Shashi Warrier | How We Can Win The Delimitation Debate

Late in April, after a comforting thundershower that took everyone by surprise, I was enjoying the relative cool when Raghavan arrived. “How are you doing?” he asked. He smiled and flourished a bottle like a sword: a rare scotch, well beyond my humble budget. “This will make you feel better, regardless!”

“Welcome,” I said. Nothing better to lighten up an evening like this.

Ten minutes later, we were in the drawing room, taking reverential sniffs from our glasses before the tiny sips in which you drink really good liquor. Eleven minutes later, the doorbell rang. I knew without getting up that it was Murthy, and, sure enough, there he stood, looking smug. “I thought this was a good time to drop in,” he said.

“Raghavan’s got us something special this time,” I said, opening the door wide.

His nose twitched as he walked in, and his eye lit up at the sight of that old bottle on the occasional table. “Wow!” he said. “I need something like this after a terrible week!”

“How come?” I asked when he was settled in his chair with supplies on the table in front of him.

“Delimitation!” he said. “What a mess!”

The delimitation debate had been in the news all along but I hadn’t really understood it so I asked Murthy what it was all about. “Representation,” he said. “A Lok Sabha MP from Tamil Nadu, represents only about 1.75 million people by the 2011 census, while an MP from Uttar Pradesh represents nearly 2.5 million. Most southern states are like Tamil Nadu. That places a heavier load on MPs from the northern states. The idea is to redraw constituencies so that the load is more even.”

“Hold on!” said Raghavan. “Let’s look at causes.”

“Sure!” said Murthy.

“It’s because the southern states have done better with population control policies that their population growth rates have come down,” said Raghavan. “They’ve done better for half a century, and now they’re being penalised for it: their proportion of seats in the Lok Sabha will shrink.”

“That’s only one way of looking at it,” said Murthy. “But there are other opinions. First, can we really say that policies are linked to performance?”

“Of course!” said Raghavan. “Look at the evidence!”

“Okay,” said Murthy. “There seems to be a link between education and population control. Right?”

“Exactly!” said Raghavan.

“The rate of literacy in the old states of Travancore and Cochin,” said Murthy, “which later formed most of what has now been renamed Keralam, was about 30 per cent at Independence. About 15 percentage points more than the national rate. The state has maintained its lead, more or less…

“Second, the same state survives on remittances from abroad. It has no substantial industry of its own.

“And third, despite the high level of literacy, it has fewer notable educational institutions than most northern states.”

“None of this justifies the reduction in representation from the south,” said Raghavan.

“I haven’t finished,” said Murthy. “All I’m saying is, the facts blur the connection between policy and performance or development.

“And there’s luck. Punjab was one of the richest states in the country until 30 years ago. Now it doesn’t even fall in the top 10. This delimitation is meant to take us through the next half-century, so it’s better to take the long view. In 50 years, the wealth balance might be completely different. Don’t look at just the next couple of elections.”

“Yes,” said Raghavan. “But you can’t blame everything on luck!”

“One last thing, then,” said Murthy. “When the first delimitation was carried out, southern states population had just peaked. The timing was perfect for those states. In other words, if the delimitation had been based on, say, the 1951 census, the north would have got more seats than it has now! So, the new delimitation is just making up a historical disadvantage.”

“Look at the politics,” said Raghavan. “The southern states have never liked the attitude of the ruling party. So, the ruling party is just trying to cut down the south. Besides, the ruling party doesn’t like women: that’s why they linked the reservation for women to the delimitation.”

“The ruling party is growing in all southern states,” Murthy countered. “So, you can’t generalise. And, regardless of what people think, the ruling party already has a spin going, that the southern states voted against delimitation because they don’t like women!”

“I think we should ask our hosts,” said Raghavan. He turned to me. “What do…”

Prita, sitting next to me, cut him off. “Have you seen the quality of debate in Parliament?” she asked. “They ignore the Speaker. They shout and thump desks. I’ve seen teenage schoolchildren debate better! And it’s getting worse. I know because I’ve been watching Parliament live ever since they began showing it on TV.”

“So what?” asked Murthy.

“I don’t feel that any of those MPs represent me,” replied Prita. “They’re out to get what they can for themselves, their families, their constituencies, their political parties and, if there’s anything left, for the country, in that order. See for yourself. The heads of all political parties, including those that stand for backward caste people or Muslims or other backward groups, appoint close relatives to important party posts. If they really stood for the people they represent, they would’ve appointed the best in their parties or in their groups, not friends and relatives.”

“What does that have to do with delimitation?” asked Murthy.

“Isn’t it obvious?” she asked in turn. “There should be fewer of these types, not more. So, let’s just stick to these 543 seats, and forget about delimitation.”