South concern: This issue is gradually taking the form of North vs. South. The Joint Action Committee passed the resolution to increase the ban on delimitation by 25 years to 2050. In the meeting, the concern came out openly that if parliamentary seats were determined on the basis of population, then the seats in South India will be reduced significantly compared to North India. This will weaken the role of southern states in taking decisions at the center level.
Fear not unnecessary: The population difference between the states of North and South India is increasing rapidly. The governments of Indira Gandhi in 1976 and Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 2001 were delimited, but did not increase the number of seats. Indira Gandhi had banned increasing seats for 25 years. The Vajpayee government also retained it. This period is ending in 2026.
Demand to increase share: Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy is demanding to maintain the first policy. he/she says that there may be delimitation within the states on the basis of population, but there should be no increase in the total number of Lok Sabha seats. he/she also wants that the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Tribes should be increased and women should be given 33% reservation. The demand to increase its stake in the Lok Sabha in South India is also gaining momentum. Currently, out of 543 Lok Sabha seats, 130 seats i.e. about 24% are in the south account. There is a demand to increase it by 33%.
Lack of trust: The central government is saying that the seats in the south will not be reduced, but Stalin and Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan do not trust it. Their question is whether the basis of increasing seats will be population or the ratio of existing seats? Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman says that delimitation is not just on the basis of population. However, it is not clear that if the population is not the basis, then how will the decision be.
Anxiety discussion: The biggest concern in this case is the discussion that has started together. The southern states say that they followed the national policy of population control, followed the path of development and improved the standard of living of their people. In return, they are being punished by reducing seats. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have been left far behind in development. Bihar is being compared to Somalia.
Help from policies: There is a partial truth in the claim of the South. Social reforms and progressive politics helped him/her in economic development. However, colonial policies, such as the development of seaside areas and later the role of central grants cannot be denied. The question arises that why should the people left behind be punished due to continuing colonial policies? Why should their voice be suppressed in Parliament despite a large population?
Government failure: Will this dispute cause new rise of regional politics? It would be unfortunate if this happens. The recent controversy over the language felt that the leadership of the country was not able to create trust in the people of the south. Will we be successful in saving the political power of the states left behind? The crisis is so big that the delimitation agency is also suspected of being impartial.
(The author is a senior journalist)
