The current flaring of the debate on delimitation takes place in a fraught political context. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has fired the first shot when the rumble of next year’s election is already beginning to make itself heard. By all accounts, CM Stalin is laying claim to leadership of a push-back by the “South” against a BJP-led and “North”-dominated Centre, on all-India projects ranging from the entrance exam, NEET, to the National Education Policy and the three-language formula. On delimitation, a state-level all-party meeting called by him in Tamil Nadu has led to a resolution that asks the Centre to extend the 1971 Census-based delimitation framework for another 30 years beyond 2026, to ensure fair representation for states that have effectively controlled their population. Stalin’s moves also coincide with a perceived BJP drive to spread into states of the South, having reiterated its dominance in the country’s north in recent polls. They seek to stoke apprehensions, real and imagined, about Hindutva’s homogenising ambitions. The political context, then, encourages the framing of the issue in warring spectres and tidy binaries — North vs South, an all-conquering, winner-takes-all BJP/Hindutva vs the rest, representation vs federalism. The reality is much more complicated. The issue is also too important to be left to short-term political interests and agendas of the moment.
The thing about spectres is that they seldom withstand a reality check. For instance, the North and South are internally differentiated. And the claims of a “better developed” South getting short shrift in comparison to a “less developed” North are reductive — they paper over many of the vital geographical, historical, political and policy factors that underlie the phenomenon of some states overtaking others. The BJP’s bid to expand into the country’s south also means a nuancing and leavening, and even softening, of its political project. Similarly, the pitting of representation against federalism deserves closer scrutiny. At one level, it borrows the majoritarian arguments that have become the common sense on other issues — for instance, the demand for a caste census, Congress leading the charge, has been raising its head. But what also needs to be kept in mind is this: Even as the Constitution’s guarantee of political equality is shored up by the principle of one-person-one-vote, the constitutional letter and spirit also holds out protections for minorities (not necessarily defined by religion) and safeguards for federalism. That is, it also addresses predicaments in ways that don’t go by a mechanical application of the majority principle alone.
Clearly, a solution needs to be found to the delimitation puzzle. In the past, the can has been kicked down the road. Stalin wants that to happen again. The challenge is to forge a new path, through deliberation and dialogue, which ensures that no one loses and everyone wins. For, it goes far beyond carving out new constitiuencies. Only one thing is certain: This is not something that should be resolved by an order imposed by the Centre from above. To endure, it will require a federalism that’s collaborative and cooperative, not competitive. Every political party, every citizen, has a stake in this for it’s about reinforcing the very bedrock of democracy — representation, in both number and spirit.
