Delimitation debate: It’s not democracy vs federalism

The principle of democracy based on universal adult franchise lies at the foundation of the Union of India’s constitutional scheme. It is in the service of this principle that, until 1976, the number of seats in legislatures across the country was readjusted after every Census in independent India. During the Emergency, the number of seats in Parliament was frozen till 2001 so that population control measures could be implemented. Since that deadline, governments of various political hues have kicked the can down the road. The question of delimitation has come centrestage once more, with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin and Union Home Minister Amit Shah exchanging words. The issue is being framed in ways that narrow the conversation — in binaries of gains and losses, North and South, and which states “subsidise” others. The scope of the discussion needs to be both broader and deeper.

Delimitation is a constitutional and democratic necessity for the simple reason that, in the current scheme of things, a vote counts for less in a state with more populous constituencies such as in Uttar Pradesh than, say, in Tamil Nadu or Karnataka. The issue is complicated by the fact that the principle of one person, one vote is being pitted against perceived attacks on federalism and inter-state variations in development. The argument from some Southern states is that delimitation would see their voice and presence on the national stage diminished, essentially penalising them for economic development that has led to a declining fertility rate. The Home Minister’s argument in response to statements by Stalin that “delimitation is a sword hanging over the head of South India” has been “not even one seat will be reduced”. That’s why clarity and certainty are needed on the Census process – it is delayed by nearly five years. And given that reservation for women in legislatures is tied to the Census and delimitation, it will not help to delay it any further.

Advertisement

As a matter of first principles, representation and federalism should not be seen as zero-sum games. While the southern states have performed commendably on many indicators, the factors that led to their rise are historical as well as political and cannot be attributed to the political actors of the last half-century alone. And while capital may be concentrated and exported from some regions, others provide labour — the latter is no less important than the former. That said, the politics of the current moment, marked by the perception of the Centre trying to impose its will in the states through Raj Bhavans, does not help matters. It will also not do to dismiss as “distractions” the apprehensions of some states that federalism has been given short shrift of late. The political and cultural anxieties around delimitation must be addressed, discussed and assuaged. For that to happen, parties need to put aside petty politics and rise to the occasion. Given the shrillness on either side, this is quite a challenge but given the stakes — the resilience of democracy itself — the task couldn’t be more vital.