 |
|
The proposed delimitation exercise, intended to redraw and redistribute Lok Sabha seats after the 2026 census, has exposed deep divisions within the anti-BJP coalition, particularly along regional lines. While parties from the South, Punjab, and Odisha have voiced strong concerns about potential seat losses if population remains the sole criterion, parties from the Hindi belt and Maharashtra, as well as the Trinamool Congress (TMC), have either remained silent or distanced themselves from the issue. This divergence in opinion underscores the complex political calculations and regional interests at play, highlighting the challenges in forging a united opposition front on this crucial matter. The DMK, which convened a conclave to discuss the delimitation issue, deliberately excluded INDIA bloc parties from the northern belt, such as the SP and RJD, as well as those from Maharashtra, including the Shiv Sena (UBT) and NCP. This exclusion reflects the understanding that these parties, while perhaps not publicly advocating for delimitation, are unlikely to oppose a move that could significantly increase their representation in Parliament. These parties are adopting a wait-and-see approach, preferring to assess the BJP-led Centre's plans before committing to a position. This pragmatic stance highlights the political calculus involved, with parties prioritizing their own regional interests and electoral prospects over a unified opposition stance. The TMC's decision to skip the DMK-convened conclave further complicates the picture. While invited, the party cited other priorities, such as addressing issues like duplicate EPIC numbers in West Bengal, where Assembly elections are scheduled for next year. This decision underscores the TMC's focus on local concerns and its perceived distance from what it considers a 'gathering of southern parties.' This suggests that the TMC's engagement with the broader opposition alliance is contingent on its own strategic interests and priorities. The proposed delimitation exercise has the potential to significantly alter the political landscape, particularly in terms of regional representation in Parliament. Under the current system, the average population represented by each MP in India is approximately 10.11 lakh. If this formula were to be retained, states in the North and West Bengal would stand to gain considerably in the delimitation exercise. For instance, Lok Sabha seats in West Bengal could increase from 42 to 66, even if a baseline population of 15 lakh is considered. Similarly, Uttar Pradesh (including Uttarakhand) could potentially have 250 seats, compared to its current share of 85. Bihar and Jharkhand could see their combined representation increase from 54 to 169. This potential shift in power dynamics is a key factor driving the divisions within the opposition alliance. Southern states, which have made significant progress in controlling population growth, fear that they will be penalized if population is the sole criterion for delimitation. Tamil Nadu, for example, would see a much smaller increase in its share of seats compared to the northern states. This perceived inequity has fueled concerns about the potential erosion of their political influence and the allocation of resources. The Congress, as a national party with a significant presence in both the North and South, faces a delicate balancing act. While it has echoed the concerns of the southern states, recognizing that they could be 'penalized' for their success in family planning, it also needs to maintain its appeal to voters in the North, where it hopes to regain lost ground. This internal tension is evident in the party's cautious approach to the delimitation issue. The RJD, while not in favor of delaying delimitation indefinitely, has argued that population should not be the sole criterion. The party advocates for a broader assessment of performance, suggesting that other factors, such as economic development and social progress, should also be considered in the redistribution of seats. This perspective highlights the need for a more nuanced approach that takes into account the diverse needs and contributions of different states. The TDP, a key constituent of the NDA, has also remained silent on the delimitation issue, despite concerns within the state. This silence is likely due to the party's strategic calculations and its reluctance to openly challenge the central government's plans. The BJD, on the other hand, has attended the DMK-convened conclave, signaling its willingness to engage with the opposition on this issue, even though it is not formally part of the INDIA bloc. This independent stance reflects the party's focus on protecting its regional interests and its willingness to collaborate with different political forces on a case-by-case basis. The complexities surrounding the delimitation issue underscore the challenges of building a cohesive opposition alliance in a country as diverse as India. Regional interests, political calculations, and differing priorities all contribute to the divisions within the anti-BJP coalition. While the proposed delimitation exercise has the potential to reshape the political landscape, its ultimate impact will depend on the decisions made by the central government and the ability of political parties to navigate the competing interests at play.
The debate around delimitation isn't just about numbers; it reflects a deeper tension between states that have successfully managed population growth and those that haven't. Southern states, particularly Tamil Nadu and Kerala, have made significant strides in reducing fertility rates and promoting family planning. They fear that if population is the sole determinant of representation, they will be penalized for their success and their political voice will be diminished. This creates a sense of injustice and resentment, as these states feel they are being punished for their progressive policies. Conversely, northern states, which have historically had higher population growth rates, stand to gain more seats in Parliament if population is the primary criterion. This creates a potential imbalance in power, with northern states wielding greater influence in national decision-making. The fear among southern states is that this could lead to policies that disproportionately favor the North, potentially impacting resource allocation and development priorities. The issue also raises questions about the very nature of representation in a democracy. Should representation be solely based on population, or should other factors, such as economic contribution, social progress, and historical context, also be considered? This is a fundamental question that goes to the heart of the Indian federal structure. Some argue that a purely population-based system could exacerbate regional inequalities and undermine the principle of equal representation for all states. Others contend that population is the fairest and most objective measure of representation, ensuring that the voices of the majority are heard. Finding a balance between these competing perspectives is crucial for maintaining the integrity and stability of the Indian political system. The Congress party finds itself in a particularly difficult position, caught between its support base in the South and its aspirations for growth in the North. The party's leadership has acknowledged the concerns of the southern states, but it also needs to appeal to voters in the North if it hopes to regain its former dominance. This requires a delicate balancing act, and the party's stance on delimitation will likely be carefully calibrated to avoid alienating either region. The RJD's call for a broader assessment of performance beyond just population reflects a growing recognition that development is a multifaceted process. Economic growth, social progress, and environmental sustainability are all important factors that should be considered when allocating resources and determining representation. By incorporating these factors into the delimitation process, India could create a more equitable and sustainable political system that better reflects the diverse needs and contributions of all its states. However, the challenge lies in developing objective and measurable criteria for assessing these factors. There is no easy consensus on how to weigh different aspects of development, and any attempt to do so is likely to be met with political opposition. Despite these challenges, the debate around delimitation presents an opportunity to re-examine the principles of representation and development in India and to create a more just and equitable political system for all.
The silence of certain parties, like the TDP, is equally telling. It reveals the complex political calculations that underpin the delimitation debate. The TDP, despite having concerns, is likely hesitant to openly criticize the central government, fearing potential repercussions or a desire to maintain good relations with the ruling coalition. This highlights the power dynamics at play and the constraints that regional parties face when dealing with a strong central government. The BJD's participation in the DMK-convened conclave, on the other hand, demonstrates a willingness to engage with the opposition on issues of regional interest, even if it is not formally aligned with the INDIA bloc. This suggests that regional parties are increasingly willing to forge alliances and cooperate on specific issues, regardless of their broader political affiliations. This pragmatic approach could lead to new alignments and coalitions in the future, reshaping the Indian political landscape. The debate around delimitation is not just a technical exercise; it is a deeply political one with far-reaching consequences. It will determine the distribution of power in Parliament and the allocation of resources across states. It will also shape the future of Indian federalism and the relationship between the center and the states. The outcome of this debate will have a profound impact on the political, economic, and social development of India for years to come. Ultimately, the success of the delimitation exercise will depend on the ability of political parties to rise above narrow regional interests and work together to create a fair and equitable system that serves the interests of all Indians. This requires a spirit of compromise, a commitment to dialogue, and a willingness to prioritize the national interest over partisan politics. It also requires a transparent and inclusive process that involves all stakeholders, including state governments, political parties, and civil society organizations. Only through such a process can India hope to achieve a delimitation that is both just and sustainable. The proposed delimitation exercise serves as a potent reminder of the inherent tensions within India's federal structure. It highlights the delicate balance between the needs of the nation as a whole and the aspirations of individual states. Navigating these competing interests requires skillful leadership, a commitment to dialogue, and a willingness to compromise. The future of Indian federalism depends on the ability of political leaders to rise to this challenge and to create a system that is both fair and effective.
Source: Delimitation meet: Hindi belt Opp parties not on same page, TMC too stays away; BJP ally TDP silent