Poonam Sharma
The political landscape in India has been recently marred by the controversial topic of delimitation, especially after Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin’s appeal for a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Stalin, who has become a vocal opponent of the planned delimitation process, has attempted to bring opposition parties together in a bid to counter what he sees as an unjust redistribution of parliamentary seats. But while the DMK and its constituents raise eyebrows over the purported declining representation of southern states, the center has affirmed that the process is being done in the utmost transparency and in line with constitutional norms. Then, the question comes: Is DMK’s position based on sincere fear or political insecurity?
Delimitation is the exercise of redrawing parliamentary and assembly constituencies on the basis of new population figures to provide fair and equal representation throughout the nation. The exercise, last done in 2001 but on the basis of the 1971 Census, is to be reconsidered after the next census. The reason for delimitation is to ensure proportional representation in a democracy so that every Member of Parliament (MP) represents an almost equal number of constituents.
But southern states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh have raised concerns that their effective population control efforts might strangely reduce their parliament seats. Since northern states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh have higher birth rates, the redistribution of parliament seats might benefit them at the expense of southern states, thus upsetting the balance in representation.
Stalin’s resistance to delimitation is based on the apprehension that Tamil Nadu and the other southern states will see their political influence in the national parliament dwindled. The DMK and other opposition parties have positioned this as a federalism issue, with them contending that states must not be punished for their success in curtailing population growth. The March 22 meeting of the Joint Action Committee (JAC) for ‘Fair Delimitation’ saw representatives from different opposition parties attending, buoying a joint opposition to the expected redistribution of seats.
Though the issues raised by DMK and its allies hold weight in the scenario of proportional representation, the party’s opposition seems to be politically motivated too. As the BJP has a deeper voter base in northern states, the DMK is concerned that additional seats in those areas may strengthen the ruling party’s grip in Parliament. By mobilizing opposition parties against the process, the DMK is projecting itself as a defender of southern interests, possibly reinforcing its appeal with regional voters.
The BJP-headed central government, however, has turned down DMK’s accusations as politically motivated and exaggerated. Union Minister G Kishan Reddy lately accused DMK of employing the delimitation problem as a diversionary device to escape questions about corruption accusations and opposition to Hindi. The government insists that delimitation is a constitutional responsibility which aims to provide fair representation for all the states according to demographic facts.
One of the strongest points made by the central government is that representation must take into account the changing population structure. In the last few decades, the more populous states have seen rising demands for improved infrastructure, increased resources, and political representation. It is only reasonable, the government maintains, that their representation in parliament be raised accordingly.
In addition, the government has promised that the process will be carried out with proper diligence, taking on board inputs from state governments and political parties. Instead of weakening southern states’ voices, the central government argues that delimitation will set the stage for a more democratic and balanced electoral process, with all regions being given proper representation.
Even as the government assures, there is a need to recognize the fears of the southern states and devise solutions that respect the federalist principles. One such way could be through the adoption of a weighted representation system, which would ensure that although seat distribution is made on a population basis, states that have managed to keep population growth in check are not disproportionately penalized.
Another option is to expand the total Lok Sabha seats such that northern states can be added to the representation without cutting out some of the current seats from the south. This would need a constitutional amendment, but it might be a possible middle ground that does not impair India’s rich diversity of politics.
The delimitation controversy is a very important one that will define India’s parliamentary system for decades to come. Although DMK’s fears of the potential loss of southern representation are understandable, it is equally necessary to acknowledge the need for periodic delimitation to guarantee equitable democratic representation. The government’s insistence on an open and transparent process should be seen as an attempt to defend the democratic principles and not as an assault on federalism.
Instead of indulging in political posturing, it is necessary for all parties to have constructive dialogue, trying to find a solution that balances demographic facts with the ideals of fairness and federalism. If done with a spirit of cooperation, delimitation can be a way to make India’s democracy stronger and not an area of conflict between states and the central government.
In the end, the way forward is to ensure that no state is left behind but also to respect the necessity for political representation in line with population movements. By encouraging a sense of cooperation, the government and opposition can together strive for a solution that will benefit the nation as a whole, upholding India’s ideals of democracy and federal integration.
Comments are closed.