Delimitation and Discrimination: Balancing Federalism and Representation in India’s Democracy

Delimitation and Discrimination

Delimitation—the redrawing of parliamentary constituencies in alignment with demographic shifts—looms as one of the most controversial issues in Indian politics today. This process, which has been postponed since the 1971 census, is legally mandated to occur periodically to ensure that each state’s representation in Parliament reflects its current population. However, since the implementation of the forty-second and subsequent amendments, delimitation has been deferred to avoid penalising states that have successfully implemented population control measures, primarily in southern India. This freeze is set to lapse by 2026, bringing the delimitation issue back into the political spotlight.

The controversy surrounding delimitation is rooted in the challenge of balancing two competing constitutional ideals: political equality—each vote’s weight should be proportional to the population size—and federalism—the preservation of state representation in a union that respects regional identities and contributions. This essay argues that the impending delimitation risks creating a “perfect cocktail of layered discrimination,” favouring populous states while disenfranchising economically contributing regions, primarily in the south, thus threatening the unity of India’s federal structure.

The Demographic Imbalance and Its Implications

Population growth rates vary significantly across Indian states. According to data from recent studies, states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka have managed to stabilise their populations with fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1, whereas states in the Hindi-speaking heartland, including Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, exhibit much higher fertility rates. This disparity means that populous states will gain increased representation if seats are allocated purely on population, potentially doubling the political clout of these regions in Parliament.

The demographic imbalance has further implications for India’s principle of “one person, one vote.” As noted in recent studies, the current freeze in delimitation has created significant malapportionment. In populous states, each Member of Parliament (MP) represents more citizens than in less populous states, leading to unequal political power distribution across constituencies. This malapportionment undermines political equality, giving disproportionate representational weight to states with slower population growth.

Federalism and the Risk of Regional Marginalisation

India’s federalism is unique in that it accommodates a multitude of linguistic, cultural, and regional identities within a single political framework. States are not merely administrative units but are rooted in historical and ethno-linguistic identities, as highlighted by the Supreme Court of India. Delimitation that disproportionately increases representation in populous Hindi-speaking states risks transforming India from a federal union into what some critics fear could become a majoritarian state dominated by a single ethno-linguistic identity.

This threat to federalism is compounded by the economic contributions of southern and western states, which far exceed their population-based share of resources. These states contribute a significant proportion of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and tax revenues, yet receive less in terms of political representation due to their smaller populations. A redistribution of seats based purely on population growth would exacerbate this imbalance, creating what scholars have termed a “double burden”: these states would not only bear the fiscal responsibility of supporting less economically prosperous regions but would also lose their influence over the allocation of those funds.

The Fiscal and Economic Dimensions of Representation

The fiscal dynamics between states add another layer of complexity to the delimitation debate. Wealthier states, predominantly in the south, contribute more to the central tax pool but receive less in return, particularly when redistribution is calculated based on population needs. The Sixteenth Finance Commission, which recently recommended using the 2011 census for revenue distribution, intensifies these disparities by favouring population-based allocation over fiscal contribution.

This fiscal structure, combined with a potential seat reallocation, would allow states that receive significant financial support to wield disproportionate power over national policies, including those that govern resource distribution. This scenario would foster a political environment where economically contributing states lose influence over decisions affecting their contributions, contravening the democratic principle of no taxation without representation.

The Intersection of Population Control and Political Representation

Historically, India’s delimitation policy has linked population control efforts with political representation. The forty-second Amendment’s freeze on delimitation in 1976 was partly a reward for states that had successfully implemented family planning initiatives, particularly in the south. This approach intended to ensure that states taking proactive measures in population control were not penalised with reduced representation.

However, this policy has inadvertently created a reward and penalty system, whereby states with low population growth are at risk of losing political representation relative to states with higher growth rates. This approach conflicts with democratic ideals, as it penalises regions that have achieved population stabilisation while rewarding those that have not. Linking representation to population control is problematic, as it undermines the broader goal of political equality by making population size the only factor in determining political influence.

Marginalised Communities and Representation in the Delimitation Debate

The implications of delimitation extend beyond inter-state politics to issues of representation for marginalised communities, including Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and women. Delimitation, if conducted without careful consideration, could dilute the political power of these communities. The boundary adjustments can create or dismantle constituencies where marginalised groups hold significant voting power. The practices of “cracking” and “packing” voters can either increase or reduce the voting power of these communities. “Cracking” and “packing” are gerrymandering tactics used to control the voting power of certain communities. Cracking spreads members of a group across multiple districts so they form only a small part of each, weakening their ability to influence election outcomes. Packing, on the other hand, concentrates them into one or a few districts, giving them strong influence in those areas but limiting their impact elsewhere. Both methods reduce fair representation by either diluting (cracking) or isolating (packing) a community’s voting power, thus affecting its overall political influence.

Delimitation is also closely tied to gender representation. The recent passage of the “Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam,” reserving one-third of seats for women, is contingent on the upcoming delimitation exercise. However, linking this legislation to delimitation may delay its implementation, thereby postponing gender equity in Parliament. A gender-sensitive delimitation process is crucial for achieving meaningful female representation in the legislature.

Case Studies: Assam and Jammu & Kashmir

Recent delimitation exercises in Assam and Jammu & Kashmir provide insights into the challenges of implementing an impartial process. In Assam, the redrawing of boundaries was criticised for allegedly favouring certain ethnic and religious groups over others, with opposition parties arguing that the delimitation process marginalised Muslim-majority areas. In Jammu & Kashmir, the delimitation exercise was similarly contentious, as it was seen to favour Hindu-majority constituencies in Jammu over Muslim-majority areas in Kashmir.

These cases underscore the importance of transparency and impartiality in delimitation processes. Any future delimitation in India must prioritise equitable representation while considering the unique demographics of each state to avoid deepening existing communal and regional divides.

Potential Solutions and Alternatives

The complexities of delimitation require innovative solutions that balance population-based representation with India’s federal principles. Several proposals have been suggested, including:

1. Extending the Freeze on Delimitation: Some have advocated for extending the freeze on delimitation for another 25 years, following the precedents set by Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. However, this approach merely postpones the issue without addressing the underlying imbalances in representation.
2. Degressive Proportionality: This model would allocate seats in proportion to population but limit the influence of populous states, ensuring that less populous states retain a substantial say in national governance. Degressive proportionality has been used in the European Union to prevent larger member states from overwhelming smaller ones, offering a precedent for its potential application in India.
3. Expanding the Lok Sabha: Another approach is to increase the total number of seats in Parliament, allowing populous states to gain representation without reducing the representation of less populous states. This expansion could be paired with reforms to the Rajya Sabha to provide a counterbalance, giving less populous states an equitable voice in the federal structure.
4. Revenue-Based Representation in the Rajya Sabha: Some scholars have proposed using revenue contribution as a criterion for seat allocation in the Rajya Sabha, which would provide economically contributing states with greater influence over national fiscal policies. This model would align political representation with fiscal contributions, potentially resolving some of the fiscal inequities in the current system.

Conclusion

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias

Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias

The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH