Delimitation and Women's Reservation - Message for Mr Shashi Tharoor

I saw some of the statements made by Mr Shashi Tharoor regarding the latest delimitation and women's reservation bill which was tabled by GOI in the parliament.  He has made a very rational point about how increasing the number of seats in the Lok Sabha is counter productive to the functioning of the parliament and will make it unwieldy. I recall how Mr Tharoor was being repeatedly interrupted and were given only 7 minutes to make his statement in the parliament on the recently passed SHANTI Bill. A healthy and productive debate requires that members get sufficient time to debate in the parliament and such a large Lok Sabha will not only not allow for high quality debates, but given the tendency of several MPs to create ruckus during parliament proceedings more members will lead to more ruckus. The burden on taxpayers for additional MPs and their staff including security etc. will be an unnecessary burden. All citizens should support his stand on this issue. I would like to express my gratitude to Mr Tharror for raising this point.

Mr Tharoor has raised another question on how delimitation should not be linked with women's reservation. I have my reservations about the whole concept of reservations to start with and I can assure him many patriotic citizens want the politics of reservations to end in the country for its own better future. Just as socialism is a failed social engineering concept, so is quota system a failed system which tramples on individual rights and liberties under false pretext of social justice. No one can be given more rights than equal rights. Special rights are not equal rights and lead to distortion in the functioning of the state. Time has come to start reversing this failed system rather than entrenching it further. Why should the electorate be denied the choice of candidates? Just because of gender, why should someone who has worked in a constituency and can better represent it be denied the opportunity and the electorate denied the right to elect him. This nation has seen several long serving women Chief Ministers and a woman Prime Minister without the need for a special reservation for women. We do not need to distort the system to enable women's representation. If at all political parties are keen on more women MPs, let them field more women candidates and let the electorate decide if they are suitable. The constitution neither denied women their rights nor does it envisage such a reservation based system for their representation. By passing the Women's reservation bill in 2023 the parliament has created a distortion which was not needed to start with. I know I am making an argument for an already lost cause as there is near 100% political consensus on women's reservation in parliament but a start has to be made to free India from the reservation politics and work on building political consensus on ending reservations. Hence at the very least an amendment should be brought about in the women's reservation bill to do it without increasing seats and with a time limit for how long this reservation will last, say a 20 year period with no renewal thereafter. This is my humble suggestion for Mr Tharoor and other MPs to consider.

The argument made against delimitation based on census however baffles me. Mr Tharoor has worked at the UN and I am sure well aware of the long standing democratic principle around the world that in a one person one vote system each vote should have the same weight. From the very beginning India's constitution has recognized the need for equal weightage. If one considers the history of Article 81 and 82 and the various amendments made into it over the years, at no time was it not recognized that weightage should be equal. Equal weightage to each vote is in fact a fundamental principle of the constitution and altering it strikes at the very root of a representative democratic system. For 50 years delimitation has been postponed and many individual voters who do not even realize what rights they have been denied are being treated unequally because of regional interest in parts of the country. One must realize that in general elections the nation votes as one in direct elections, to the House of the People i.e. the Lok Sabha. The states don't miss out in the parliament and are represented in the Council of States i.e. the Rajya Sabha. The present generation of politicians are doing great disservice to the toils of the founders of India's constitution by distorting the very foundation of democracy and national interest by bringing petty regional interests in election to a body whose purpose is to serve the nation as a whole and make choices and decisions in larger national interest. An MP elected to the Lok Sabha represents the constituents and each vote of the MP counts equally. To say that cardinal directions, wealth and GDP, language etc. be factors limiting the principle of equality for the voters electing the MP is a dangerous trend and should not be legitimized further.

Kindly refer to the 1950 version of article 81 on Indian constitution. It says "⁠(b) For the purpose of sub-clause (a), the States shall be divided, grouped or formed into territorial constituencies" this particular clause was removed later on in 7th amendment when states were reorganized. But the original intent of the constitution makers is quite evident that they did not see a constituency for Lok Sabha elections to be somehow limited to the boundaries of a state. "State could be divided, it could be grouped or formed into territorial constituencies" means that it was always possible to have Lok Sabha constituencies spanning across multiple state borders for general elections. While it was never done so is another matter but perhaps had it been done for border districts of various states it would have created much needed spirit of integration in the nation. It further states "(c) The ratio between the number of members, allotted to each territorial constituency and the population of that constituency as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the territory of India."  There is no doubt left about the message that has been sent to the future generation of Indians by constituent assembly. Entire territory of India has to be treated with the same yardstick. The ratio is important because it ensures equal weightage for each vote. 

There is an entire article 82 which states "readjustment after each census". This is a fundamental constitutional principle that has been kept at abeyance because of petty regional political interests. While no one in the state objects to redrawing the territorial boundaries of constituencies based on census within the state, somehow an impression has been made in the polity of states that states are sacrosanct as sub nationalities and can demand special treatment when it comes to Lok Sabha elections. Whereas it is well understood that states are only administrative divisions and federalism in Indian context in no way means that national interest should be subservient to petty regional interests and power politics. This is a dangerous trend that has gone on for too long and one only hopes that after the 2026 census this distortion is finally corrected. 

Delimitation and Women's Reservation

There is uproar in southern states over the delimitation and women's reservation bill 2026. The argument being that southern states have done better family planning and hence the population growth rate in southern states is lower than northern states and these states will lose out on parliamentary seats if delimitation is done based on current population. This argument has kept the Lok Sabha constituencies fixed since 1973 delimitation which was done based on 1971 census. It has been more than 50 years or about 2/3 the life of the Republic since when the political parties in southern states have opposed delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies based on the argument that fertility rates in southern states is less than the fertility rates in northern states and hence the southern states will lose out on parliamentary seats. It is not as if the fertility rate in northern states has not come down. There is uneven development in the country and when it comes to providing more support to the lagging states there is opposition form the southern states. This creates a chicken and egg situation because reduction is fertility rate depends on overall development and education of a region.

The argument of opposing census based delimitation is based on a flawed view of the parliamentary system under Indian constitution. It should be understood by everyone that Lok Sabha does not represent states. Lok Sabha is peoples council that is represented by constituencies. As far as representation of states in the parliament is concerned it is provided by the council of states which is the Rajya Sabha. States do not have a special status for election of member of parliaments to Lok Sabha. States are merely administrative divisions and do not represent any kind of sub nationality. New states have continuously been created for administrative and other reasons. But if they start giving rise to sub nationalism then that is not in interest of the republic. The idea of southern Indian states being at odds with northern Indian states is a constructed identity based politics of regional parties with is detrimental to national integration and fraternity between citizens of the country. 

In a one man one vote system each vote should have equal weightage in the Parliament. If we have certain constituencies which have electorate running into thousands of voters and other electorates with lakhs of voters then we have an imbalanced representation in the parliament. Nobody ever objects to delimitation based on census within state boundaries but somehow when the same logic is being applied to Lok Sabha constituencies suddenly the argument about states losing out on parliamentary seats is being raised thanks to regional politics. As if an MP elected for a parliamentary constituency in northern India is suddenly an enemy of the citizens in a constituency in Southern India and will not act in national interest. What ever regional or state interest exists are dealt with by the state governments which have sufficient powers. Member of parliaments elected from any part of the country should make decisions on national interest and as mentioned earlier the states are already represented in the Rajya Sabha which has an indirect election. 

Having made and argument in the favor of delimitation based on census which is mandated in the constitution anyways I would like to make a separate argument against this bill. The number of seats in Lok Sabha since the first delimitation based on 1951 census have increased by approximately 50 members. We already have a large parliament. In various debates over laws in the parliament the MPs hardly get anytime to make their statements. An MP hardly gets 5-10 minutes of uninterrupted time to make his or her arguments. If the number of seats is increased from 543 to 816 that is a 50% increase in the strength of the Lok Sabha. This will certainly damage the quality of debate in the parliament. The financial burden on the tax payers of country for these additional VIP members and their entourage which lives on the exchequer will also increase. The idea of women's reservation of 33% and the sub reservation amongst women for SC/ST communities is also an unfortunate continuation of the one medicine of every ailment principle which has afflicted Indian political class. We need to now move away from reservation politics to save the republic. There are no structural nor legal barriers to women entering politics in the country. If in any constituency and electorate can benefit from a more suitable male candidate to represent them then why should they be limited for the choice of only female candidates. It is not as if there is any bar on women from contesting in any unreserved seats against male candidates. If political parties want to increase women's representation they should do so at party level by giving more tickets to women. We don't need to reserve seats in the parliament for this.

India should move on from such social engineering projects and instead of doing down the road of further reservations its time to do away with reservations starting with OBC reservations for a more merit based equal treatment under the law.

Iran War - A Fragile Ceasefire

After much bluster and genocidal threats, US President Trump has announced a 14 day cease fire with Iran. This Pakistan mediated ceasefire in which Pakistan has been characterized as more of a go between rather than a credible neutral mediator is already quite fragile. The hostilities between Iran and Arab states of UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain have not yet come to an end with report of continued targeting of infrastructure in these Arab states by Iran and UAE's retaliation on Iran's Lavan Islands as of Monday morning. Israel has also refused to include Lebanon in a any ceasefire. It operations in southern Lebanon continue as usual. 

Any ceasefire does take some time to come into effect while the communication to stop hostilities trickle down to local units. In the case of Iran, due to its decentralized regional command, there is the added issue of all commanders agreeing to the temporary ceasefire. So we will have to wait for a couple of days to see if this cease fire settles in and holds. Israel however is unlikely to give up on its objectives in Lebanon so easily, hence we still need to wait and see how this pans out. There are already some voices in Israel's security establishment criticizing Trump for his decision. Israeli President Netanyahu is also facing criticism from opposition politicians for failing to achieve his objectives. As analyzed earlier, Israel's achievable objective was primarily "Mowing the grass", which, one can argue has been achieved to a great extent. The collapse of Iran's government could not be realistically expected to happen by arial bombardments and decapitation of its leadership has so far not been able to bring about internal fracture. 

One cannot rule out an eventual weakening of the governance structures in Iran over a period of time. But for now it seems the Islamic State has won the war by not losing it. The control of Hormuz strait which it has de facto achieved and will hope to convert into a de jure agreement with USA may be problematic for the Arab states, Asian states and pretty much most of the world. Iran hopes to recover its war damages from the revenue from transit fees. This means the bystander Asian nations who had no role in this war and whose interests were set aside by US and Israel while initiating this war will have to foot the bill for this war in perpetuity. Iran may also seek to use access to Hormuz as a leverage to force Asian nations to resume normal economic relations with it.

The biggest economic loser in this War other than Iran and gulf states is indeed the large energy hungry Asian economies. India for now appears to have made a mistake by not being able to maintain its neutrality in this war. Its dependency on the Gulf monarchies for economic needs and on Israel for defense needs put it in a difficult situation. Its traditional warm relations with Iran were already under stress under the weight of US economic sanctions on Iran. Its current situation is in making for a long time ever since the 2010 Obama era sanctions on Iran. Complying with those and later sanctions on Iran and Russia has lead to weakening of its energy sovereignty over the years. Hence India's position as a supplicant of USA in international relations has been solidified thanks to US sanctions regime and unwillingness of India leadership to develop any kind sanctions evasion mechanisms like China has done. India's relations with Iran in particular and increasingly its relations with Russia have become subject to US Veto.

We will have to see how this cease fire holds and whether a lasting settlement is achieved during the negotiations between Iran and USA over the course of next weeks. The differing perceptions between Iran and USA on what has been agreed to as the draft 10 point proposal from Iran does not bear much confidence in this era of social media diplomacy, where the state leaders seem to make all kinds of often contradictory statements in social media, for one to make any coherent sense of their intentions. But even this temporary fragile cease fire has come as a respite to everyone and a hope of seeing and end to this latest West Asian conflict exists. Asian nations need to get involved in this peace process at least now and not just leave it to the principal actors because much is at stake for them. The prospect of another war in West Asia over unresolved differences exists and their economic interests and immigrant population in the Gulf are both at risk if this happens.