Political crisis in the delimitation dilemma

Delimitation would resolve northern concerns but result in anguish for the south. Postponing it would leave the unfairness perceived by the north untackled

I guess it was to be expected. The closer we came to conducting a census, the spectre of delimitation was bound to start haunting us. And though the Centre is dismissive of the concerns it raises, they’re not easy to disregard. Nor should they be.

Delimitation actually a very threatening fault line. Rather than dismiss it or refuse to discuss it, we need to sincerely grapple with it. (PTI)

The reason is simple. Delimitation is the re-drawing of constituencies to reflect changes in the population so that, nationwide, they can be, approximately, of the same size. This means that in states where the population has grown faster than in others, the number of constituencies will increase. And if the total is to be kept at 543, the number of constituencies will, ipso facto, decrease in states where population stabilisation has been more effective. In other words, some states will gain seats whilst others lose.

A study by Milan Vaishnav and Jamie Hintson, published by this newspaper, indicates what this could actually mean. They believe that all the south Indian states would lose constituencies. Kerala and Tamil Nadu would be reduced by eight each. That’s also true of the combined Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. And Karnataka would lose two. But other states which have restricted their population would also be adversely affected. West Bengal would lose four seats, Odisha three and Punjab, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh one each.

The opposite would be true of several northern states. Uttar Pradesh would gain 11 seats, Bihar 10, Rajasthan six and Madhya Pradesh four. Yogendra Yadav points out that as a result the Hindi-heartland, which presently controls 226 out of 543 seats, would increase to 259. The total for the southern states, which he puts at 132 seats, would shrink by 26. This, clearly, means the size and influence of their representation in Parliament would also considerably diminish.

Of course, this could be partially ameliorated if, at the same time as delimitation, the number of seats in the Lok Sabha were to be increased. Then, of course, every state would gain seats. But in a very meaningful sense this would not alleviate southern concerns. Because the proportion between the southern and northern states would still change in favour of the north. The southern states may end up with more seats but in terms of the north-south ratio — which is what matters to them because it reflects the power of their representation — they would have lost.

Not so long ago, The Times of India did a calculation which illustrates the problem. At the moment, the five southern states have 129 seats out of a total of 543, which is 24%. Now, if the total number of Lok Sabha seats were to be increased to 790, their number would increase to 152 but their percentage would shrink to just 19%. In the case of Tamil Nadu, its share would fall form 7.2% (at present) to 5.4%.

Seen in this light the anguish of the southern states is understandable. But flip the situation and the predicament of the north will become obvious. R Jagannathan has calculated that, because of population growth, the average Kerala Member of Parliament (MP) represents 18 lakh people whilst the average MP in Rajasthan represents 33 lakh. As he puts it “the Hindi belt can claim unfairness too, since it gets far fewer MPs than its due”. This is, equally, a dilemma for Indian democracy.

This, then, is the core of the problem. Delimitation would resolve northern concerns but result in anguish for the south. Postponing delimitation — or scrapping it altogether forever, as Yogendra Yadav has advocated — would freeze the present situation and leave the unfairness perceived by the north untackled. One way or the other, one side is bound to suffer.

How is this to be resolved? Clearly there is no simple and easy solution. In fact, this could be one of the biggest challenges facing our democracy. It’s actually a very threatening fault line. Rather than dismiss it or refuse to discuss it, we need to sincerely grapple with it. Publicly, honestly and in considerable detail. That won’t be easy. But do we have an alternative?

Karan Thapar is the author of Devil’s Advocate: The Untold Story. The views expressed are personal