Controversy unlimited

The on-going controversy over the 91st Constitution Amendment Bill, which seeks to freeze the delimitation of parliamentary constituencies until 2026, reflects the many complexities of ensuring effective democratic representation in a country as large and variegated as India. The Bill is to be presented in the Lok Sabha shortly. There is a certain urgency here precisely because the 1977 amendment, which had frozen the number of parliamentary seats until the year 2000, lapses this month and, given the penchant of our politicians to leave vital issues hanging until the nth hour, the time available for debating it is also woefully limited.

What is at issue here is the principle of fair and democratic representation. Opponents of the Bill argue that freezing seats until the year 2026 amounts to freezing democracy. There is merit in this argument, given the great variations in the sizes of parliamentary constituencies in terms of population. In any case, as has been pointed out time and again, so many anomalies have crept into the system that the Constitutional guarantee of one person-one vote has been all but nullified. Take, for example, the two Parliamentary constituencies in Delhi of Chandni Chowk and Outer Delhi: the first has an electorate of 3.76 lakh, the other, 31 lakh, yet both get to vote one representative each to Parliament. But proponents of the Bill argue in terms of fair regional representation. They point out that if delimitation is allowed then the number of parliamentary seats for populous northern states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar will rise dramatically, even while states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu stand tolose political strength given the fact that their populations has almost reached replacement levels. In other words, they argue, this would amount to punishing those states that have managed their family planning initiatives successfully. This is also why the National Population Policy 2000, which had come out earlier this year, had envisaged the freezing of parliamentary seats within its ambit.

Resolving this controversy would require the wisdom of an Emperor Vikramaditya, given the passions it has aroused. Already, Prime Minister Vajpayee has had to placate a string of angry allies from the south. In their representation to him on Wednesday, they pointed out that the delimitation exercise would “upset the federal balance in favour of a few states and create a north-south divide”. They also felt that it would “hinder the family planning programme” in their region — which may be construed as a not-so-subtle threat that delimitation would force southern states to roll back their family planning programmes. Such an argument is, of course, silly. The small family dynamic is an irreversible process, once development, along with literacy and health care, is ensured. Disparities in regional representation, however, is a more serious contention and needs to be addressed. Perhaps, for starters, a modus vivendi of increasing the number of seats without altering the present proportion between the variousstates could be considered. This would ensure more manageable constituencies as well as address the fear of imbalances in regional representation.