Legal Limitations

Delimitation, if done mechanically, could fracture India's federal fabric. If done wisely, it could strengthen democracy

- VIKRAM SHARMA

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.