The upcoming delimitation exercise has ignited a political storm in the South

The delimitation of parliamentary constituencies, scheduled post-2026, is snowballing into a major issue. It has raised significant concerns in southern states, particularly Tamil Nadu. The primary reason for this resistance lies in the perceived shift in the political fulcrum that could adversely impact these states.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has been vocal in opposing what he terms “unfair delimitation,” advocating for a process that ensures equitable representation without undermining the political influence of states that have implemented effective family planning policies. In response, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has sought to allay these apprehensions, asserting that no southern state will experience a reduction in parliamentary seats due to delimitation. He emphasised that the Modi government is committed to safeguarding the interests of southern states, ensuring that their representation remains intact.

Despite these assurances, skepticism persists among southern leaders, who continue to advocate for a more nuanced approach to delimitation. Delimitation is essential for ensuring fair political representation. The Indian Constitution mandates that seats in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies should be allocated based on population to maintain electoral balance. However, in 1976, the government froze the delimitation process until 2001 to incentivise population control measures. This moratorium was later extended until 2026. With this deadline approaching, the prospect of delimitation raises concerns about shifts in political power and resource allocation.

Southern states, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh, have successfully controlled their population growth through proactive family planning policies. In contrast, northern states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have experienced higher population growth rates. If parliamentary seats are redistributed purely based on population, southern states could lose representation despite their governance success. The delimitation process could tilt the political power in favour of the northern states, as their larger populations would result in more parliamentary constituencies and thereby more representation in Lok Sabha. This could reduce the influence of southern states in national policymaking, affecting their interests.

Tamil Nadu and other southern states contribute significantly to India’s GDP and tax revenue. A reduction in political representation could mean lesser say in the allocation of central funds and policies, despite their economic contributions. A diminished political presence could make it harder to safeguard regional autonomy, linguistic rights, and federal principles.

Instead of purely linking seats to population size, a weighted formula could be introduced that considers factors like economic contribution, governance quality, and developmental indicators to ensure fairness in representation. The Rajya Sabha could be strengthened to give states equal representation, similar to the US Senate, ensuring that states with smaller populations do not lose their influence entirely. India could also adopt an asymmetrical federal model where states with better development indicators receive certain policy privileges to maintain balance despite changes in seat allocation.

While representation must be updated to reflect the new demographic realities, it should not come at the cost of penalising states that have performed well in population control and economic growth. A fair approach that considers multiple factors beyond population size could ensure both equity and national unity. At the end of the day it has to be a fair system that provides a level playing field to all states.