Academia or Propaganda? The Political Playbook Behind JNU, TISS Reports

Two elections, two incomplete reports on Rohingyas, and the people and politics behind them.

Recent reports from JNU and TISS, published just before elections in Delhi and Maharashtra respectively, have been weaponised by politicians. 

(Photo: Aroop Mishra/ The Quint)

Two days before Delhi went to polls earlier this month, an interim report on illegal immigrants in the capital — and how they were altering its demography — was released. The report, penned by Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) professors, was titled ‘Illegal Immigrants to Delhi: Analysing Socio-Economic and Political Consequences.’

The same day, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Sambit Patra cited the report in a press conference, claiming that it proved there was a “notable increase in the Muslim population due to illegal migration from Bangladesh and Myanmar.” He alleged that “political patronage” from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) had enabled this influx.

Media reports rushed to run debates on the “findings,” without questioning the methodology or timing of the report. Two days later, Delhi cast its votes. The BJP secured a historical victory, and the “report” disappeared from the headlines.

Curiously, a similar report – with the same title except for the city’s name — had been published by professors at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) three months earlier, just before the Maharashtra Assembly elections.

Both the reports were released in their interim stages, before completion. Both relied on small samples and faced academic criticism for their methodology, funding, and motives. And in both instances, BJP leaders were quick to weaponise them as political tools in upcoming elections.  

“This is a clear example of how establishments are using institutes of higher learning to create some kind of credibility and legitimacy for their propaganda. It also shows that there are people in the institute who don’t mind compromising on academic freedom and integrity.”

A TISS professor who did not want to be named

A Political Pattern

In both cases, BJP leaders cited the reports almost immediately after their release.

The TISS study was presented at a seminar on 5 November. On 9 November, BJP leader Kirit Somaiya referenced the report in a video, reinforcing the party’s slogan for the Maharashtra elections, “Ek hai toh safe hai” (If we are united, we are safe). He claimed that the Hindu population in Mumbai would decrease to 54 percent by 2051.

A few days later, BJP IT cell Amit Malviya made a similar claim citing the report, warning that Mumbai would be lost to Muslims in a few years, especially if the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) comes to power. 

A similar sequence played out with JNU, where Patra and others amplified the study.

Avinash Kumar, assistant professor at JNU’s Centre for Informal Sector & Labour Studies, and a member of the the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers Association (JNUTA), dismissed the study as “political propaganda.”

“One cannot ignore the timing of the report – if one can even call it that,” he said. “There’s no problem if individuals have political views, but the issue arises when they misuse the academic space, brand, and value of the institution. The same political dispensation that once called JNU an anti-national institution wasting taxpayers’ money, now cites it when it suits them.”

Avinash Kumar

After the TISS report in November, more than 500 academics and researchers released a statement calling it a “deliberate attempt to polarise the electorate, vilify marginalised communities, and incite violence against migrants in Mumbai.” 

One of the signatories, a professor from TISS, told The Quint on the condition of anonymity, that it was obvious the report was “politically motivated”.

“The pattern may be new but the political motivation behind it is clear. Nobody otherwise presents a study by just speaking to 300 people. What was the need for it? We see the professors go to JNU to present the so-called report and the report becomes a national issue. Then we see the same kind of report the next time elections are held.”

TISS professor

The People Behind the Reports

Both reports had identical titles: ‘Illegal Immigrants to Delhi/Mumbai: Analysing Socio-Economic and Political Consequences.’

Oddly, none of the investigators were experts in migration studies or religious minorities. The JNU report’s principal investigator, Manuradha Chaudhary, is a professor at the Centre for Russian Studies, School of Language Literature and Culture Studies, and also serves as JNU’s Dean of Students.

Chaudhary was one of the signatories of a statement issued by a group of academicians and intellectuals in support of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The statement, issued in December while violent protests had broken out in various universities across the country, had also noted with “deep anguish” how an “atmosphere of fear and paranoia” was being created through “deliberate obfuscation and fear-mongering leading to violence."

On social media, Chaudhary has frequently retweeted statements by the RSS, such as this one video of RSS functionary Krishna Gopal saying, “Hindu hai toh rashtra hai” (If Hindus exisit, the nation exists), and that without Hindus, the nation would become a foreign country.

She has also shared posts of Kajal Hindustani, a right-wing activist known for her hate speeches. In the video, Hindustani speaks about how Hindu families were being destroyed due to young Hindu women being brainwashed by movies and TV shows. She goes on to explain how cinema purposefully shows Hindu women falling in love with “miya” (Muslim) men, which influences young girls going through hormonal changes. This is why ‘love jihad‘ takes place and Bollywood glamourises a Kareena Khan who goes ahead and gives birth to Taimur and Jahangir, she claimed in the video shared by the JNU professor.

Chaudhary’s co-investigator, Preeti D Das, is also a professor at the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies. The names of the research team—including two research associates, one project officer, one GIS expert, and six field investigators—are conspicuously absent from the report, with the explanation that they remain undisclosed for “security reasons.”

TISS assistant professor Souvik Mandal, co-author of the Mumbai report, is credited as a “knowledge partner” in the JNU study and thanked profusely for his “expert knowledge” and “guidance in implementing action plans.”

The TISS report, meanwhile, was led by Shankar Das, the institute’s Pro-Vice Chancellor and Dean of the School of Health System Studies, along with Mandal. In the past, Das has made headlines due to incidents such as the one in September 2024 when he refused to give a graduating student his degree, because he wore a keffiyeh scarf – a symbol of solidarity with Palestine.

Under his leadership, TISS last year banned the Progressive Students’ Forum, a left-wing student group, and included a clause in the “Honor Code” students had to pledge not taking part in any “anti-establishment” demonstrations, “unpatriotic discussion,” or any political activities.” After widespread criticism, they backtracked on these two. 

The report was presented at JNU on 11 November, with the university’s vice-chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit, and member of the Modi government’s Economic Advisory Council Sanjeev Sanyal as chief guests.

The JNUTA had condemned the event, calling it a “blatant misuse of academic spaces for ideological purposes and a “deliberate attempt to polarise the electorate, vilify marginalised communities, and incite violence against migrants in Mumbai.”

What the Reports Say

The executive summary of the TISS report has been inconsistently described.

Initially, it was referred to as a full report, then downgraded to an "interim report," later called a "pilot study," and eventually touted as "one of the most significant studies on illegal migration."

Its key findings claim that illegal immigrants have contributed to overcrowding in Mumbai’s slums, placing an excessive burden on public services like healthcare and education. The report even accuses immigrant children of depriving local students of quality education and resources by overcrowding classrooms.

It further claims that the percentage of Hindus had decreased from 88 percent in 1961 to 66 percent in 2011, while Muslims had risen from 8 percent in 2961 to 21 percent in 2011. They projected, without any evidence, that Hindu population would drop below 54 percent by 2051, while Muslims would increase by 30 percent. 

With the above statement, it seems evident that the authors equate Rohingyas with Muslims – seeing the rise of the latter  as a direct correlation to the former. 

Similarly, the executive summary of the JNU report, too, describes how migrants had created burden on healthcare and education, besides “significantly altering the city’s demographic landscape.” The report named Muslim-dominated areas in Delhi such as Seelampur, Jamia Nagar, and Mustafabad, saying that illegal migrants often settle here and “disrupt local cohesion.” 

It goes on to say that social tensions between migrants and local residents have occasionally led to protests, and that “the political patronage provided to illegal immigrants, including the facilitation of voter registration, has raised concerns about electoral manipulation and democratic integrity.”

Flawed Methodology, Questionable Conclusions

Academics have criticised both reports for their poor methodology and lack of credibility.

“This is a weak study, even by purely an academic yardstick. Demographic changes are seen across decades – you don’t do a survey of 300 people and make sweeping conclusions. Mumbai’s health crisis has been worsening for years, but blaming migrants is unfair. Most migration to Mumbai is intra-state, with people arriving from different parts of Maharashtra.”

TISS professor

The professor added that the study likely bypassed the institutional review board, a body which scrutinise the entire report thoroughly, including proposals and methodologies.

When the TISS report was presented in the institute and then in JNU, the authors said that they intended to have 3,000 samples for their study but had so far only taken a total of 300 samples.

The presentation of the study mentions at several points that the study “will” take on certain processes, making it unclear if at the time of presentation, the findings were based on a hypothesis of the study had been completed. The data cited in the presentation of the study is cited to sites like DrishtiIAS and at one point, even “author’s calculation.”

“Nobody puts out a survey of just 300 people. This isn't a report and the political motivation is really clear. Usually in academia, the gold standard of how good a report is if it is peer reviewed or perhaps where it is published. But this report has not followed the procedure. No one is vetting the methodology that is being claimed.“

TISS professor

A press release that followed the JNU report, meanwhile, accused the AAP’s Delhi government of being “unique in giving incentives to Rohinyas and illegal immigrants.” 

The report confusingly says that there is significant change in 147 pockets of Delhi NCR and the 21 studied for this pilot study. If only 21 pockets were studied, it is unclear how a conclusion for 147 pockets was arrived at. The report also says that the “illegal migrants refuse to assimilate in the social and cultural fabric of democratic and secular India as they want their own laws.”

Yashadatta Alone, a professor in JNU’s Visual Studies School of Art and Aesthetics, questioned how the authors conducted the survey – since it is unlikely that Rohingyas would openly identify themselves.

“Only the home ministry can verify such data — do we have the right to verify documents? Even if for some reason documents are shared with us, do we have the facility to cross-check the aadhar cards etc?” Such surveys paint Muslims as pre-determined categories rather than individuals. Moreover, crossing borders does not make someone a criminal. Everyone has a choice to migrate for a better life and more autonomy and freedom from their hardships. What JNU was years ago vs what it is now, we can feel the difference.”

Yashadatta Alone

Surajit Mazumdar, professor of economics at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning at JNU, said that these events were a sign that JNU’s autonomy was under increasing threat.

“What else can be sad when the JNU administration sets aside all systems of internal academic decision making to give it a stamp of approval to something that is being asked of it by external non academic forces?” he asked. “The problem with the report is that it seeks to find a methodology that will enable it to arrive at conclusions that are not only pre decided but also wrong. It does not even manage to do a very smart job of concealing its prejudiced outlook.”

Surajit Mazumdar

The Quint has reached out to the authors of the reports on phone/email. This article will be updated as and when they respond.