One man, one vote; one vote, one value is an ideal situation for a large nation. However, while there can be no cavil at one man, one vote, it is the equalisation of the value of each vote by redrawing constituencies to ensure that they all have approximately the same number of voters, is where the Indian Union of States has a problem.
The Indian Republic is anchored around large Hindi-speaking states with burgeoning poor populations. Other states, especially the southern states that have successfully implemented family planning and have grown richer in the process, fear being overwhelmed in a constitutional structure that will turn them into powerless revenue farms, for an expanding Indo-Gangetic horde. Thus, the idea of a fair delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies evokes strong reactions.
Population-based representation seems intuitive. More people should mean more seats. Yet, in India, this logic creates an imbalance. The South, with its lower population growth, is penalised. The North, with its higher fertility rates, is rewarded. Is this democracy, or a distortion of federal fairness? The Indian union is also an agglomeration of distinct languages, cultures and regions. To compound this mixture into a homogeneous indistinguishable mass at the federal level may end up effacing identities and cultures built up over millennia.
The Indian Constitution originally envisaged periodic delimitation. The framers believed that seats should be adjusted based on changing population patterns and Article 82 mandated it. In 1976, the Emergency era government of Indira Gandhi made a choice to freeze delimitation as per the populations ascertained by the 1971 census. Population control was a priority.
The southern states performed admirably. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka embraced family planning. Fertility rates dropped. The North, particularly Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, lagged behind. The South believes that it is now paying an unconscionable price for its success in family planning.
Seats could be allocated based on various factors: population, development indices & fiscal contribution. This would ensure equitable distribution of power.
These fears are not without basis and have been responded to by several wise governments that decided to kick the can further down the road. The 1976 delimitation freeze was extended repeatedly. The 2001 amendment pushed any change to 2026. However, if the freeze is lifted, the political map will shift dramatically. The North will gain seats. The South will lose influence. Is this fair? Hardly. Representation is not just about numbers. It is about governance. It is about acknowledging effort and progress.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in his inimitable style, once wrote, “Social justice is not a mathematical calculation. It is the art of balancing competing interests to achieve fairness.” The delimitation debate needs this delicate balance. Simply rewarding population growth punishes progress. It sends a dangerous message. Control your population, lose your voice. In 2018, a prominent politician from Tamil Nadu remarked at a public forum: “If we had known that controlling our population would cost us our political power, we would have thought twice.” This was no idle comment. It reflected genuine anxiety. In Tamil Nadu, the fertility rate has dropped below replacement levels. Yet, the state stands to lose seats. Uttar Pradesh, with a fertility rate twice as high, will gain.
Democracy or Majoritarianism?
India prides itself on being the world라이브 바카라 largest democracy. But democracy is not just about majority rule. It is about protecting minorities. The South, with its progressive policies, efficient governance and economic contributions, cannot be treated as a demographic minority. B.R. Ambedkar warned against the tyranny of the majority. He feared that India라이브 바카라 federal structure could be distorted if numbers alone dictated power. The current delimitation dilemma echoes his warning.
The North-South Divide
The North-South divide is real. It is economic, cultural, and now, political. The South contributes disproportionately to India라이브 바카라 economy. Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are industrial powerhouses. Kerala leads in human development indices. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are hubs of technology and innovation. Yet, these states risk being marginalised in Parliament. There is also the issue of fiscal imbalance. The southern states contribute more in taxes but receive less in return. This imbalance is tolerated, albeit grudgingly. But fiscal disparity, coupled with political disenfranchisement, is explosive. In India After Gandhi, Ramachandra Guha highlighted how regional imbalances can destabilise a federal system. He writes: “When regions feel that they are giving more than they receive, and that they are losing political power, the bonds of unity fray.”
The Call for a New Formula
We need a new formula. One that balances population with progress. One that recognises not just numbers but also governance outcomes. Seats could be allocated based on a combination of factors: population, development indices, and fiscal contribution. This would ensure a more equitable distribution of political power. The Constituent Assembly debated these issues. Economist and Assembly member K.T. Shah argued for weighted representation. He foresaw the challenges of a population-based system. His warnings were ignored. Today, they resonate with renewed urgency.
A Constitutional Amendment?
A constitutional amendment may be inevitable. Article 82 could be reworked to include new criteria. Development outcomes, fiscal responsibility and governance standards should play a role in determining representation. The South is not asking for preferential treatment. It is asking for fairness. A fair deal for the South is a fair deal for India.
Strengthening the voices of progressive states strengthens the Union. Other federations have tackled similar challenges. The United States, Canada, and Australia have models that balance population with regional equity. The US, for instance, balances its federation through a 100-member Senate, where very large states like California and Texas have the same two seats as very small states like Wyoming and South Dakota. India can draw its own lessons from such examples.
Asking the Right Questions
The question is not whether delimitation should happen. It is how it should happen. Should India reward population growth at the cost of progress? Should governance excellence be punished? These are not rhetorical questions. They are fundamental to India라이브 바카라 future. At a recent legal seminar, a young lawyer from Chennai asked: “Sir, if Tamil Nadu라이브 바카라 population had grown like Uttar Pradesh, would we be heard more in Parliament?” His question was laced with irony. But it was rooted in reality.
The Road Ahead
Delimitation, if done mechanically, could fracture India라이브 바카라 federal fabric. If done wisely, it could strengthen democracy. The choice is ours. As Justice Krishna Iyer once said: “The Constitution is not a static document. It is a living organism that grows with the nation.” Let India라이브 바카라 delimitation reflect that growth. Let it reflect fairness. Let it reflect justice. Anything less would be a betrayal of the founding vision.
(Views expressed are personal)
Sanjay Hegde is a senior advocate designated by the Supreme Court
