The delimitation ghost: Why does South India see red in population-based redrawing of Lok Sabha seats

Hyderabad: The redrawing of electoral constituencies, or delimitation, has sparked a fierce debate.

There is a freeze till 2026 on the redrawing of Lok Sabha constituencies but that limit is around the corner and many states, especially the southern ones, are waking up to the potential loss of seats in the population-based exercise. This is because the northern and central states have grown much more populous than the South, which feels it is being penalized for its success with population control.

Delimitation would mean significantly more Lok Sabha seats for North India at the expense of the South, which would lose many. This, it is argued correctly, would hand a massive advantage to parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which have traditionally done well in the North.

It’s no wonder that KT Rama Rao, of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi, called on southern states to oppose delimitation. In a statement, he said that the South delivered when called on to act on family planning. Now, he said, it is facing injustice for its success because delimitation would be based on population size.

States like Telangana, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and others got their policy right to stay leagues ahead of northern states on human development indices. Rao pointed out: “With only 18% population, the southern states have been contributing 35% to the country’s GDP and the proposed delimitation based on population is a gross injustice to them.”

How delimitation would work

Let’s do the math

The Constitution says that the number of Lok Sabha seats each state gets depends on its population. These seats were to be reallocated after every Census. However, governments ranging from Indira Gandhi’s in 1976 and then Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s in 2002 ensured that the last delimitation happened after the 1971 Census. In 2002, the Constitution (84th Amendment) Act froze the redrawing of constituencies till the first Census after 2026.

So, we have a situation where Lok Sabha MPs in Madhya Pradesh represent on average 25 lakh citizens – that’s 29 MPs for 7.26 crore people. An MP in Tamil Nadu represents on average 18.5 lakh citizens – 39 MPs for a population of 7.21 crore. These numbers are based on the 1971 Census when Madhya Pradesh (not counting the areas that went to Chhattisgarh) had 5.47% of India’s population and so got 5.34% of Lok Sabha seats. Tamil Nadu had a population share of 7.51% and so got 7.18% of the 543 seats.

Between 1971 and 2011, Tamil Nadu’s population increased 1.75 times while Madhya Pradesh grew 2.41 times. So, Madhya Pradesh’s population share grew to 6%, while Tamil Nadu’s dropped to 5.95% of India’s overall population. If that number was to be taken as the basis for allotting constituencies, both states would have roughly 32 Lok Sabha seats – a loss of seven for Tamil Nadu.

Similarly, Uttar Pradesh’s population in 1971 accounted for 15.3% of the national total. By 2011, that had grown to 16.5%. Going by that, the state would have got 87 seats instead of the current 80.

The 2019 paper, ‘India’s Emerging Crisis of Representation’ by policy analysts Milan Vaishnav and Jaimie Hintson, estimated that if delimitation was carried out as per the projected population figures of the 2031 Census – the earliest scheduled after 2026 – then Bihar and Uttar Pradesh alone would gain 21 seats in all, while Tamil Nadu and Kerala would lose 16 collectively.

They projected that, if the strength of the Lok Sabha were to be raised as per the increased population, it would have 848 seats. In that, Lok Sabha, Uttar Pradesh would have 143 seats while Kerala would have only the 20 it has now.

South India’s representation would fall from 129 seats to 103 while Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Rajasthan’s total would increase from 174 to 205.

Intensifying concerns

With its seat count projected to fall, the South is worried that it will have a diminishing say at the national level.

Politicians and observers have pointed out that the Northeast is neglected because the region has low representation in Parliament. The South, they say, could find itself in a similar situation.

Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Thomas Isaac, former finance minister of Kerala, was quoted in the media as saying: “We strongly object to any move to go for delimitation that is based on the revised population data. When the national population policy was introduced, Parliament gave an assurance to all states that the population decline would not affect political representation. The Central Government cannot go back on its promise.”

Incidentally, it’s not just the number of seats but the share of Central funds that will reduce because the southern states have a lower share of the population. Allocation of these funds is based on the population figures of the 2011 census. This was a call taken by the 15th Finance Commission that was established in 2017. Earlier commissions based it on the 1971 census. The 15th Finance Commission reasoned that the 2011 numbers better-represented state populations. To reward states that had done well on the demographic front, a 12.5% weight was assigned to demographic performance.

The South and even West Bengal did not buy the argument. Kerala, for instance, said that the state’s share of Central taxes had been slashed because of its success in population control. In 1971, when Kerala accounted for 3.89% of India’s population, it received 3.87% of the fund allocation. By the time the 15th Finance Commission was in place, it got only 1.92% despite the state’s population share is 2.75% of the national total in 2011.

Tamil Nadu has expressed similar concerns.

So, what can be done now?

Given the concerns and the potential for center-state divisions, the Centre could postpone the delimitation until after 2031 and use the time to build a consensus. But kicking the can down the road would be a temporary solution, not a permanent one. The other option could be to increase seats in the states that need it without taking away seats from the states set to lose them. This, too, however, would mean diminished power for the South at the national level.

The problem has been allowed to fester for too long. India’s failure to regularly redraw constituencies has meant that the political interests are too entrenched and change is harder than it should be. Democratic theory demands equal representation, especially in a system where the head of government is not elected directly.

Having said that, many countries balance geographical variation with uneven representation. Germans, for instance, vote twice for members of their parliament, the Bundestag. They vote first for a direct candidate, who must poll a plurality vote (more votes than any other candidate; not necessarily a majority) in their constituency. The second vote is used to elect a party list in each state as established by its respective party caucus. The Bundestag comprises seats representing each constituency, with the remaining seats allocated to maintain proportionality based on the second vote.

For India, the US might have a more practical lesson. The House (their equivalent of the Lok Sabha) seats are based on population but the rights of the states are balanced by ensuring two members in the Senate (the Rajya Sabha equivalent) from each one irrespective of the population there. So, Alaska, with a population of merely 7.3 lakh has two senators and so does California with a population of 3.92 crore. This ensures the more populous states don’t ride roughshod over the smaller ones.

Rethinking our Upper House of Parliament, the Rajya Sabha, in this manner could ensure that states don’t feel powerless at the national level despite doing well in controlling the population. It would also mean that the Rajya Sabha becomes a House with more power and say in national affairs than it does now. This would, arguably make India more democratic. And, it would ensure that the Rajya Sabha isn’t looked at as a fun thing rich people do.

Whichever way you look at it, the 2031 Census will be a landmark event. The data will determine how Lok Sabha constituencies shape up and are allocated and that, in turn, would redraw the political landscape. The question is will it be done to ensure an unfair advantage to parties like the BJP or will it be fair and ensure representation to everyone?

That leads us to a more fundamental question: What should be paramount for any country – increasing representation based on population at the cost of some states? Or to ensure that states that need more Lok Sabha seats get them but not at the cost of representation of high-performing ones? Democratic systems face problems from time to time and India is no exception. It’s the response to these problems that determines whether they remain stable democracies or not.

Ashraf Engineer has been a journalist for almost three decades, leading newsrooms and initiatives across print, digital, and audio. He is the founder of the All Indians Matter platform, a home for conversations with and about India on issues that matter, and the host of the podcast by the same name.