India’s dilemmas of delimitation go beyond unequal representation

However, the political implications of delimitation are so serious that it became, like a caste census (last undertaken in 1931), the third rail of Indian politics. You touch it, you die. As a result, the delimitation exercise has not been carried out for over five decades. Now, after two generations of massive demographic changes from natural increase and migration, the associated political problems have become even more intractable.

Also Read: Plug data gaps: State-level statistical surveys could help

To uphold the core democratic principle of equal representation, each seat in the Lok Sabha is constitutionally mandated to represent roughly the same number of people. Therefore, the number of Lok Sabha seats from a given state should be proportional to its population. But, as is well known, the Total Fertility Rates (TFR) in south and north Indian states have followed very different trajectories over the past half century. 

A TFR of 2.1 represents ‘replacement level fertility,’ meaning a population is producing just enough offspring to replace itself; neither more, nor less. All South Indian states—Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka—have a TFR well below 2.1, whereas the levels are considerably higher in several large northern states like Bihar (TFR: 3) and Uttar Pradesh (TFR: 2.4).

These gaps were even larger in earlier decades. In 2001, Kerala had a TFR of 1.7, when UP had 4.4 and Bihar 4.5. In 2011 (when India’s last census was undertaken), these states had TFRs of 1.6, 3.6 and 4.2, respectively. As a result, the representation gap between the states of north and south India has been growing for decades. 

Also Read: Tamil Nadu’s call for equitable federalism has a sound basis

Today, a Member of Parliament (MP) from Bihar represents about 3.2 million people, whereas a Kerala MP represents about 1.75 million people. One could argue that the people of Kerala have almost twice as much voice in the Lok Sabha as the people of Bihar. The obvious problem—the one that is frequently heard in the media and makes delimitation necessary—is unequal representation.

But just as important a problem may be one of amplified majoritarianism in oversized constituencies. To explain, let us begin with the question of how many people an MP should represent? Bihar’s average of 3.2 million is larger than the entire population of many countries: 62 of the 195 countries of the world, i.e., including Namibia, Lithuania and Qatar. India’s average of 2.6 million is larger than the entire populations of Botswana, Slovenia, Kosovo and 54 other countries.

What is the right number for adequate representation? India, with over 1.4 billion people, has 543 MPs. China, which is not a multi-party democracy, has almost 3,000 people to represent a population roughly India’s size. Each member represents less than half a million people in China (also true of Bangladesh). The next closest to India’s 2.6 million average per parliamentarian is the US at round 730,000. Australia, Italy, Spain, Malaysia, Germany and many other countries are below 150,000. In the UK, Sri Lanka, Ghana and most Latin American countries, the average is below 100,000.

Also Read: Let fiscal federalism and economic freedom drive prosperity in times of a trade war

It may not be possible to settle on a perfect number for how many people a parliamentarian should represent, but this is for sure: 2.6 million is much too high. How can we expect a single person to be the voice of so many people and safeguard their interests ? This question takes on greater urgency when we consider the diversity of faith, language, caste and class in any group in India that has as many as 2.5 to 3 million people.

What can be done about this? The most obvious possibility is to increase the number of MPs. If we choose a representation density similar to the US (which is the second-densest after India), the Lok Sabha would have close to 2,000 MPs. A density similar to China would require about 3,000 MPs. Aside from the practical difficulties of seating so many people and running Parliament with some degree of civility and order, this would be quite a remarkable social and political experiment.

There is little doubt that this larger number would lead to better representation of smaller and more marginalized groups—which would be the purpose of having smaller and more coherent constituencies. A group that comprises 20% of a 2.6 million constituency could never win. 

But such a group, if geographically clustered (as minority groups often are), could be 50% of one of the three constituencies that would be created in a tripled parliament. Even if small and marginalized groups are unable to win many more seats in such a system, they would have a bigger voice and greater influence in the seats where they would now have stronger demographic presence; instead of being an ignorable 10% of a 2.6-million seat, they could be a vocal 30% of one of the seats.

Also Read: Second shot: Could cooperative federalism revive Indian farm reforms?

Take for example the Kolkata Uttar constituency in West Bengal. It includes large clusters of Hindu Bengalis in the north and Muslim Bengalis and non-Bengali speaking migrants in its southern and eastern parts. The seat has been won by a Bengali Brahmin member of the Trinamool Congress in the last four Lok Sabha elections. If this seat were split into three, depending on how the boundaries are drawn, at least one would be won by the BJP, probably by a non-Bengali speaker. 

Similar realignments would take place across the country. In many instances, a BJP seat would splinter into other parties like the Indian National Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, Akali Dal and so on.

The political ramifications of such a change could be momentous. So much so that it would become yet another third rail of politics in India. For that reason, it is hard to imagine that this idea will gain traction. Therefore, the problem of overlarge constituencies that amplify majoritarianism and diminish the voices of marginalized groups will continue to remain a serious shortcoming of Indian democracy.

The author is a professor of geography, environment and urban studies and director of global studies at Temple University.