South's Concerns About Delimitation are Well-Founded

India has arguably the world바카라�s most centralised governance structure, a reality that pays only lip service to the notion of a 바카라�Union of States바카라� mentioned in the Constitution. In most countries, societal progress and economic development lead to increasing devolution of power to the levels of government closest to the people, thereby improving accountability and increasing self-governance. India has witnessed the opposite trajectory since becoming a Republic. And the tendency to accumulate power at the Union has persisted regardless of the national party that has formed a majority government in Delhi바카라�the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)바카라�proving that such a desire for control comes with the position, and not political ideology. Yet, this current incarnation of the urge to consolidate power is unprecedented for the scale of its ambition, and the scope of tactics deployed to achieve their ends. In fact, it has become so relentless, and the consequences have proven so detrimental, that one wonders whether this is just the Delhi 바카라�Empire-building바카라� syndrome, or something more?

India also presents an economic-demographic paradox that defies global patterns. Regions of high economic productivity within a country generally experience population growth through migration in search of opportunity, and vice-versa. But in India, the states (largely in the South) which disproportionately drive the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) have much smaller populations and lower fertility rates. Conversely, the large northern Indian states, which contain the nation바카라�s largest populations (and have the highest fertility rates), suffer from the greatest rates of poverty, and significantly lag the national average on most development and economic indices.

This imbalance persists바카라�in fact, with increasing disparities바카라�despite decades of increasing tax collection from wealthier states (again broadly southern), and subsequent redistribution to the poorer regions (largely northern), by the Union government. To be clear, this failure of levelling up of the lagging states cannot be attributed to the current governments (at the Union and at the lagging states), as it is a decades-long problem.

The inevitable lessons are: first, that money alone will not help lagging states surge towards the leaders on any dimension, no matter how much money is transferred. Further, the staggering inability to meaningfully elevate living standards in the country바카라�s most impoverished areas over decades proves the acute failure of India바카라�s centralised governance model.

It is in this context that the prospect of a new delimitation exercise, after the expiry of the 50-year freeze, raises profound concerns about substantial reduction in representation in the Lok Sabha from the southern states. These anxieties are aggravated by three troubling aspects. First, this government has established a disturbing track record and precedent of implementing consequential, constitutionally dubious decisions without regard to due process바카라�the abrogation of Article 370, the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)바카라�while demonstrating contempt for parliamentary deliberation, as evidenced when the Farm Laws were rammed through without debate. Such systematic authoritarianism reveals not merely impatience with democratic processes but a fundamental disregard for the Constitution. As the delimitation deadline approaches, these precedents increase concerns of similar actions in this case.

Second, the inexplicable delay of the census바카라�due in 2021 and postponed due to pandemic concerns바카라�flashes as a warning sign. The absence of timely, and hence somewhat accurate, demographic data is felt every day in policy-making and governance. A reasonable government should have started the census right after the pandemic and concluded it by now. Yet, the Union government has inexplicably delayed the long-overdue census.

The 2002 bill freezing delimitation says that redistricting would follow the first census after the end of the freeze. Under normal circumstances, that would have been in 2031. So, the fear arises that the census has deliberately been postponed to the earliest possible date past the 2026 freeze바카라�s expiry, thereby enabling this Union government to bring about redistricting prior to the otherwise-earliest option of 2031 or later, by advancing it to conclude before this Union government바카라�s term expires in 2029!

Third, the enlarging of the Lok Sabha chamber in the new Parliament to accommodate over 800 members fuels justifiable speculation about the long-term intentions of the government that approved its design.

Taken together, one is reminded of the proclivity of this government for grand, disruptive gestures regardless of constitutional norms, practicality of implementation, or even the likelihood of marginal success바카라�overnight demonetisation, hastily implemented Goods and Services Tax (GST), and a nationwide lockdown announced with just hours for preparation. This propensity suggests that the redistricting process may serve as yet another spectacular distraction, keeping public attention diverted from policy failures while fundamentally altering the balance of political power for generations to come. But, the current prospect of delimitation is more existential to our Republic than any other issue since Independence.

While the notion of equitable representation is a basic tenet of all democracies, India had a well-founded concern in the decades after Independence that high population growth would swamp economic growth rates바카라�and thereby increase poverty levels. China also had the same concerns and addressed them through a rigid state-enforced one-child policy. As a democracy, India adopted a more cooperative approach, with massive education and information campaigns to reduce fertility rates. Yet it was evident by the mid-1970s that there was significant disparity between states in terms of lowering fertility rates (and thereby population growth rates). It was precisely the realisation of such disparity, and the prospect of its short-term continuity, that led to the freezing of delimitation through Constitutional amendments바카라�first in 1976 (the 42nd amendment), and then again in 2002 (the 84th amendment). As we approach 2026, the disparity is worse than it was in 1976 or 2002.

The delimitation process threatens to fundamentally alter India바카라�s political equilibrium in ways that extend far beyond seat allocation. Currently, whoever dominates the northern heartland effectively controls the nation바카라�delimitation would dramatically intensify this imbalance, potentially cementing these states바카라� hegemonic position for generations. A political landscape where parliamentary majorities can be secured almost exclusively within one linguistic-cultural region creates dangerous democratic distortions. It바카라�s a textbook example of further marginalising the already marginalised regions.

Analysis of demographic data and recent electoral results portend a stark scenario. Under a delimitation based on the 2011 census, the BJP would have secured significantly more seats in the northern states in both 2019 and 2024. And, in a scenario where a party could form the government at the Union by winning just 65 per cent of the northern constituencies while capturing merely five per cent of the southern constituencies, what incentive remains for national parties to address southern concerns?

This reconfiguration of electoral geography raises serious questions about the future of representative democracy itself. If a party can mathematically ignore entire regions while achieving parliamentary dominance, we risk creating distinct classes of citizenship바카라�a class (North) whose votes are electorally consequential and another, lower, class (South) who are rendered effectively irrelevant to national power equations바카라�despite generating the maximum economic contributions to the Union exchequer. These massive electoral and economic imbalances will be devastating for the federal intent that has been the basis for India바카라�s relative political stability.

What exactly do the high-population, low-economic activity states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar stand to gain through increased parliamentary representation? Such less-developed northern heartland states already have the biggest share of current representation, and more importantly, receive the lion바카라�s share of fiscal transfers from the Centre, while contributing disproportionately less to national revenue. That is, even with 바카라�disproportionately low contribution바카라� they are getting 바카라�massively disproportional net fiscal transfers바카라� from the Union government. And yet, the fundamental paradox remains unresolved: despite decades of increasingly preferential resource allocation, these regions continue to languish at the bottom of almost every development index.

Their development challenges stem not from insufficient parliamentary voice but from fundamental governance failures, entrenched socioeconomic inequalities, and political leadership that has repeatedly failed to convert ever-increasing resources into tangible human development. Additional MPs would merely amplify the same dysfunctional political dynamics that have failed to deliver progress for decades, not alleviate them.

From another perspective, will additional parliamentary seats for the populous states genuinely enhance democratic participation? The evidence suggests otherwise. The scale of representation (now, or after redistricting) is roughly of the order of 1.5 to 2.5 million voters per MP. The overwhelming majority of winners for this scale of electorate will still need massive backing and support from established political parties. This will tend to skew MP바카라�s loyalties more to the party and its leader, than the priorities of the voters they represent. In other words, this delimitation exercise cannot be dressed up as something which will create more autonomous leaders; in fact, it does not meaningfully alter the status quo. Asked to choose between their electorate and party diktat, the elected MP will likely choose party diktat every single time. Besides, the vestiges of independence as a legislator have been eviscerated by the anti-defection law, which has transformed elected representatives into mere voting machines. Parliamentary debate바카라�the conceptual cornerstone of representative democracy바카라�has been systematically hollowed out, with bills passed without being referred to standing committees, with fewer sitting days, curtailed discussion periods, and the classification of critical legislation as 바카라�money bills바카라� in a bid to bypass Rajya Sabha scrutiny. In this reality, how does adding numerically more rubber stamps to a government바카라�s agenda enhance democratic representation?

National parties, by their very design and electoral compulsions, are limited by many internal contradictions. For example, the BJP enforces beef bans across the northern states while accommodating consumption in Kerala, Goa, and the Northeast; the Congress is in coalition with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Communists in Tamil Nadu, while opposing them in Kerala. In contrast, regional parties not only have the luxury of internal consistency but are also inherently vested in the federal premise바카라�in states바카라� rights and greater devolution. Given that delimitation will fundamentally undermine India바카라�s federal character by concentrating power within a single linguistic-cultural bloc, political resistance must begin from the regional parties.

The DMK in Tamil Nadu possesses both the ideological clarity and the historical legitimacy to lead this resistance. The party is the descendant and current incarnation of the Dravidian Movement, whose struggle against Hindi imposition and centralised control, from the 1930s onwards, is based on the sentiments of all Tamil people, irrespective of party. Tamil Nadu바카라�s unique position바카라�the only state explicitly exempted from the 1976 Official Languages Act following decades of anti-Hindi agitation바카라�grants its political leadership immense moral authority in resisting further concentration of power at the Union.

Chief Minister M.K. Stalin represents the continuation of a principled political tradition that has consistently resisted Delhi바카라�s hegemonic impulses. This resistance stems from our belief in India as a 바카라�Union of States바카라� rather than a unitary nation-state. The DMK바카라�s historical insistence on cooperative federalism, where states retain substantial autonomy while contributing to national development, offers a viable alternative to the centralising impulse that delimitation represents. That is why our Chief Minister has convened a Joint Action Committee (JAC) of several states, and the JAC has called for an extension of the freeze for another 25 years.

The supreme irony바카라�and one that is not highlighted enough in my view바카라�is that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, now posturing as champions of equitable proportional representation, is the same regime that enshrined the 바카라�One State, One Vote바카라� principle for the GST Council. Their constitutional amendment granted identical voting power to states regardless of the population or the relative size of their economy (or tax contributions): Sikkim with its half-a-million citizens carries the same weight as Tamil Nadu with over 80 million, or Uttar Pradesh with over 240 million. I have pointed out the near absurdity of this vote allocation from multiple dimensions, on multiple occasions, starting with the first GST Council meeting after COVID in May 2021. This deliberate design wasn바카라�t an oversight but a calculated strategy to dilute the influence of larger and richer states and retain control with the Union (and the smaller states that depend on it for the bulk of their revenues). When controlling tax policy, this regime happily discarded population-based or scale-of-contribution-based representation; now, when seeking to cement electoral dominance, will they suddenly discover its virtues?

An unfair delimitation represents the political weaponisation of demographics on an unprecedented scale. India stands at a crossroads: either we defend the diverse, federal union our founding ancestors envisioned, or we surrender to a hollow majoritarianism that masks highly centralised, culturally homogeneous rule.

The spectre of selective disenfranchisement is real, and it is imminent.

It is in keeping with history that the resistance will be led by the people of Tamil Nadu, the DMK government they have elected, and their Chief Minister M.K. Stalin.

In speaking for ourselves, we speak for all. It is the resistance of all citizens of India who believe in its Constitution, its federal structure, and the motto 바카라�unity in diversity바카라�.

And we shall prevail.

(Views expressed are personal)

Palanivel Thiaga Rajan is the Minister for Information Technology, Govt of Tamil Nadu. He has previously served as Finance Minister & GST Council Member

This article is a part of Outlook's April 11, 2025 issue 'Viksit South', which explores the growing north-south divide in India. It appeared in print as 'South Unlimited'