• Experts say the delimitation debate reveals deeper tensions around governance, representation, and federalism that could redefine India’s political landscape
• Prime Minister Modi’s ruling BJP dismisses concerns raised by southern states, saying no one would lose seats and promising fair distribution

NEW DELHI

India’s southern states have taken a firm stand against a proposal by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to redraw parliamentary constituencies nationwide after a 50-year freeze.

Political parties from India’s five southern states – Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Telangana – fear the delimitation exercise could significantly reduce their representation in Parliament.

Their objections center on how population growth will influence the new boundaries, with northern states that have experienced significant population booms set to gain more influence.

Delimitation, or the redrawing of electoral constituency boundaries, aims to ensure each parliamentary seat represents roughly an equal number of voters, reflecting democratic principles of equal representation.

Historically, India conducted these exercises regularly after each census from 1952 until 1973. However, a constitutional amendment in 1976 froze the number of seats in the Lok Sabha – the lower house of Parliament with directly elected lawmakers – at 543 until 2001, later extended until 2026.

Miheer Karandikar, a researcher who recently authored a paper on the issue for the think tank Takshashila Institution, explained that the pause was implemented “because there were disparities in how different states were controlling population growth.”

“It was aimed to let states whose population was growing (mainly northern states) have some time to control it, and once rates were somewhat equal, delimitation would start again,” he told Anadolu.

The prolonged freeze has led to disparities in voter representation, he added, explaining: “The fact that it has been delayed for so long means that voters in every state are not represented the same for Lok Sabha elections.

“A voter in Sikkim (a small state in India’s northeast) has hence three times more importance than one in Rajasthan. This compromises the one-person, one-vote principle.”

As for the population count, India’s last census was held in 2011 and was meant to be followed by one in 2021, which was put off due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now, if the freeze is lifted and there is population-based delimitation in 2026, southern states and smaller northern and northeastern states could face a major disadvantage, he said.

‘An unjust punishment’

Southern political leaders strongly oppose the population-based delimitation approach, viewing it as unfairly penalizing states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, and Karnataka for their successful efforts in controlling population growth.

India’s five southern states account for 20% of its over 1.4 billion people and have much better economic, health, and social indicators compared to their northern counterparts.

Southern states also propose that population-based delimitation should only proceed after effectively implementing population-control measures in northern states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

MK Stalin, leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party and chief minister of Tamil Nadu, has been a vocal critic of the proposed changes, branding them a “punishment for progress.”

In a letter rallying opposition leaders, Stalin argued that “states who controlled their population and achieved superior governance indicators will face an unjust punishment.”

Tamil Nadu’s state assembly recently passed a resolution condemning the proposal, with Stalin warning that his state could lose up to eight Lok Sabha seats. Responding to these concerns, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, a close Modi ally, assured southern states that no one would lose seats and promised fair distribution.

However, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah dismissed Shah’s assurances as “untrustworthy,” suggesting the central government’s promises either reflected ignorance or intentional disadvantage.

Siddaramaiah, in a series of posts on X, accused Modi’s administration of harboring “malicious intent” against southern states, especially given their historical resistance to the political dominance of the premier’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Karandikar supported Southern apprehensions, stating these states are correct to argue that “they’re being punished for controlling their population growth rate,” which coincides with their significant GDP contributions.

“This makes them feel that even though they are contributing to the country’s growth and have controlled their populations, they are about to lose share in the country’s highest decision-making body,” he added.

Ezhilan Naganathan, a DMK spokesperson, accused the BJP-led central government of “consistently interfering in state matters through parliamentary legislation, causing frequent conflicts with state governments.”

“Financial allocations, based on population, also influence central-sponsored schemes,” he told Anadolu.

Naganathan warned that solely population-based delimitation could reduce some states to mere “tax-collecting entities with little influence on the legislative and democratic processes.”

A Revanth Reddy, chief minister of Telangana, voiced similar fears on social media, suggesting the proposed changes are part of a broader strategy to weaken southern states, both politically and financially, and could provoke a “revolt.”

Karandikar pointed out that India’s top five most populous states – Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, and Madhya Pradesh – currently hold around 45% of all Lok Sabha seats – 239 out of 543.

Four of these states – Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh – are ruled by the BJP, either directly or as part of an alliance.

“If seats are allotted according to population, then this will increase to 48%, which doesn’t bode well for federalism either,” the researcher said.

Will delimitation benefit BJP?

The issue once again spotlights India’s deepening north-south divide, characterized by political, economic, and social differences.

The BJP, dominant in the north with its Hindu nationalist agenda, has struggled to gain traction in the south, barring some success in Karnataka.

“There is already a growing divide between the South and Delhi. Hindi (language) imposition and similar issues are heightening tensions,” said Karandikar.

“I also think there is animosity because of the high share of GDP these states contribute and their reduced say in national matters.”

Southern parties fear the BJP could exploit population-based delimitation, further consolidating political influence in its northern strongholds, while diminishing regional party influence in southern states where it lacks a significant presence.

If the Lok Sabha seats allocation is adjusted to reflect the current population, southern states stand to lose considerably, said Karandikar.

By contrast, northern states like Uttar Pradesh and others ruled by BJP would significantly benefit.

A 2019 study by American think tank Carnegie Endowment projected that the Lok Sabha would expand to 846 seats by 2026, with Uttar Pradesh’s seats nearly doubling from 80 to 143. The combined share of 10 large northern states could rise to 48%, further skewing political power northward.

Recognizing these shifts, the new Parliament building, inaugurated by Modi in 2023, has a Lok Sabha chamber accommodating 888 members, indicating preparations for an expanded legislature.

What could be the way forward?

As of now, BJP representatives continue to downplay southern concerns, accusing regional leaders like Stalin of exploiting the delimitation debate for a “fake anti-India campaign” to divert attention from local governance issues.

“The people of Tamil Nadu are not buying into this narrative on delimitation and instead are seeing through the DMK’s tactics,” ANS Prasad, a BJP spokesperson in Tamil Nadu, told Anadolu.

“We have been successful in exposing the DMK’s attempts to mislead the public, and the people are no longer falling for their tricks.”

Prasad, however, did acknowledge that the delimitation issue must be addressed “in a fair and transparent manner.”

Other experts also advocate for constructively addressing the apprehensions raised by India’s southern states.

Karandikar argued southern states could use the delimitation controversy to push overdue federal reforms.

“One option is to maintain the status quo, and another is to increase the number of seats while keeping the same share for all states, improving overall representation,” he said.

“A better approach could be to increase seats, allocate them based on population, and offer federal concessions to the southern states.”