Editorial: Delimitation is not about development

CHENNAI: At its first meeting in Chennai last Saturday, March 22, the Joint Action Committee (JAC) on Fair Delimitation organised by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin struck just the right note by avoiding lectern-thumping southern identity assertion and making a level-headed case for holding the delimitation exercise in abeyance.

Reflective of this consensus-building approach, participants in the conference included  apart from the chief ministers of Kerala, Telangana and Karnataka (represented by the deputy chief minister)  the chief minister of Punjab, Biju Janata Dal leader Naveen Patnaik of Odisha (by video link) and Telangana Rashtra Samiti leader KT Rama Rao. Such a broad array of voices will drive home the message that the current debate over delimitation is not limited to one state or region and not an issue between this party and that.

Given that context, the non-participation of the chief minister and opposition leader of Andhra Pradesh was clearly on account of political considerations and shows them both placing party interests above state interests. Similarly, Nirmala Sitharaman’s criticism of the JAC meeting and K Annamalai’s absence from it both confirm that BJP leaders prefer to play cultural politics even when people’s economic and democratic interests are at stake.

The unanimous resolution passed by the JAC meeting made two important points: It demanded that the current freeze on delimitation be extended by 25 years, which means that the representation of states in Parliament must continue to be based on the 1971 Census. Second, it said any future delimitation of Parliamentary constituencies must be a transparent exercise “enabling political parties of all the states, state governments and other stakeholders to deliberate, discuss and contribute in it.”

If the Union government does heed this advice, as indeed it must in the interests of our federal democracy, it requires the scrapping of the present system of delimitation, of awarding representation on the basis of population numbers alone. Instead, we must evolve a multi-criteria formula that combines population with multiple other weighted factors to determine seat allocation. Even the 15th Finance Commission uses multiple criteria to make fund allocations. There is no good reason why delimitation must stick to an outdated and inefficient method.

Arguably, delimitation has been a difficult exercise in several countries, wherever there are strong cultural and political identities. India being one such multicultural mosaic, demands that our representation policy must not only be proportionate but also just. There exist dynamic models, such as in Australia and the European Parliament, that are worth studying and adapting to India. These models give weightage to tax contributions, development indicators such as literacy, healthcare, fertility rates, and geographic area. Obviously, this is a specialised task that must be entrusted to a non-partisan and autonomous entity, certainly not the Election Commission of India.

An important inference emerges from the first JAC conference. The true purpose of a delimitation exercise must go beyond population metrics and development indices and “improve the content and character of our democracy”, as the resolution says. In other words, development is the work of governments; Parliament must take care of democracy first.

The first JAC meeting was a good first move to shape the delimitation debate along constructive lines. The need from hereon is to broadbase the conversation debate further by bringing into it the biggest stakeholder of all, the people.