 |
|
The article addresses the contentious issue of delimitation in India, triggered by recent disagreements between the central government and Tamil Nadu. Delimitation, the process of redrawing electoral boundaries and reallocating parliamentary seats, is a crucial aspect of democratic representation. The author, A K Verma, highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls of the upcoming delimitation exercise, particularly concerning the allocation of seats among states. The core issue stems from the disparity in population growth rates across different regions of India. Southern states, having effectively implemented population control measures, fear losing parliamentary seats to northern states with higher population growth. This fear is rooted in Article 81(2)(a) of the Constitution, which mandates that seat allocation be proportional to population. The author emphasizes that adhering strictly to this provision could disproportionately penalize states that have succeeded in managing their population. The historical context is crucial to understanding the present debate. The last delimitation occurred in 1975, after which Indira Gandhi imposed a freeze that was subsequently extended until 2026. This extended period without delimitation has led to significant imbalances in representation. An MP in 1971 represented approximately 10 lakh people; today, that number has ballooned to around 25 lakh, depending on the state. This increase in the population-per-MP ratio adversely affects the quality of representation, making it more difficult for elected officials to effectively address the needs of their constituents. The article proposes several alternative approaches to delimitation that the Delimitation Commission could consider. These options range from strictly adhering to the constitutional provision of population-seat ratio to incorporating weightage for population control, freezing the current seat apportionment, or compensating states in the Rajya Sabha. The author notes that all options except the first would require constitutional amendments, underscoring the legal and political challenges involved. The author also raises concerns about the potential for gerrymandering, particularly in the context of the Women’s Reservation Bill, which reserves one-third of parliamentary and legislative assembly seats for women. The absence of clear constitutional guidelines for reserving these seats raises the specter of arbitrary redrawing of electoral boundaries, which could further complicate the delimitation process. The financial implications of delimitation are also discussed. The author suggests that any deviation from the constitutionally mandated population-seat ratio could lead to demands for similar adjustments in financial allocations to states. This could create a situation where “population control” becomes a dominant factor in determining federal financial relations, potentially exacerbating regional tensions. Furthermore, the author touches upon other sensitive issues, such as the financial burden on taxpayers due to pensions for legislators and the need for transparency in the delimitation process, given that the commission's decisions are not subject to judicial review.
The ongoing debate over delimitation has sparked political reactions across the southern states. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin has convened an all-party meeting to discuss the potential impact of delimitation on the state. Similarly, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has expressed his apprehension about the process. In contrast, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu has taken a different approach by withdrawing a law that discouraged families from having more than two children, signaling a shift in the state's population policy. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has attempted to allay concerns by assuring that no state will lose a single seat in the delimitation exercise. However, the author emphasizes that the concerns of the southern states are genuine and warrant serious consideration. The article concludes by stressing the importance of conducting the delimitation exercise in a manner that preserves fraternity and federalism while simultaneously strengthening democracy and demographic control measures. The author believes that the delimitation commission must prioritize transparency and fairness to ensure that the process is perceived as legitimate and equitable by all stakeholders. The delicate balance between population-based representation and rewarding states for successful population control policies is at the heart of the delimitation challenge. Any perceived unfairness in the allocation of seats could have significant political and economic consequences, potentially undermining national unity and cohesion. The author suggests that the commission should engage in extensive consultations with all stakeholders, including state governments, political parties, and civil society organizations, to arrive at a consensus-based solution. The future of India's democratic fabric and federal structure hinges on the successful navigation of this complex and sensitive issue.
Delimitation, therefore, is not merely a technical exercise of redrawing electoral boundaries; it is a deeply political process with far-reaching implications for the distribution of power and resources across the country. The author's analysis underscores the need for a nuanced and comprehensive approach that takes into account the diverse perspectives and concerns of all states. The commission's decisions must be guided by the principles of fairness, equity, and transparency to ensure that the delimitation process strengthens, rather than weakens, India's democratic foundations. The current debate surrounding delimitation also highlights the broader challenges of managing demographic diversity in a federal system. As different regions of India experience varying rates of population growth and development, it becomes increasingly important to address the underlying causes of these disparities and to ensure that all states have equal opportunities to participate in the nation's progress. The delimitation exercise provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the existing mechanisms for resource allocation and political representation and to consider alternative approaches that promote greater equity and inclusion. The author's call for transparency in the delimitation process is particularly important, given the lack of judicial oversight. The commission must be accountable to the public and must provide clear and convincing justifications for its decisions. This will help to build trust in the process and to mitigate the risk of political controversy and legal challenges. The success of the delimitation exercise will depend not only on the technical expertise of the commission but also on its ability to engage in open and honest dialogue with all stakeholders and to forge a consensus-based solution that reflects the diverse interests and aspirations of the Indian people. The article makes a strong case for the need for the Centre to engage in constructive dialogue with the southern states and to address their concerns about the potential loss of parliamentary seats. Failure to do so could lead to further alienation and resentment, potentially undermining the spirit of federalism and national unity. The delimitation exercise is a critical juncture in India's democratic journey, and it is imperative that it be conducted in a manner that strengthens, rather than weakens, the nation's commitment to fairness, equity, and justice. The implications extend beyond mere seat allocation, touching upon the very essence of representation and the delicate balance of power within the Indian Union. The careful consideration of all proposed options, coupled with transparent and inclusive deliberations, is essential to ensuring a successful and equitable outcome.
Source: On delimitation, Centre must listen to the concerns of southern states