Latest news with #Damocles'
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Why war clouds are hovering over the Middle East yet again
A CBS report on Thursday said that 'Israel is fully ready to launch an operation into Iran,' and that in anticipation of 'heightened regional tensions', the United States had issued travel advisories to American personnel and families in Iraq, Israel, and the broader region. This comes just a day after US President Donald Trump had reportedly told Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza and 'stop talk of an attack on Iran', as well as amid ongoing negotiatioins between Tehran and Washington over a nuclear deal. While the talks are set to continue — the sixth round of negotiations are scheduled to take place in Muscat on Sunday — the latest, somewhat unexpected development has yet again left a Damocles' sword hanging over the Middle East. The trigger Israel's vehement opposition to the Iran-US nuclear talks, and its belief that Iran's vulnerabilities should be exploited with military action against its nuclear sites, is old. But more often than not, this belief has not translated into overt military action. The latest development is nonetheless alarming given it comes the day the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) Board of Governors declared that Iran was non-compliant with its non-proliferation obligations — a first such resolution in two decades. While the IAEA has repeatedly warned of Iran's increasing stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, the latest resolution comes on the back of an IAEA investigative report which assessed that Iran was conducting 'secret nuclear activities' at three locations. The Board can now consider another resolution to report Iran's non-compliance to the UN Security Council. Broadly, the 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran is a party to, obligates non-nuclear weapon states to respect IAEA safeguards agreements. Among the possible ramifications of the IAEA's report is European states (the UK, France, and Germany) triggering 'snap-back sanctions' on Iran, based on provisions of the 2015 nuclear deal (officially, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). This deal, despite the United States' 2018 pull out, remains alive due to Iranian and European participation on paper. It is set to expire in October. The IAEA's resolution, and European reactions to it, have triggered an expectedly hostile reaction from Tehran. Iran, through its UN representative, has now threatened to withdraw from the NPT entirely. Moreover, Iran's Foreign Ministry and its Atomic Energy Organization jointly declared on Thursday that Iran will now open a new uranium enrichment facility at a 'strategically secure site' that will increase Iran's enriched uranium stockpile 'to a great extent', in response to the IAEA Board's 'politically motivated and biased' resolution. Note that Iran has long been wary of European snapback sanctions, which will worsen the pressures that Tehran already faces due to existing American sanctions. Status of n-talks Since April, the US and Iran have conducted five formal rounds of negotiations aiming for a deal which stops Iran from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief. The last round of talks were held in Rome on May 23. At present, the biggest sticking point is not whether Iran has a right to nuclear energy (the US agrees that it does), but whether it can enrich uranium to fuel its nuclear power plants, something that, in theory, will also allow it to produce a nuclear weapon with bomb-grade 90% enriched uranium. Thus far, the US concession to Iran is to allow Tehran to enrich uranium temporarily, before delegating that right to a consortium of regional Arab states and itself which will then provide nuclear fuel to Iran. Iran has rejected this proposal, with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself condemning it. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Tuesday asserted that his country does 'not need anyone's permission to enrich uranium' within its borders. The Iranian position on the matter has been clear and consistent. Earlier in May, speaking to state-run Tasnim News, Araghchi had said that Iran is prepared to implement confidence building measures and adhere to transparency in exchange for sanctions relief, as long as its rights to enrich uranium within its own sovereign territory is secured. But this has thus far been a red line for Washington, with Trump deeming Iran's position 'unacceptable'. It is yet unclear whether the US — or Iran — will be willing to budge on the matter. That said, despite hostile rhetoric, neither side has chosen to walk away from the negotiating table, and Tehran continues to court American companies to invest in Iran after a nuclear deal is reached. Although Arab states support the ongoing negotiations, Israelis have remained hostile to the process. As Netanyahu said on April 8, Tel Aviv will only accept a deal which allows signatories to 'go in, blow up the facilities, dismantle all the (Iranian) equipment, under American supervision with American execution…'. What now? Unlike European countries and the US, Israel technically has no locus standi to impose its own maximal terms on a negotiation it is not party to. Israeli covert and (occasional) overt operations against Iran have contributed to a self-fulfilling cycle of retribution and violence that has dented the already fragile ground on which Tehran and Washington engage with each other. Given how Iran is locked in its view of Tel Aviv and Washington acting in concert, Iranian officials at the highest levels, including Araghchi, have made it categorically clear that they will hold the US responsible for any Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites. As per the IRGC, this will invite a 'devastating and decisive response' on targets including US military infrastructure in the region. In the past, US bases in Iraq have usually been Iran's first target (through proxy or directly). This is despite the US repeatedly distancing itself from Israeli attack plans, at least in public. As recently as April, Trump opposed an Israeli plan to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure, and refused to back such an attack. Israel's rationale to launch an attack, and effectively sabotage Iran-US negotiations, may also be borne out of domestic imperatives. It is evident that Netanyahu's domestic troubles have only increased, as European states place unprecedented sanctions on Israeli leaders, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. Early on Thursday, Netanyahu by a narrow 63-51 margin survived an attempt in the Knesset to dissolve Parliament and hold early elections. With his coalition under immense pressure, the Israel Prime Minister, as he has often done in the past, has tried to up the heat on Gaza and Iran to justify not holding elections, with his coalition saying that given the war in Gaza and the 'Iranian issue', elections at this time would 'paralyse the country'. An Israeli escalation against Iran would provide further weight to this reasoning. But Israeli threats aside, the IAEA's report may already have sown seeds of conflict in the region. Should Iran withdraw from the NPT, it is a near certainty that Iran-US nuclear talks will break down. The United States' Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1978 will then prevent Washington from offering any concession which it might otherwise be open to. At present, all the pieces on the board sit with wound up springs. Whether they unwind — and unleash conflict in the region — will depend on how and when the states concerned decide to act: whether Israel proceeds with an attack, Europe implements snap-back sanctions, Iran withdraws from the NPT, or the US withdraws from negotiations. Bashir Ali Abbas is a Senior Research Associate at the Council for Strategic and Defense Research, New Delhi
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Nvidia stock could surge after surprising Taiwan Semi news
Nvidia stock could surge after surprising Taiwan Semi news originally appeared on TheStreet. Nvidia () stock may be poised for another rally after a bullish revenue surprise from one of its key partners in the AI supply chain. On June 10, Taiwan Semiconductor () , the world's largest chip foundry and a critical manufacturer for Nvidia, reported May revenue of NT$320.52 billion (about $10.70 billion), up 39.6% from a year earlier but down 8% from April's figure. Despite the sequential dip, May still marked TSMC's second-highest monthly revenue on record, behind only April 2025, which likely benefited from accelerated orders ahead of potential tariffs from President Trump's administration. 💵💰💰💵 TSMC's revenue for January through May 2025 increased by 42.6% compared to the same period in 2024, signaling that demand for AI chips is strong even amid macro uncertainty. That bodes well for Nvidia, which relies heavily on TSMC to manufacture its high-performance AI GPUs. Nvidia was among the tech stocks hit hard in early April as tariff tensions flared and the U.S. tightened export restrictions on advanced chips. The company took a $4.5 billion charge in the fiscal first quarter ended April 27 and said it would have recorded an additional $2.5 billion in revenue without the restriction. The stock later rebounded after the U.S. and China agreed to slash tariff rates on each other temporarily. Optimism also grew after the Trump administration scrapped the Biden-era AI diffusion rule, another export control on advanced AI that Nvidia will supply AI chips to Saudi Arabia's Humain, an emerging tech player in the region, also boosted the stock. On May 28, Nvidia reported strong fiscal first-quarter results. Adjusted earnings of 96 cents per share on $44.06 billion in revenue for its fiscal first quarter surpassed Wall Street's expectations of 93 cents and $43.31 billion. The company forecasts $45 billion, missing analysts' projections of $45.9 billion. But it noted that the figure would have been roughly $8 billion higher without the China export curbs. Tensions between China and the U.S. remain the Damocles' sword hanging over Nvidia. Investors are now focused on the second round of U.S.-China trade talks, which is taking place in London. If the world's two largest economies fail to reach a trade deal, it could hit Nvidia's bottom line. Nvidia stock rose 1% on June 10 and closed at $143.96, just about 6% below its all-time high of $153.13. Chris Versace, a Wall Street veteran fund manager who oversees TheStreet Pro's portfolio, said TSM's May revenue "stuns" the market, and expressed that 'robust' demand for AI and data centers is a "positive signal for our positions in Nvidia and Marvell () ." Versace began to purchase Nvidia stock in February 2024, and the stock now accounts for 4.3% of the portfolio. His average gain on the stock is 64.6%.Still, he cautioned that investors need more information, such as May revenue reports from Foxconn () , a key supplier of Nvidia and Apple () . Versace also noted the market is in a holding pattern as investors await more details on U.S.-China trade talks and key inflation data. 'What we and the rest of the market are waiting for are more details to emerge from U.S.-China trade talks, which so far have been categorized as 'going well,'' Versace wrote in a memo for TheStreet Pro. More Nvidia: Analysts issue rare warning on Nvidia stock before key earnings Analysts double price target of new AI stock backed by Nvidia Nvidia CEO shares blunt message on China chip sales ban Versace said he's seen reports suggesting President Trump could loosen chip export limits in exchange for faster rare earth shipments from China. He also warned that the May CPI report, due Wednesday, might cause some market volatility as investors reassess expectations for Fed rate stock could surge after surprising Taiwan Semi news first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 11, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 11, 2025, where it first appeared. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Nvidia stock could surge after surprising Taiwan Semi news
Nvidia (NVDA) stock may be poised for another rally after a bullish revenue surprise from one of its key partners in the AI supply chain. On June 10, Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM) , the world's largest chip foundry and a critical manufacturer for Nvidia, reported May revenue of NT$320.52 billion (about $10.70 billion), up 39.6% from a year earlier but down 8% from April's figure. Despite the sequential dip, May still marked TSMC's second-highest monthly revenue on record, behind only April 2025, which likely benefited from accelerated orders ahead of potential tariffs from President Trump's administration. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter TSMC's revenue for January through May 2025 increased by 42.6% compared to the same period in 2024, signaling that demand for AI chips is strong even amid macro uncertainty. That bodes well for Nvidia, which relies heavily on TSMC to manufacture its high-performance AI GPUs. Nvidia was among the tech stocks hit hard in early April as tariff tensions flared and the U.S. tightened export restrictions on advanced chips. The company took a $4.5 billion charge in the fiscal first quarter ended April 27 and said it would have recorded an additional $2.5 billion in revenue without the restriction. The stock later rebounded after the U.S. and China agreed to slash tariff rates on each other temporarily. Optimism also grew after the Trump administration scrapped the Biden-era AI diffusion rule, another export control on advanced AI chips. Related: Analyst resets Nvidia stock price target after CEO slams U.S. chip policy News that Nvidia will supply AI chips to Saudi Arabia's Humain, an emerging tech player in the region, also boosted the stock. On May 28, Nvidia reported strong fiscal first-quarter results. Adjusted earnings of 96 cents per share on $44.06 billion in revenue for its fiscal first quarter surpassed Wall Street's expectations of 93 cents and $43.31 billion. The company forecasts $45 billion, missing analysts' projections of $45.9 billion. But it noted that the figure would have been roughly $8 billion higher without the China export curbs. Tensions between China and the U.S. remain the Damocles' sword hanging over Nvidia. Investors are now focused on the second round of U.S.-China trade talks, which is taking place in London. If the world's two largest economies fail to reach a trade deal, it could hit Nvidia's bottom line. Nvidia stock rose 1% on June 10 and closed at $143.96, just about 6% below its all-time high of $153.13. Chris Versace, a Wall Street veteran fund manager who oversees TheStreet Pro's portfolio, said TSM's May revenue "stuns" the market, and expressed that "robust" demand for AI and data centers is a "positive signal for our positions in Nvidia and Marvell (MRVL) ." Versace began to purchase Nvidia stock in February 2024, and the stock now accounts for 4.3% of the portfolio. His average gain on the stock is 64.6%. Related: Analysts unveil bold forecast for Alphabet stock despite ChatGPT threat Still, he cautioned that investors need more information, such as May revenue reports from Foxconn (FXCOF) , a key supplier of Nvidia and Apple (AAPL) . Versace also noted the market is in a holding pattern as investors await more details on U.S.-China trade talks and key inflation data. "What we and the rest of the market are waiting for are more details to emerge from U.S.-China trade talks, which so far have been categorized as 'going well,'" Versace wrote in a memo for TheStreet Pro. More Nvidia: Analysts issue rare warning on Nvidia stock before key earningsAnalysts double price target of new AI stock backed by NvidiaNvidia CEO shares blunt message on China chip sales ban Versace said he's seen reports suggesting President Trump could loosen chip export limits in exchange for faster rare earth shipments from China. He also warned that the May CPI report, due Wednesday, might cause some market volatility as investors reassess expectations for Fed rate cuts. Related: Top analyst sends bold message on S&P 500 The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Saudi Gazette
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Saudi Gazette
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
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
South v North: The battle over redrawing India's electoral map
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 mobilisation 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 decentralised 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 uncivilised" 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-mobilisation in the north can make it impossible to arrive at any negotiated settlement, Mr Palshikar noted. He believes that expanding the size of the Lok Sabha and ensuring that no state loses its current strength is not only "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. A ghost town in the world's most populated country Most populous nation: Should India rejoice or panic? How a baffling census delay is hurting Indians
