The delimitation debate is being driven so much by southern angst and emotion, that we are unlikely to come to any sensible decision on it anytime soon. Many of the arguments being used by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and other southern politicians to call for a freezing of Lok Sabha seats for another quarter century or more are not just undemocratic, but juvenile too.
What stands out so far is not the fear of loss of seats by the south, but the refusal of northern politicians – by and large – to add fuel to the fire by making their own case for a greater share of the seats after delimitation. But if Tamil Nadu can do politics out of the delimitation exercise, so will Hindi-belt politicians at some point.
Tamil Nadu’s assembly elections are due next year, but Bihar’s are due this year, and Bihar has the most to gain from a delimitation exercise. Even without an expansion of Lok Sabha seats, Bihar will gain 10 seats on the basis of its current population, just marginally below Uttar Pradesh’s 11. Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) has already made it clear it wants the delimitation exercise to go through.
Opposition to delimitation
The arguments being used to freeze the current number of Lok Sabha seats are the following.
One, the states that reduced birth rates will be penalised for doing the right thing in the past. They cannot now be asked to accept a lower share of Lok Sabha seats on the basis of population.
Two, changes in the number of Parliament seats goes against the spirit of federalism.
We will deal with both issues shortly, but the argument completely missing is the one about democracy, and the right for equal treatment of citizens, including citizen voters. When the populous states are given a proportionately lower share of MPs now, the population represented by them effectively gets a lower per capita share of voice in national voting. Each voter, thus, has a lower right than in states with lower populations.
Also read: BJP understands South India’s delimitation fear. So it wants a fair, transparent process
Why is this an issue?
When the average population represented by an MP from Rajasthan is 2.74 million against Kerala’s 1.67 million, it effectively means that Rajasthan gets only 60 per cent of the voice share of the average Kerala resident. The five southern states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh represent 1.94 million voters on an average per MP, while the five populous states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana average 2.57 million. The five Hindi-belt states, thus, get only a 75 per cent share of voice relative to the five southern states.
Put simply, not delimiting constituencies for half a century has ended up denying the populous North its proper share of voice in national elections. All democratic countries, therefore, delimit constituencies after each Census so that they are all – to the extent possible – similar in size. This results in some states losing seats every decade and others gaining.
The reason why this has become a big issue now is simple: when you keep kicking the can of change indefinitely, vested interests will refuse to adjust to any change. No prizes for guessing which states will accept delimitation in 2056 – which is the postponement Stalin wants but does not find acceptable now. Why would Stalin’s grandson, assuming he is a powerful Tamil politician in 2056, accept anything his grandad didn’t?
Equalising constituency sizes regularly to make each voter’s vote roughly equal in impact is what true electoral democracies do.
In the United States, for example, in the 1972 presidential elections, California had 45 electoral votes, Pennsylvania 27, Texas 26 and Florida 17. In the 2024 elections, California had 54, Pennsylvania 19, Texas 40 and Florida 30. Since electoral votes are based on the number of congressional districts plus senate seats in each state, this implies that California, Texas and Florida have gained (among others) and Pennsylvania has lost the number of members it sends to Congress, with senate seats being a constant two for each state, big or small. But Pennsylvania continues to remain politically influential, as it is a “swing” state.
In the United Kingdom, based on the latest population surveys, England will gain 10 seats in parliament, and Scotland and Wales will lose two and eight seats, with Northern Ireland retaining its share. Anyone who follows British politics knows that regional sentiment is as strong there as in India, but cribs about loss of parliamentary seats don’t grab national attention.
There is also another point to make. While delimitation has been frozen in parliamentary constituencies, it happens fairly regularly in assembly seats. And even in the case of parliamentary seats, their complexion changes. And yet we hear no argument when rural seats are lost to urban ones. After the last delimitation exercise, the assembly and parliamentary clout of Mumbai’s suburbs grew at the expense of the island city. No party has opposed intra-state delimitation, even though urbanisation has been steadily increasing urban and suburban seats at the expense of rural ones.
Federalism, TFR
Southern politicians use two other arguments to support their demand for retaining the same number of Lok Sabha seats as they had in 1971. These relate to the negative impact on federalism, and being penalised for lowering birth rates as per national policy in the 1970s.
Let’s get rid of the federalism argument first. Federalism in India is defined by two constitutional provisions: one is the central, state and concurrent lists, which define areas where Centre and state can legislate, and where both can do so, with the Centre having an edge in terms of its ability to override state laws in the concurrent list. The other constitutional provision relates to the Upper House, the Rajya Sabha, where no delimitation takes place based on relative population sizes.
Since delimitation will not impact state numbers in the Rajya Sabha, the negative impact on federalism is nonsense. Also, in the absence of any changes in the central, state and local body powers, no state will be affected in terms of its federal rights. If anything, it is states that are denying local bodies and cities the powers they need to grow and create jobs. Devolution of power to local bodies is wholly up to the states, but few empower them.
Now let’s come to the birth rate issue. The southern states claim they made heroic efforts to reduce birth rates after the 1970s, and it is not fair to lower their share of MPs now. They can’t be penalised for success in reducing population growth rates.
The truth is the South had much lower TFRs (total fertility rates) even at the starting point in the 1970s, when the efforts to contain population growth began in earnest. TFR is an estimate of the average number of births per woman over her lifetime, and a TFR of 2.1 is considered healthy for retaining a stable population. For example, Tamil Nadu had a TFR of 3.9 in 1971; in the latest National Family Health Survey (2019-21), its TFR was 1.82, which implies a drop of 54 per cent. For Kerala, the corresponding figures were 4.1 in 1971 and 1.8 under NFHS, which indicates a drop of 56 per cent.
Contrast that with UP, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, which had TFRs of 6.6, 4.9 and 5.6 in 1971, and 2.4, 2 and 2 respectively in the NFHS. That’s a drop of 63 per cent, 59 per cent and 64 per cent, a much better performance than the southern states. (Data from here and here). The real laggard has been Bihar, which saw a drop from 5.7 to 3, just 47 per cent. Haryana was the outlier on outperformance, with a drop from 6.7 to 1.9, a heroic 71 per cent drop in TFRs over half a century.
On the other hand, Bihar’s underperformance, too, is not difficult to understand, for TFRs fall with the level of development. As social indicators improve and incomes rise, and women get more educated and employed, birth rates automatically fall. The southern states, which had much better social indicators in 1971 compared to the North, did not perform any specific miracle to bring down birth rates. It happened naturally. The real miracle is the drop in TFRs in the Hindi belt despite having lower levels of literacy and healthcare than the South even today.
Also read: United States of South India—Stalin’s push against delimitation goes beyond Tamil Nadu politics
Bring sanity to the debate
The two factors that accentuated the North-South divide over delimitation were (1) the reorganisation of states on linguistic lines in the 1950s, which made it easy for states to rouse local sentiments against delimitations, and (2) the aggressive Emergency-era focus on bringing down birth rates. It was during the Emergency that the Constitution’s 42nd amendment froze delimitation till the 2001 Census; this was extended by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government for a further 25 years as coalition pressures prevented any change.
Unlike the South, where social indicators aided a rapid reduction in birth rates, in the North, Sanjay Gandhi’s ill-advised forced sterilisation campaign set back the TFR reduction plan by at least a decade. Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan actually saw a rise in TFRs between 1971 and 1976 (the peak of the Emergency) before starting to decline again. If there is any region that deserves a medal for population heroism, it is the Hindi belt (excluding Bihar).
However, the question now is how do we bring sanity to the delimitation debate.
First, the Centre must realise that the changes cannot be pushed through by alienating the South, or states that fear a loss of MPs after delimitation. A deep dialogue and compromise solutions must be attempted. Former Reserve Bank Governor Duvvuri Subbarao has suggested that any increases in the populous states’ share of Lok Sabha seats should be phased in and not imposed abruptly.
Second, the real issue for states should be greater devolution of power from the Centre, so that even if their relative clout in Parliament declines, they can still do well for their citizens. However, they should also devolve more power to local bodies and municipalities, which is where people interact most with the state, and which is where growth will take place. Politicians need to think more urban growth, less rural mollycoddling. The first political party that heavily espouses urban issues will become the country’s most powerful, for it will represent more population clout and also higher purchasing power.
Third, if I were Stalin, I would bargain for a few more Rajya Sabha seats for the states that lose out from delimitation. I would also seek more devolution of power from the Central and concurrent lists.
Fourth, a recent constitutional amendment calls for 33 per cent women’s reservation in Parliament after the next delimitation exercise. This implies that delimitation cannot be put off once more. So, states should ask for delimitation along with an overall expansion of Lok Sabha seats, so that the reservations for women can be implemented without too many existing MPs losing out. This way no state will lose actual seats; the losses will be only in terms of overall share of Lok Sabha seats in an expanded house.
The delimitation issue is actually a simple one: it is about giving all citizens equal rights while voting their governments in. Federalism is not the issue here. Southern states can and should use their current clout to demand more legislative powers so that representation in Parliament does not circumscribe their ability to protect state interests. If the US and UK can keep delimiting constituencies decade after decade, without upsetting the federal structure, why is it that only Indian politicians make a meal out of this issue? They must grow up.
Stalin saar, you’ve got it mostly wrong.
R Jagannathan is an editor and the former editorial director at Swarajya magazine. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
A one time delimitation is CRITICAL to Good Governance. Set up FINAL D’Commission with the TOR to ALIGN Districts to Lok Sabha Constituency : ALIGN the Tehsil/ Taluka to Vidhan Sabha constituency. That will ensure -Total coordination between elected and selected : And accountability for policy outcomes.
“I would also seek more devolution of power from the Central and concurrent lists.”
Well you can keep asking and you know there would not be any change in that. Instead, everything is furiously being centralised. In fact it is you who got it wrong – it is because it appears that the federalism is being weakened systematically that the Southern states are fearing delimitation.When for every small fund one has to look up to the centre, why would a state not fear losing its number in the LS? Make the federal structure strong and power and finances well devolved, the cry against delimitation will subside on its own.
Or explore freezing the number of states at the current level and give one vote for each state assembly for vote on any major decisions?
Jaggi is editor of right wing magazine, “Swarajya”.
Best is to break up big Northern states into smaller ones. Start with UP, Rajasthan, Bihar and MP.
I have arrived here after first reading Ms. Lekhi’s opinion piece on her urge for our geopolitical boat to land at Greenland.
Joseph Goebbels once observed that the big joke on democracy is that it gives its mortal enemies the tools to its own destruction.
I don’t know why the likes of Ms. Lekhi and Mr. Jagannathan even bother attempting these faux-intellectual discources. They keep throwing at us their cheap, CPC style think tank-ish drivel.
Surely, after a decade of their being in power, they would know that we know that ordinary citizens don’t matter in their scheme of things.
This ideologically hypocrisy-ridden group, now in power, has no commitment for democracy, and people’s representation, welfare, human rights, and sundry matters. They have no belief in our spiritual values. They pretend to be us though their real attitude towards us is that of the foreign invaders whom they constantly caricature.
They won’t understand that those against the delimitation exercise by them are not against the people of Bihar or UP.
It is just that we do not want to meet the same fate as our brethren in the north.
Hopefully, later, we will be able to extricate our brethren from the clutches of these inhuman, rapacious, identity-snatching invaders who have grabbed absolute power over them.
My view is, when delimitation exercise is done frequently at legislative constituency level, the same should be done for parliament constituency too. It was the DMK which did so, many times at legislative constituency level. The delimitation must be carried out after at every census for equal devolution of power. The last three paragraphs of Jagan’s article is much appreciable.
Not to mention, when a Dy.CM make a public statement as ‘Get out Mo…..’ Jagan’s polite mark as Stalin saar, is far ok.
Devolution of power?? NEP, GST, one nation one everything isn’t devolution of power, US example is a perfect one.. US doesn’t have a GST, another example of states managing their resources based on the context of state . Its not dictated by Washington… The point about states not devolving power to local bodies is a very valid criticism, needs to address, but equally valid is the consolidation of power by the union.. infact, the last straw was GST, now the states ability is quite narrow – like stamp duty, corporation taxes etc.. even borrowings are restricted to FRBM..
Population control, even if we concede the northern states like UP has done well, it’s still not dramatically different, to the south, so he is making a case of more devolution, – the numbers will skew as the rajya Sabha cannot do anything if it’s a money bill or of the joint session is called where the losing states will have to watch as bills are passed by majority states.
Firstly improving quality of law makers we are electing need to improve. For that we need to have stringent eligibility criteria and common test for those who aspire to be law makers.
The parliament with 543 members also looks like a fish market, God knows what kind of issues will get addressed in a parliament with 800-850 and most of then useless, criminal law makers?
Today Parliament does not discuss wage, jobs, employability, food, clothing, shelter, education and health but discuss Aurangzeb, Godse, Shiv linga beneath a Mosque and atrocities on Hindus in Bangladesh.
My suggestion is make eligibility criteria strigent, introduce common test for aspirants, limit loksabha seats to 543 or at the most increase to 600 but in current proportion of states, increase number of states and UTs to 50 and apply delimitation basis population at State level. Also increase the number of Rajya Sabha Seats from 260 to 400 in same proportion to existing seats from each state.
What an invalid (actually idiotic) argument!! Comparing the US and India?! Does Jagan know about the senate there? Does he not know about the grossly differential rates of population growth across different states in India? Does he really think (if he can think at all!!) that the BIMARU states which heaped poverty on the country should be rewarded? And the southern states punished for doing well?!
The Print should think twice before publishing idiotic views such as these!
BS political propaganda
Jagan is very happy to redistribute seats based on population, is he ready to redistribute land to states based on population density? Why should few states suffer due to high population density?
“Stalin saar” ???
Didn’t expect such racist slang to be used in an official news portal.