Geographies and demographics do not fit into the neat squares of federations or confederations. That’s why the issue of representation and proportionality is at the centre of discussions surrounding the census.
To what extent, and for how long should political representation be tied to population shares? While ensuring fair representation is important, democratic societies must also seek to balance the rights of minority populations, and those living in remote geographies.
Perhaps, we could take a leaf from the principle of Degressive Proportionality (DP), practised by the European Union, which exhibits a wide asymmetry of membership—from Germany with a population of 83.6 million to Luxembourg and Malta with populations of about half a million each. The DP principle enshrined in Article 14(2) of the European Union ensures that larger member-states elect more members of the European Parliament (MEPs) than smaller ones, but smaller member states have more members per population than larger ones. It is a good middle ground between perfect proportionality (where voting power is equal) and pure equality (where everyone has a fixed number of votes).
In the Indian context, this is similar to the suggestion of Ravi K Mishra: Increase the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha in such a manner that every state and UT (with the exception of the smallest ones like Lakshadweep and Ladakh), get proportionate representation based on their current population without the loss of even a single seat that a state currently holds. This would be as close as possible to the principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value’. It would also reduce the average population size of constituencies in all the states.
Extrapolating the figures from the 2011 census, Mishra argues that “keeping the general parity in population and political representation across states, we should have 728 Lok Sabha MPs (without the addition of women MP s under the NSA). All states except Kerala and Himachal will get an additional MP, but UP, Bihar and Rajasthan will see an increase of 31, 22 and 19 respectively.”
This certainly increases the political heft of UP—all prime ministers of India except Morarji Desai (1977-79), Narasimha Rao (1991-96), HD Deve Gowda (1996-97), IK Gujral (1997-98) and Manmohan Singh (2004-2014) belong to, or have been elected from UP.
Also read: The history of Indian caste censuses is the history of Indian statecraft
Unfreezing Lok Sabha and retaining Rajya Sabha seats
Another practical way to alleviate the feelings of ‘hurt’ of the southern states would be to leave the Rajya Sabha seats untouched until at least 2047—the centenary year of India’s Independence. This would ensure that even as the Lok Sabha represents the political might of the electoral college, the Rajya Sabha would continue to articulate the interests of the states. It is true that with respect to money Bills, and in normal decision making, its powers are limited—but when it comes to Constitutional amendments, it enjoys equal powers, and when it comes to the creation of new All India services, its voice is critical.
One must mention here that in many federal polities (including the US), each of the constituent units has equal weightage in the Upper House.
Reorganisation of the large states
The delimitation post Census 2027 will also have to contend with a situation where even after degressive proportionality, the asymmetry between the smaller states—Sikkim, Mizoram, Nagaland—with UP, Rajasthan, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra remain unsurmountable. Therefore, two possible options are available: reorganisation of the larger states to give greater voice to protagonists of new states—Vidarbha, Poorvanchal, Mithila, Uttar Andhra Pradesh, Bundelkhand and Marwar—along with regional autonomy on the lines of Gorkhaland Territorial Administration and state support for linguistic councils and education in mother tongue.
For the record, the resolution passed by the UP Assembly in November 2011 looked at reorganising UP into Bundelkhand, Purvanchal, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh. However, unlike the other three, Bundelkhand poses an interstate reorganisation issue. In addition to the seven districts of Jhansi, Chitrakut, Banda, Jalaun, Hamirpur and Mahoba and Lalitpur, the Bundela identity is also subscribed to by Sagar, Chhatarpur, Tikamgarh, Damo, and Datia and Panna in the neighboring state of MP.
Also read: If equality is the aim, a caste census can never deliver it
De novo reorganisation of states
Another, even more radical idea has been propounded by Gautam Desiraju (Author of Bharat: India 2.0, and Delimitation and States Reorganization: For a Better Democracy in Bharat).
He suggests a de novo reorganisation of the country’s political boundaries—into 75 states—of almost equal population, in which the cultural, linguistic, economic and political aspirations of the region are in complete alignment. He argues that this arrangement is more suited to the political imagination of Bharat, than the administrative provinces which are a legacy of the Raj. Even during the time of the Mahabharat, India (minus the territories now in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh) had a similar number of political entities—kingdoms, republics and semi-autonomous fiefdoms—each existing autonomously, yet part of the sacred and political geography of Bharat. He feels that the template used by the States Reorganisation Commission was in fact a continuation of the Simon Commission recommendations and the GoI Act of 1935.
He’s not the first to suggest such a reorganisation. In the seventies, the parliamentarian, political scientist and Congress MP Rasheeduddin Khan proposed a federal India with 56 units aligning with the cultural and agroclimatic zones of the country.
Also read: Population panic and Bimaru fears locked India’s seats. Census 2027 will show reality
The balance of power
It is true that over the last seven decades, the balance of power has shifted from the states to the Centre. This is also reflected in the fact that the Union Budget, at Rs 56 lakh crore, is noticeably higher than that of all the states and UTs together at about Rs 50 lakh crore.
Moreover, as the economy gets integrated, welfare programmes—from health to education and skilling—become more reliant on the Union government, both for policy and funding, GST becomes the main source of revenue collection, the focus of the states has to be on delivery of services and faster implementation. From the federal policy perspective, the states have indeed lost out—both in terms of political and economic clout, but also with regard to citizen services, the role of the states has become more direct and immediate.
If this be the case, then smaller states make more sense.
Pros and cons
None of the above options is without its pros and cons. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of the census, and the announcement of the Delimitation Commission, the number of representations—about each and every constituency, about formation of new states, inclusion/exclusion of territories—will become more pronounced.
While the voices of academics and commentators may still be nuanced, the political slugfest will see an intense conflict. There will be interesting alignments—as between the TDP and the Dravidian parties which would argue for a status quo, but the RJD and the SP would want to ensure higher representation for UP and Bihar, TMC and Shiv Sena would oppose the reorganisation of WB and Maharashtra. And the BJP would have a tough time balancing the interests of all its units—which seek a foothold both in the centre and the states.
For once the hornet’s nest is stirred, who knows what outcomes it will yield.
This is the final instalment of a four-part series on the census in India, based on a keynote address delivered at the annual juridical conclave at NUJS Kolkata.
Sanjeev Chopra is a former IAS officer and Festival Director of Valley of Words. Until recently, he was director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. He tweets @ChopraSanjeev. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)