Editorial: TN’s stand-off on delimitation

The Union government’s push to fast-track delimitation has opened yet another front in Tamil Nadu’s ongoing battle against the Centre. On Wednesday, DMK president MK Stalin will chair an all-party meeting to adopt a united stand against what many in the state believe would erode Tamil Nadu’s influence in national politics.

First, the basics. Delimitation is an essential exercise to ensure political equality within the country and state, focusing primarily on demographics. Whether it is for Lok Sabha, Assembly, or local body constituencies, there should be a reasonable similarity in their population counts. To achieve this, the number of constituencies may need to be increased, and boundaries redrawn.

Delimitation is linked to the population Census, and the exercise was carried out in 1952, 1962, and 1972 — all a year after the Census was published. Based on population growth, the number of Lok Sabha constituencies increased from 494 to 522 after the 1962 delimitation and to 543 following the 1972 round. However, a Constitutional amendment froze the exercise in 1976, with the freeze remaining in place until 2026.

The issue gained political traction after Chief Minister Stalin criticized the impending delimitation as another attempt by the BJP-led Centre to undermine states, particularly in South India, and especially Tamil Nadu. Even if conducted on a pro-rata basis, the seats added to the larger, more densely populated northern states — where the BJP holds a strong majority — would dwarf the new seats added to the southern states, which is understandably undesirable for Stalin and other leaders.

Supporters of delimitation argue that it is inequitable not to increase the number of seats in more populous states. However, leaders in Tamil Nadu, particularly Stalin, counter that this puts southern states at a disadvantage due to their long-standing efforts to control population growth. They argue that these states are unfairly penalized for their success.

At face value, population-based, equitable representation is a reasonable argument. However, deciding such a complex issue solely on numerical terms is unwise in a country like India. Numbers, when considered in isolation, can steamroll the nuances that are essential for understanding and governing a diverse nation like ours.

The issue here is not merely about delimitation or demographics, which are procedural matters, but about the larger ideals of democracy and federalism. The cynical reduction of democracy to a majority-driven hegemony overlooks the importance of equity. If equity is the central concern, ensuring fair representation for southern states must be a priority. Population control — or not voting for the Centre-ruling party — should not disadvantage these states.

Another factor is India’s three-tier system of governance, under which the lives of the masses are directly impacted by their representatives in State Assemblies and local bodies. If bringing governance to the grassroots level is the primary goal, then a similar exercise should be conducted at the State level.

An even greater irony lies in the indefinite freeze on the population census since 2021. A government that has failed to conduct this critical exercise — which is central to shaping policy and welfare programs — now pushes for delimitation, raising serious doubts whether the exercise is driven by genuine concern or a hidden political agenda. The question, therefore, is not just about fairness, but about the very integrity of the process.