 |
|
The proposed delimitation exercise by the Union government has sparked significant political opposition, culminating in a Joint Action Committee (JAC) convened by the DMK. The core issue revolves around the perceived lack of transparency and inadequate consultation with key stakeholders in the decision-making process. The JAC, representing a coalition of political parties from various states, has articulated a strong stance against any delimitation efforts that do not adhere to principles of inclusivity, transparency, and fairness. At the heart of their concerns lies the potential for delimitation to disadvantage states that have successfully implemented population control measures. The current freeze on Parliamentary constituencies, based on the 1971 Census, was intended to incentivize such measures. Altering this framework now, the JAC argues, would penalize these states and undermine the broader goal of national population stabilization. The 7-point resolution passed by the JAC underscores these concerns. Firstly, it emphasizes the necessity of a transparent process that enables all state governments, political parties, and relevant stakeholders to participate in deliberations and contribute to the final outcome. This call for transparency reflects a deep-seated mistrust of the Union government's intentions and a desire to ensure that the delimitation process is not manipulated to favor particular political interests. Secondly, the resolution addresses the core issue of the freeze on Parliamentary constituencies. It argues that the original legislative intent behind the 42nd, 84th, and 87th Constitutional amendments was to protect and incentivize states that have effectively implemented population control measures. Given that national population stabilization has not yet been fully achieved, the JAC advocates for an extension of the freeze by another 25 years. This extension is seen as crucial to maintaining the incentives for population control and preventing states that have made progress in this area from being unfairly penalized. Thirdly, the resolution explicitly states that states that have effectively implemented population control programs and, consequently, whose population share has declined, should not be penalized. The JAC calls for the Union government to enact necessary constitutional amendments to ensure this protection. This provision is essential to assuaging the fears of states that have diligently pursued population control measures and now face the prospect of losing political representation as a result. Fourthly, the JAC has established a Core Committee consisting of Members of Parliament from the represented states. This committee will coordinate parliamentary strategies to counter any attempts by the Union government to undertake a delimitation exercise contrary to the principles outlined in the resolution. The formation of this committee demonstrates the JAC's commitment to actively resisting any unfair or unjust delimitation efforts through parliamentary means. Fifthly, the Core Committee is tasked with submitting a Joint Representation to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India during the ongoing Parliamentary session. This representation will articulate the JAC's concerns and demand adherence to the principles of transparency, inclusivity, and fairness. The JAC hopes that a direct appeal to the Prime Minister will result in a reconsideration of the proposed delimitation exercise. Sixthly, the resolution calls on political parties from different states represented in the meeting to initiate efforts to bring about appropriate Legislative Assembly resolutions in their respective states on the issue. These resolutions would serve as a formal expression of opposition to any unfair delimitation efforts and communicate the states' concerns to the Union government. The JAC believes that a unified front of state legislatures can exert significant pressure on the Union government to reconsider its approach. Finally, the JAC commits to undertaking necessary efforts to disseminate information on the history and context of past delimitation exercises and the consequences of the proposed delimitation among the citizens of their respective states. This public opinion mobilization strategy aims to raise awareness of the issue and garner public support for the JAC's position. By engaging the public, the JAC hopes to create a groundswell of opposition to any unfair delimitation efforts and force the Union government to take their concerns seriously. The presence of prominent political leaders from various states at the JAC meeting underscores the seriousness of the issue and the broad-based opposition to the proposed delimitation exercise. The participation of Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Odisha Congress President Bhakta Charan Das, and Biju Janata Dal leader Sanjay Kumar Das Burma demonstrates the diverse political representation within the JAC. The virtual attendance of former Odisha chief minister Naveen Patnaik further highlights the significance of the issue. However, the absence of the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC) raises questions about the degree of unity among opposition parties on this issue. While the JAC represents a significant coalition of political forces, the lack of participation from the TMC suggests that there may be some divisions or disagreements on strategy. The decision to hold the next JAC meeting on delimitation in Hyderabad, announced by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, indicates the JAC's commitment to continuing its efforts to oppose any unfair or unjust delimitation exercises. By holding meetings in different states, the JAC hopes to broaden its support base and strengthen its collective voice. In conclusion, the JAC's 7-point resolution reflects a deep-seated concern about the potential for the Union government's proposed delimitation exercise to undermine the principles of fairness, inclusivity, and transparency. The JAC's commitment to resisting any unfair or unjust delimitation efforts through parliamentary means, state legislative resolutions, and public opinion mobilization demonstrates the seriousness of the issue and the broad-based opposition to the proposed changes. The success of the JAC's efforts will depend on its ability to maintain unity among its members, effectively communicate its concerns to the public, and exert sufficient pressure on the Union government to reconsider its approach.
The debate surrounding delimitation in India is deeply intertwined with the nation's demographic and political landscape. Delimitation, the process of redrawing the boundaries of parliamentary and assembly constituencies, is intended to ensure that each constituency has roughly the same population, thereby upholding the principle of 'one person, one vote.' However, the implementation of delimitation exercises in India has been fraught with challenges and controversies, particularly concerning the impact on states that have successfully implemented population control measures. The history of delimitation in India reveals a complex interplay between political considerations and demographic realities. Initially, delimitation exercises were conducted periodically to reflect population changes. However, concerns arose that states with higher population growth rates would gain more seats in Parliament, potentially leading to imbalances in political representation. To address this concern, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 froze the number of seats in the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) and state legislative assemblies based on the 1971 Census. This freeze was intended to incentivize states to implement population control measures without fear of losing political representation. Subsequently, the 84th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2001 extended the freeze until 2026. The rationale behind these amendments was to allow states sufficient time to achieve population stabilization without being penalized for their efforts. The current debate over delimitation centers on whether to lift the freeze on Parliamentary constituencies and conduct a fresh delimitation exercise based on more recent census data. The Union government has expressed its intention to undertake such an exercise, arguing that it is necessary to ensure fair representation of the population. However, many political parties, particularly those representing states that have successfully implemented population control measures, are wary of this proposal. They fear that a fresh delimitation exercise will result in a reduction in their political representation, undermining their efforts to control population growth. The concerns of these parties are not unfounded. A delimitation exercise based on more recent census data would inevitably lead to a redistribution of seats in Parliament, with states that have experienced higher population growth rates gaining seats at the expense of states with lower growth rates. This would effectively penalize states that have diligently pursued population control measures and reward those that have not. The Joint Action Committee (JAC) has articulated these concerns in its 7-point resolution. The JAC argues that the freeze on Parliamentary constituencies should be extended by another 25 years to allow states sufficient time to achieve population stabilization without being penalized for their efforts. The JAC also calls for constitutional amendments to ensure that states that have effectively implemented population control programs are not disadvantaged by a fresh delimitation exercise. The JAC's position is supported by a number of arguments. Firstly, lifting the freeze on Parliamentary constituencies would undermine the original legislative intent behind the 42nd and 84th Constitutional Amendments, which was to incentivize population control. Secondly, it would create a disincentive for states to implement population control measures in the future, as they would fear losing political representation as a result. Thirdly, it would be unfair to states that have diligently pursued population control measures and now face the prospect of losing political representation as a result. The Union government, on the other hand, argues that a fresh delimitation exercise is necessary to ensure fair representation of the population. It contends that the current distribution of seats in Parliament is based on outdated census data and does not accurately reflect the current demographic realities of the country. The government also argues that delaying a fresh delimitation exercise would only exacerbate the existing imbalances in political representation. However, the government's arguments fail to address the concerns of states that have successfully implemented population control measures. The government has not offered any concrete assurances that these states will not be disadvantaged by a fresh delimitation exercise. This lack of reassurance has fueled suspicion and mistrust among these states, leading to the formation of the JAC and the articulation of its 7-point resolution. The debate over delimitation is not merely a technical issue of redrawing constituency boundaries. It is a fundamental question of fairness, justice, and political representation. It is a debate that goes to the heart of India's demographic and political landscape. The outcome of this debate will have far-reaching consequences for the future of Indian democracy.
Source: Transparency, Freeze On Seats: Parties' 7-Point Resolution On Delimitation