
South v North: The battle over redrawing India's electoral map
NEW DELHI — A political storm is brewing in India, with the first waves already hitting the southern part of the country.
Leaders there are calling for mass mobilization to protect the region's political interests amid a heated controversy over the redrawing of electoral seats to reflect changes in population over time.
In a high-stakes push, they are urging citizens to "have more children", using meetings and media campaigns to amplify their message: that the process of delimitation could shift the balance of power.
"Delimitation is a Damocles' sword hanging over southern India," says MK Stalin, chief minister of Tamil Nadu, one of India's five southern states, and an arch-rival of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). (The other four are Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Telangana.)
These five states account for 20% of India's 1.4 billion people. They also outperform the rest of the country in health, education and economic prospects. A child is less likely to be born here than in the north, due to lower population growth rates.
Their leaders are worried that the more prosperous south may lose parliamentary seats in the future, a "punishment" for having fewer children and generating more wealth. Wealthier southern states have always contributed more to federal revenue, with poorer, highly populated states in the north receiving larger shares based on need.
India's Constitution mandates that seats be allocated to each state based on its population, with constituencies of roughly equal size. It also requires reallocation of seats after each census, reflecting updated population figures.
So India redrew parliamentary seats three times based on the decennial census in 1951, 1961 and 1971. Since then, governments of all stripes have paused the exercise, fearing an imbalance of representation due to varying fertility rates across states.
The next delimitation exercise is set for 2026, but uncertainty looms as India hasn't conducted a census since 2011, with no clear timeline for when it will take place.
This has set the stage for a potential crisis. "Tamil Nadu is leading the charge and India is on the brink of a federal deadlock," says Yamini Aiyar, a senior fellow at Brown University
The number of seats in the Lok Sabha — the lower house of parliament representing directly elected MPs — has risen from 494 to 543 and has remained constant since then. The freeze means that despite India's growing population since 1971, the number of Lok Sabha seats per state has stayed the same, with no new seats added.
In 1951, each MP represented just over 700,000 people. Today, that number has surged to an average of 2.5 million per MP — more than three times the population represented by a member of the US House of Representatives. In comparison, a UK MP represents around 120,000 people.
Experts say all Indians are underrepresented – though not equally so – because constituencies are too large. (The original Constitution capped the ratio at one MP for 750,000 people)
That's not all. Using census data and population projections, economist Shruti Rajagopalan of George Mason University has highlighted the "severe malapportionment" — unequal distribution of political representation — in India.
Consider this. In Uttar Pradesh (UP), India's most populous state with over 240 million people, each MP represents about three million citizens.
Meanwhile, in Kerala, where fertility rates are similar to many European countries, an MP represents roughly 1.75 million.
This means the average voter in Kerala in the south has 1.7 times more influence in choosing an MP than a voter in UP in the north.
Ms Rajagopalan also notes that Tamil Nadu and Kerala now have nine and six seats more than their population share, while populous, poorer states like Bihar and UP have nine and 12 seats fewer than their proportion. (Stalin warns that Tamil Nadu could lose eight seats if delimitation occurs in 2026, based on projected population figures.)
By 2031, the problem will intensify: UP and Bihar will fall a dozen seats short of their population proportion, while Tamil Nadu will likely have 11 seats more than its proportion, with other states falling "somewhere in between," according to Ms Rajagopalan.
"Consequently," she says, "India is no longer living up to its fundamental constitutional principle of 'one-person, one vote'." To make this principle meaningful, constituency sizes must be roughly equal.
Experts have proposed several solutions, many of which will require strong bipartisan consensus.
One option is to increase the number of seats in the lower house.
In other words, India should revert to the original constitutional ratio of one MP for every 750,000 people, which would expand the Lok Sabha to 1,872 seats. (The new parliament building has the capacity for 880 seats, so it would need a major upgrade.)
The other option is for the total number of seats in Lok Sabha to increase to the extent that no state loses its current number of electoral seats – to achieve this the number of seats in the Lok Sabha would need to be 848, by several estimations.
Accompanying this move, experts like Ms Rajagopalan advocate for a more decentralized fiscal system.
In this model, states would have greater revenue-raising powers and retain most or all of their revenue. Federal funds would then be allocated based on development needs. Currently, states receive less than 40% of the total revenue but spend about 60% of it, while the rest is raised and spent by the central government.
A third solution is to reform the composition of the upper house of the parliament. The Rajya Sabha represents states' interests, with seats allocated proportionally to population and capped at 250.
Rajya Sabha members are elected by state legislatures, not directly by the public. Milan Vaishnav of Carnegie Endowment for Peace suggests a radical approach would be to fix the number of seats per state in the upper house, similar to the US Senate.
"Transforming the upper house into a real venue for debate of states' interests could potentially soften the opposition to a reallocation of seats in the lower house," he argues.
Then there are other proposals like splitting big states — India's top five states have more than 45% share of total seats.
Miheer Karandikar of Takshashila Institution, a Bangalore-based think-tank, cites UP as an example of how big states skew things. UP's share of total votes cast in India is around 14% currently. He estimates this would likely increase to 16% after delimitation, "which allows it to retain its status as the most significant state politically and in terms of legislative influence". Splitting a state like UP could help matters.
For now, the anxious southern leaders — whose rhetoric is partly political with Tamil Nadu elections looming next summer — have been joined by counterparts in Punjab to urge the government to maintain current seats and freeze electoral boundaries for the next 30 years, beyond 2026. In other words, it's a call for more of the same, preserving the status quo.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has made little significant statement so far. Home Minister Amit Shah claimed southern states would not lose "even a single seat" in the upcoming delimitation, though the meaning remains unclear. Meanwhile, the federal government's decision to withhold education funds and label Tamil Nadu's leadership as "undemocratic and uncivilized" over a contentious education policy has deepened divisions.
Political scientist Suhas Palshikar warns that the north-south divide threatens India's federal structure. "The north-south prism is only likely to persuade people and parties of the north to push for a delimitation that would give them an advantage. Such a counter-mobilization in the north can make it impossible to arrive at any negotiated settlement, Palshikar noted.
He believes that expanding the size of the Lok Sabha and ensuring that no state loses its current strength is not only a "politically prudent step", but something which will "enrich the idea of democracy in the Indian context." Balancing representation will be the key to preserving India's strained federal spirit. — BBC
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Saudi Gazette
20 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
Saudi Crown Prince offers condolences to Indian PM over plane crash
Saudi Gazette Report JEDDAH — Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman has sent a cable to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, offering condolences over the tragic passenger plane crash. The Crown Prince expressed his deepest condolences and sincere sympathy to the prime minister, as well as to the families of the victims and people of India, wishing a speedy recovery for the injured. The London-bound Air India plane struck a medical college hostel in a residential area of the northwestern Indian city of Ahmedabad minutes after takeoff on Thursday, June 12, killing 241 people on board and at least 29 on the ground. One passenger survived with injuries in the mishap.


Al Arabiya
a day ago
- Al Arabiya
Canada's Sikh community voices outrage over Modi G7 invitation
Members of Canada's Sikh community who were warned by police that their lives were at risk and allege the Indian government is responsible for the threat are incensed by Ottawa's invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the G7 summit in Alberta. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney invited Modi, although India is not a G7 member, to attend the summit that starts on Sunday as a guest. It will be Modi's first visit to Canada in a decade and a diplomatic test for Carney, a political neophyte. Canada's relationship with India has been tense since former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2023 accused India's government of involvement in the June 18, 2023, murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Sikh separatist leader in Canada. Modi's government has denied involvement in Nijjar's killing and has accused Canada of providing a safe haven for Sikh separatists. ''Outrage' is the kind of term that I've heard from people,' Sikh activist Moninder Singh, a friend of Nijjar, said of the invitation. He and other Sikh leaders plan to hold a protest in Ottawa on Saturday. Carney, locked in a trade war with the United States, is trying to shore up alliances elsewhere and diversify Canada's exports. Carney told reporters he invited India due to its importance in global supply chains. India's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said in a Thursday press briefing that a meeting between Modi and Carney 'will offer an important opportunity for them to exchange views on bilateral and global issues and explore pathways to set or reset the relationship.' Sikhs face threats That rationale rings hollow for Singh, who lives in British Columbia. He has received multiple warnings from police that his life was at risk. One such warning forced him from his home for months in 2023 for his children's safety. 'On a personal level, and on a community level, as well, it was deeply insulting ... Sikh lives aren't as important as the fifth-largest economy in the world that needs to be at the table,' he said. A spokesperson for Carney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police said in October they had communicated more than a dozen threats to people like Singh who are advocating for the creation of a Sikh homeland carved out of India. In October, under Trudeau, Canada expelled six Indian diplomats, linking them to Nijjar's murder and alleging a broader government effort to target Indian dissidents in Canada through killings, extortion, use of organized crime and clandestine information-gathering. India retaliated by ordering the expulsion of six Canadian diplomats and called the allegations preposterous and politically motivated. Canada has said it does not have evidence linking Modi to the threats. The tension has thrust Canada's Sikh community - the largest outside India's Sikh-majority Punjab state - into the spotlight. Singh said there should have been conditions on Modi's invitation. 'Any meetings with them should have been under the conditions that Mr. Modi and his government would take responsibility for what has been uncovered and cooperate, but none of that happened.' Carney told reporters Modi had agreed to 'law enforcement dialogue.' Jaiswal said Indian and Canadian law enforcement agencies will continue to cooperate in some ways. Some activists and politicians in Canada have accused Carney of putting economic issues ahead of human rights concerns. But Sanjay Ruparelia, a Toronto Metropolitan University politics professor, said the prime minister is simply being practical. '(Carney's) watchword since he's come to office is pragmatism. And this is very much a pragmatic, realpolitik decision.'


Saudi Gazette
2 days ago
- Saudi Gazette
Appeals court temporarily allows Trump to keep National Guard in LA
SAN FRANCISCO — An appeals court has temporarily blocked a federal judge's order that directed the Trump administration to return control of California's National Guard troops back to the state. The appeals court's decision came hours after a federal judge said Trump's deployment of the troops to Los Angeles to quell immigration raids was illegal. Trump said he was sending the troops - who are typically under the governor's authority - to stop LA from "burning down" in protests against his immigration crackdown. California Governor Gavin Newsom and other local officials rejected the move, however, and said it was an unnecessary provocation. The appeals court said it would hold a hearing on Tuesday. At an earlier federal court hearing, Judge Charles Breyer said the question presented by California's request was whether Trump followed the law set by Congress on the deployment of a state's National Guard. "He did not," the judge wrote in his decision. "His actions were illegal... He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith."But the judge stayed the order until Friday afternoon to give the Trump administration time to appeal against it. The administration did so almost immediately after the order was posted on social media on Thursday afternoon that "the court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets".The Trump administration has said it took over California's National Guard to restore order and to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as they swept up people in Los Angeles who were believed to be in the country Newsom's objections, Trump ordered a total of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to help quell the unrest. Some of the Guard troops are now authorised to detain people until police can arrest them.A president last deployed the National Guard without a governor's consent more than 50 years ago - during the civil rights era. It is more common for a governor to activate troops to deal with natural disasters and other emergencies, and then ask for federal a packed courtroom on Thursday, a justice department attorney told Judge Breyer that Newsom did not need to be consulted when Trump issued his order."Governor Newsom was fully aware of this objected to it," Attorney Brett Shumate said. "There is one commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.""No," Judge Breyer, the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, responded."The president isn't the commander -in-chief of the National Guard," he said but added there were times and situations where the president could become the head of the who had donned a light blue bowtie, invoked the Constitution multiple times during the hearing, holding up a booklet copy of the document at one point."We're talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority," he said. "That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George."Before the judge's ruling, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth repeatedly refused to say if he would comply with Judge Breyer's order."What I can say is we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country," Hegseth said, speaking at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on said he would comply with a Supreme Court appeals court decision on late Thursday allows the National Guard troops to remain in Los Angeles as the case makes it way through the Trump administration used a law that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when a "rebellion" is California said in its lawsuit that the protests that have spanned nearly a week in LA - and included more than 300 arrests and the shutting down of a major freeway - did not rise to that level."At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," the lawsuit read. — BBC