 |
|
The proposed delimitation exercise, aimed at redrawing and redistributing Lok Sabha seats post the 2026 Census, has exposed deep divisions within the Indian opposition, specifically concerning the potential impact on representation from various states. While southern states, with the notable exception of NDA-aligned Andhra Pradesh, are unified in their concern that the use of population as the primary criterion for delimitation will lead to a reduction in their parliamentary seats and overall political influence, parties in the Hindi heartland and Maharashtra have largely remained silent, signaling a lack of consensus on the issue. This divergence was further highlighted by the Trinamool Congress's (TMC) decision to abstain from a conclave convened by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, a move interpreted as prioritizing state-level electoral concerns over a unified national opposition stance. The DMK's decision not to invite INDIA bloc parties such as the SP, RJD, Shiv Sena (UBT), and NCP from the northern belt and Maharashtra further emphasizes the existing schism, suggesting a calculated move to avoid open dissent on the issue. These parties, according to sources, are strategically awaiting the BJP-led Centre's formal proposal for delimitation before publicly committing to a position. Their reluctance stems from the understanding that states like Uttar Pradesh stand to gain significantly from the exercise, making open opposition politically untenable.
The core of the disagreement lies in the varying impact delimitation would have on different states, depending on the criteria used. Historically, in the 1977 Lok Sabha, each Member of Parliament represented approximately 1.011 million people. If this ratio were to be maintained, states in the North and West Bengal would experience a substantial increase in their seat allocation. For instance, West Bengal could see its Lok Sabha seats rise from 42 to anywhere between 50 and 66, depending on whether a population baseline of 1.5 million or 2 million is used. In contrast, southern states fear being penalized for their success in implementing family planning programs and reducing fertility rates. If population is the sole determinant, these states could potentially lose seats, diminishing their representation in Parliament. The Congress party, with its national presence and significant representation from southern states, finds itself in a delicate position. While its high command has echoed the concerns of the South, the party must also consider its electoral prospects in the North, where delimitation could be perceived favorably. This balancing act necessitates a cautious approach, making it difficult for the Congress to adopt a definitive stance on the issue.
The calculations presented in the article demonstrate the stark disparities in seat allocation based on different population thresholds. Retaining the 1.011 million average would result in Uttar Pradesh (including Uttarakhand) gaining a staggering number of seats, potentially reaching 250 compared to its current 85. Similarly, Bihar and Jharkhand could see their combined representation increase from 54 to 169. In contrast, Tamil Nadu's increase would be comparatively modest, from 39 to 76, while Kerala's would rise from 20 to 36. However, the limited number of seats in the new Parliament (888) makes the retention of this formula improbable. Doubling the population per constituency to 2 million would reduce the total number of parliamentary seats to 707, severely disadvantaging southern states. Under this scenario, Tamil Nadu's seat count would remain unchanged at 39, while Kerala would lose two seats, ending up with 18. Even with a less drastic increase to 1.5 million people per constituency, resulting in 942 parliamentary seats, the North would still gain significantly more than the South. Uttar Pradesh would receive 168 seats, and Bihar and Jharkhand would receive 114, while Tamil Nadu would gain 13 seats for a total of 52 and Kerala would gain 4 for a total of 24. This divergence in potential outcomes underscores the highly contentious nature of the delimitation exercise and the need for a more nuanced approach that considers factors beyond mere population figures.
The RJD's stance highlights the complexity of the issue. While the party is not opposed to delimitation in principle, it advocates for a more holistic approach that incorporates factors beyond population. RJD Rajya Sabha MP Manoj K. Jha suggested a parliamentary session dedicated to discussing the modalities of delimitation, including consideration of other performance indicators. This perspective reflects a growing recognition that rewarding states solely based on population growth could incentivize certain demographic trends and potentially penalize states that have prioritized other development goals. The silence of the TDP, a key constituent of the NDA, further complicates the political landscape. Despite concerns about the potential impact of delimitation on Andhra Pradesh, the party has chosen to remain publicly neutral, likely due to its alliance with the BJP. This reluctance to openly criticize the proposed exercise underscores the delicate balance that political parties must strike between representing their regional interests and maintaining national alliances. The BJD's decision to attend the DMK-convened conclave, despite not being part of the INDIA bloc, highlights the fluidity of political alignments on this issue. The party's willingness to take independent positions depending on the specific context reflects a pragmatic approach to safeguarding its interests, even if it means diverging from established alliances. The upcoming delimitation exercise is therefore not just a technical matter of redrawing electoral boundaries; it is a complex political issue with the potential to reshape the balance of power in Indian politics, pitting regional interests against national imperatives and exposing the fault lines within the opposition ranks.
In conclusion, the proposed delimitation exercise has ignited a debate that transcends partisan politics, exposing deep-seated concerns about regional representation, developmental equity, and the future of Indian federalism. The divergence in viewpoints between northern and southern states, the strategic silence of key political players, and the cautious approach adopted by national parties like the Congress all underscore the contentious nature of the issue. A purely population-based approach to delimitation risks exacerbating existing inequalities and potentially penalizing states that have prioritized sustainable development and social progress. A more nuanced approach is needed, one that considers a broader range of factors beyond mere population figures and ensures a fair and equitable distribution of political power across the country. The path forward requires open dialogue, constructive engagement, and a willingness to compromise, all with the goal of strengthening the fabric of Indian democracy and ensuring that all voices are heard in the halls of Parliament. The future course of the delimitation exercise will undoubtedly shape the political landscape of India for decades to come, making it imperative that all stakeholders engage in a thoughtful and inclusive process to arrive at a solution that is both just and sustainable.
Source: Delimitation meet: Hindi belt Opp parties not on same page, TMC too stays away; BJP ally TDP silent