances were not conducive for holding free and fair elections in the constituency. According to the Election Commission of India, 900 million people were eligible to vote, with an increase of 84.3 million voters since the last general election in 2014, making this the largest-ever election in the world. 15 million voters in the age group of 18–19 years are eligible to exercise their right to vote for the first time while 38,325 transgenders will be able to vote for the first time as members of the third-sex and not as male or female. 71,735 overseas voters have been enrolled in the electoral rolls for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. In 2015, an India-Bangladesh boundary agreement was signed, in which the two countries exchanged their enclaves. As a result, it will be the first time in which residents of these former enclaves vote in an Indian general election. ... In the first phase of the general election, about 69.45 percent of the 142 million eligible voters cast their vote to elect their representatives for 91 Lok Sabha seats. This was higher than the 2014 nationwide election average turnout of 66.44 percent. In the second of the seven voting phases, 157.9 million voters were eligible to vote to elect their representatives for 95 Lok Sabha seats. The average turnout for the second phase was about 69.43 percent in 2019, compared to 69.60 percent for the same seats in 2014. In the third phase of the general election, 176 million voters were eligible to elect 116 Lok Sabha representatives at 20,116 polling booths. The estimated average turnout for Phase 3 was 65.71%, according to The Election Commission of India. Phase Date Constituencies States and Union Territories 1 11 April 91 20 Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Odisha, Sikkim, Telangana, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep 2 18 April 95 12 Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Puducherry 3 23 April 116 15 Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Goa, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tripura, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu 4 29 April 71 9 Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal 5 6 May 51 7 Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal 6 12 May 59 7 Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Delhi 7 19 May 59 8 Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Chandigarh Key   Polling held   Polling ongoing   Polling to be held State/UT Total constituencies Number of voters Number of constituencies, election dates and turnout Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7 Male Female Third gender Total voters 11 April Turnout 18 April Turnout 23 April Turnout 29 April Turnout 6 May Turnout 12 May Turnout 19 May Turnout Progress 91 95 116 71 51 59 59 Andhra Pradesh 25 1,93,82,068 1,97,95,423 3,908 3,91,81,399 25 79.88 Arunachal Pradesh 2 2 Assam 14 5 Bihar 40 4 Chhattisgarh 11 1 Goa 2 Gujarat 26 Haryana 10 Himachal Pradesh 4 Jammu and Kashmir[a] 6 2 Jharkhand 14 Karnataka 28 Kerala 20 Madhya Pradesh 29 Maharashtra 48 7 Manipur 2 1 Meghalaya 2 2 Mizoram 1 1 Nagaland 1 1 Odisha 21 4 Punjab 13 Rajasthan 23 Sikkim 1 1 Tamil Nadu[b] 38 Telangana 17 17 Tripura 2 1 Uttar Pradesh 80 8 Uttarakhand 6 5 West Bengal 42 2 Andaman and Nicobar Islands 1 1 Chandigarh 1 Dadra and Nagar Haveli 1 Daman and Diu 1 Delhi 7 Lakshadweep 1 1 84.96 Puducherry 1 Total 542 468 million 432 million 38,325 900 million 91 95 116​1⁄3 Total constituencies by end of phase 91 186 302​1⁄3 Percent complete by end of phase 17% 34% 56% a polling in Anantanag scheduled over three days b polling in Vellore cancelled (see above) References

122.179.16.154 (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• No, because the existing format is clearer, better and per our MOS guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• I have been WP:BOLD and neverthless combined all Voter Turnout tables into one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Unemployment section

We need to add other references like Repeated RTIs have revealed that Labour Bureau's report on employment-unemployment data is supposedly ready and was to be released in 2018. Why then is the BJP continuing its deafening silence on the matter? (Link1) Results of a survey on jobs created under the Micro Units Development and Refinance Agency (Mudra) scheme, conducted by the Labour Bureau, will not be released before the 2019 elections, the Indian Express has reported.(Link2) Gujarat Unemployment: 8 RTI Queries, 1 Answered and 7 Stonewalled (Link3) 122.179.27.56 (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No. A more constructive approach would be to update, revise and expand Unemployment in India and then link it here, perhaps with a summary sentence or two in a refn note. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing section on neutrality / ineffectiveness of Election Commission

The 2019 election campaign trail has seen a big rise communal and hate speech and the Election Commission has been widely criticized in its ineffectiveness in ensuring a free and fair election campaign. In some other cases – like suspension of officers who searched PM's helicopter, or the case of delayed cognizance against the top leaders of the ruling government – its neutrality has also been questioned. This article would be incomplete without references to these. Shubhamkanodia (talk) 6:37, 4th May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shubhamkanodia please go ahead and add yourself otherwise Ms Sarah Welch may say "No.A more constructive approach would be to update, revise and expand Election Commission of India (ECI), Election Commission of India's Model Code of Conduct or any other articles then link it here, perhaps with a summary sentence or two in a refn note." 122.179.18.243 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Shubhamkanodia: Wikipedia is not a place to publish/repeat the latest sensationalist allegations, nor a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Tabloids, blogs, op-eds in newspapers and such information sources tend to publish whatever news, speeches, claims and propaganda they feel fit for their readers and click-baits, but we cannot lead this curve nor participate in this per our community agreed guidelines. As you probably know, all major political parties in India have been accusing the political leaders and their opposition of all sorts of things (see the section above on Rahul Gandhi's citizenship). We cannot include every little allegation or every major sensationalist claim. If their regional courts or their Supreme Court have determined that there is/has been "a big rise communal and hate speech" in the last few months over the past elections, or that the Election Commission has been failing in a manner you mention, then such a summary would be welcome only if presented with one or more reliable sources. Else, we need to wait till there is scholarly or judicial peer-reviewed publications or equivalent. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Parties and alliances

Update parties and alliances section with list all other parties, fill the number of independent candidates from List of Contesting Candidates and consider removing alliance column.171.61.110.126 (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Campaigning

@LeoC12, AS Sayyad, Davemck, Master of Time, Number 57, Dheerajmpai23, Nandeesh Kabbur, Dharmadhyaksha, and Jonathansammy: Create Prime Ministerial candidates/Prominent candidates section and list Narendra Modi,Rahul Gandhi,Prakash Karat,Mamata Banerjee,Naveen Patnaik,Arvind Kejriwal,Nara Chandrababu Naidu,Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao,H. D. Deve Gowda and others. 171.61.110.126 (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Table and arrows

@Anon200401:, others: Thank you for all the updates. You Anon200401 added those arrows (, ) to the table. It may not be obvious to wikipedia readers what they mean or what those arrows are in reference to (Turnout higher than 2014 elections etc, as your edit comment suggests). Would be nice if we could add something in the footnotes or the key above the table to explain those color-coded arrows. Is there a way for us to do so? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I've included a footnote to that effect. Note that this table is likely to metamorphose in a few days upon completion of elections in India. The color coded progress will vanish, some formatting might change as needed, and perhaps another table with a single, state-wise turnout figure and other population-wide numbers will become equally significant. Anon200401 (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anon200401: Before indicating the turnout change compare the number of phases and the constituencies of both elections, I suggest to keep the change only for total column by adding percentage figures of increase or decrease like: { {increase|00.00%}} { {decrease|00.00%}} 112.133.244.27 (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not the Election Commission of India has, quite competently, released the change from 2014 elections numbers on a constituency-by-constituency basis. Made it easy for us to not spend effort on WP:OR. The table in its current form will remain useful in the short term--many are interested in trying to guess which way the political winds are blowing in India based on whether turnout has been more or less than in the previous elections. In a few months' time, such analysis will be less urgent and then this table can be collapsed (my preference) or removed (not my recommendation) or replaced by another table with less granularity. Anon200401 (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Anon200401: I would welcome and support your "preference" version. Please keep the table relatively simple and intuitive to understand for the wikipedia readers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sid54126:: Thanks for taking the time to cull out specific turnout numbers from the ECI data and calculating final voting percentages for the states where polling was multiphasic but has completed. Upon rechecking WP:NOR it appears that "routine calculations" including "basic arithmetic", which is what you did, is permitted provided there is editor consensus. I checked your numbers and you've obviously spent a lot of time going to the ECI source and doing the necessary calculations. My apologies for undoing your edit. Anon200401 (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Agrarian and rural distress

@Rams are, Ms Sarah Welch, Rsrikanth05, Hemant Dabral, Rsrikanth05, Vanamonde93, Shreyas112358, Gazoth, Dheerajmpai23, and Shreyas112358: Thank you for contributing to Agrarian and the rural distress section. If you'd like to include a citation, please read Documents obtained through RTI requests shed more light on complaints by farmers that money deposited under the PM Kisan scheme was immediately debited by the banks. 112.133.244.27 (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Something similar has been happening in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, where the new Congress-led state governments and Rahul Gandhi-stated "loan waivers" are actually nothing more than legislative action. No money has been paid by these state governments to the farmer or their bank accounts so that they can pay off their loan, nor has the money been paid to the bank so that they can mark the loan as paid. The farmer loans in those states are still on the banks' books. So, the Congress party's "loan waiver" is fiction (unlike their Karnataka and Maharashtra states where those governments have actually transferred some money or plans to do so). That may be interesting to summarize in another wikipedia article such as the Politics in India or a Farm loans in India article, but all this is not really relevant and WP:Due in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ms Sarah Welch here. Seems overdue in this article, but can be mentioned in the article on farm loans or the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No new article please. maybe just one sub-section in Agriculture_in_India#Problems. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: Do you know the difference between Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana and Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi? 112.133.244.22 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch and Dharmadhyaksha: Summarize in another Wikipedia article later, but do it first here or remove and consider summarizing "The BJP campaign has highlighted that the Congress party had been in power for five generations of the Nehru dynasty and its past promises and campaign issues have been empty. It claims that the recent farmer loan waivers by Congress have not reached "even 10% of the farmers" nor has it helped the financial situation of the farmers. BJP highlights that its "Kisan Samman Nidhi" helps the small farmers at the time of seed planting through a direct deposit of ₹6000 to their accounts. The opposition has accused this as being an attempt to lure voters." too in another article. 112.133.244.22 (talk)

Yes I do. There is no need to attack users. Whatever be the case, it can go to the relevant article, it is overdue here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is undue weightage to Indian farm loan waivers already at Loan waiver. One may want to curb that there and add to; like my initial suggestion, to Agriculture_in_India#Problems. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

2405:204:A389:9B67:67E1:F50C:85E5:4E2E (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Refund

@Rohit.dandona1, LeoC12, JDuggan101, Manthara, JDuggan101, Certes, Dheerajmpai23, 182.64.164.98, Samf4u, Kahtar, Akashgautamab, Vishnuprasadp, Shashwat312, Rsrikanth0, Gazoth, Shreyas112358, Absolutelypuremilk, and Wafflepancake34: Please have a look at removed content. I suspect there may be anything salvaging in the removed content. 112.133.244.19 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Which removed content in particular are you referring to? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: All! Browse revision history you will find some such as the Citizenship amendment bill 2016,Job crisis/Unemployment,Ram temple,Rafale deal,Prime Ministerial Candidates,Endorsements,Campaign controversies,Attack on the Independent Institutions/Alleged institutional undermining,Campaign controversies,Allegations of price escalation,Voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) or verifiable paper record (VPR) and Prison term for false complaint on Electronic Voting Machines etc. Further review other sections too.112.133.244.21 (talk)

Economic performance

@Rams are and Ms Sarah Welch: and others:If you'd like to include a citation, please read NSSO Questions Quality of Key Database Now Used to Calculate GDP [12],Money of Indians in Swiss banks rise 50% to over Rs 7,000 cr .. [13],NPAs up by Rs 6.2 lakh crore under NDA, finds parliamentary committee [14],In Supreme Court,EC Criticises Modi Govt’s Electoral Bonds and Foreign Funding Tweaks [15],India’s debt under Modi govt surges 50% to Rs 82 lakh crore [16],PM Modi went ahead with demonetisation before RBI’s formal approval: RTI [17],India's debt up 50% to Rs 82 lakh crore in Modi [18],Divestment has never been the same again — either during the UPA or the NDA rule [19]. 171.61.99.40 (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hopping IP: The 7000 crores INR ($1 billion) increase, if accurate, over a year in Swiss banks is a negligible amount, if you or your newscopy writer have ever carefully studied the international annual deposits and the holdings in Swiss and world banking system. Just the Swiss banks held $6.3 trillion in customer deposits in 2017. As another example, the divestment article is from 2018 and has no mention of 2019 Indian elections. So, instead of merely "if you'd like a citation", please consider the notability, balance, completeness, relevance, reliability, WP:WWIN and other content guidelines. Just like the way we can't include the pro-BJP or anti-Congress plugs from non-WP:RS op-eds / advocacy / sensationalism into this article as noted above, we can't include the pro-Congress / pro-whatever / anti-whatever op-eds / advocacy / sensationalism here. The content here must meet the matrix of community-agreed wikipedia content requirements. For more, please see the comments above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

In your opinion NSSO, EC, parliamentary committee and RBI sources are not as per notability, balance, completeness, relevance, reliability, WP:WWIN and other content guidelines? 171.61.101.216 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The source must mention the subject of the article, discuss its relevance, make the conclusions, etc. Those links don't. I just checked your links above again. We can't do OR:Synthesis etc in wikipedia. If you keep repeating yourself and pinging numerous editors in multiple sections of this talk page, please expect that you will be ignored. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You said that "The source must mention the subject of the article, discuss its relevance, make the conclusions, etc." But in your 2nd April 2019 revision you cited an interview to subject Kisan Samman Nidhi and you cited an inappropriate to the opposition has accused this as being an attempt to lure voters. 122.171.175.11 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The cited sources mention the "subject of this article,....". The summary presents the different sides in the 2019 elections context per our NPOV guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Your text used to summarize presents different sides and not cites. 122.167.228.35 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: In reading this, I have absolutely no idea what the dispute is about or over. Could the parties please summarize their positions and, if edits have occurred which illustrate the dispute, provide diffs? To other 3O volunteers, I have not taken or reserved this dispute and if you care to offer an opinion, please jump right in as I may very well not do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this. In light of the RFC now pending below, the 3O request has been removed (i.e. denied) as only one form of dispute resolution may be pending at any time. If the RFC is ended without other editors joining in then the 3O request may be re-made, but please do not do so without the clarification noted in the strikeout section. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

I want to edit voter turnout data which are described under the table. Link :

• https://www.eci.gov.in/files/file/2832-pc-wise-voters-turn-out/
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/phase-5-of-lok-sabha-elections-2019-states-constituencies-and-key-candidates-going-to-the-polls-on-may-6/article27039218.ece

STATE: CONSTITUENCY(2014'S %) total Average(2014's Average) and finally 2019's Average Bihar: Sitamarhi(57.18%), Madhubani(52.86%), Muzaffarpur(61.17%), Saran(56.12%) and Hajipur(54.91%) total Average(56.44%) which is less then 2019 current average(57.08%).

Rajasthan: Ganganagar(73.17%), Bikaner(58.45%), Churu(64.54%), Jhunjhunu(59.42%), Sikar(60.31%), Jaipur Rural(59.77%), Jaipur(66.35%), Alwar(65.36%), Bharatpur(57.00%), Karauli-Dholpur(54.62%), Dausa(61.08%) and Nagaur(59.90%) total Average(61.66%) which is less then 2019 current average(63.72%)

Uttar Pradesh: Dhaurahra(68.05%), Sitapur(66.25%), Mohanlalganj(60.75%), Lucknow(53.06%), Rae Bareli(51.73%), Amethi(52.39%), Banda(53.61%), Fatehpur(58.58%), Kaushambi(52.37%), Barabanki(62.06%), Faizabad(58.82%), Bahraich(57.02%), Kaiserganj(55.11%) and Gonda(51.08%) total Average(57.20) which is less then 2019 current average(58.00%)

West Bengal: Bangaon(83.36%), Barrackpore(81.77%), Howrah(74.79%), Uleberia(81.95%), Sreerampur(79.50%), Hooghly(82.88%) and Arambag(85.16%) total Average(81.34%) which is greter then 2019 current average(80.08%)

Madhya Pradesh: Tikamgarh(50.16%), Damoh(55.33%), Khajuraho(51.36%), Satna(62.63%), Rewa(53.74%), Hoshangabad(65.80%) and Betul(65.17%) total Average(57.74) which is less then 2019 current average(69.14%) Hforhirenpatel (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done, because it will make the table overly complicated and too difficult to understand to almost all wikipedia readers. Please see our MOS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with archiving of sources

This source gives links to various PDFs from where voter turnout is currently sourced in the article. I can actually archive this link myself. But i want the individual PDFs to be archived for future referencing. These PDF get downloaded directly on local drive and hence i dont know how to archive them. Can someone archive these PDFs? Govt websites have a tendency to change links and then all data is lost. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be nice if someone can figure out how to do this. Can the bookmarklet / procedure mentioned in WP:WebCite help? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Per the discussion above, this request for comment is to review all sections again. 122.179.18.249 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sri Lanka terror attack

Muthalganesan: Welcome to wikipedia. The tragic Sri Lanka terror attack by Muslims on Christians on Easter was mentioned during this long election campaign when it happened, but after a few days rarely if you look at the sources and their election coverage. That was therefore hardly a major issue for their political parties. It is not-WP:Due. Please discuss your evidence and reasons as to why it is WP:Due. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It is still widely discussed by Indian media and it is playing a huge role in the two South Indian states where Muslims, historically peaceful, are becoming more and more violent due to ISIS. The two citations provides a source about its impace on the election. I've posted articles from various dates:

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/sri-lankan-techie-under-indian-surveillance-key-in-bombings-investigators-2037745 http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/sri-lankan-techie-flagged-by-india-key-in-easter-attacks-say-investigators-119051400455_1.html http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/sri-lankan-software-engineer-under-indian-surveillance-key-in-easter-attack/articleshow/69320308.cms http://nypost.com/2019/04/30/india-nabs-alleged-follower-of-sri-lanka-bombings-suspect/ http://www.businesstoday.in/opinion/columns/sri-lanka-faustian-bargain-with-pakistan-exit-ltte-enter-isi/story/339389.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/tn-islamic-group-decries-terrorist-tag/story-QTeWO7tz3in9jirmhRQb9O.html

Also these three links also show about the impact on the election more:

http://www.economist.com/asia/2019/04/27/the-indian-governments-election-pitch-centres-on-hounding-minorities http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/high-stakes-india-social-media-whatsapp-elections-11534752 http://www.firstpost.com/india/sri-lankas-easter-sunday-bombers-with-alleged-islamic-state-links-had-visited-tamil-nadu-in-2017-no-proof-over-kashmir-trip-yet-6586221.html

I will presume that you are a westerner from your name and you appear to have a left-wing bias. I will revert the edit for now since I've provided plenty of links. Muthalganesan (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

These links either never mention the 2019 Indian general elections or mention it in the passing. I am sure you can find a few links, as I noted above, around the Easter day and perhaps later too. But, those links are a tiny subset of links on Indian elections issues. If you google or bing search Indian election issues, 99.9%+ do not discuss the Sri Lanka terror attack. The article already mentions terrorism as an issue. That suffices. You need to persuade that putting a para on the Sri Lanka attack in this article is WP:Due. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)