The DMK opposing the delimitation bill, although without any basis, is understandable, but the Congress opposing it is beyond any comprehension. The DMK can assume the role of the “sole spokesperson” of the entire south, but the Congress cannot. It is the principal opposition party in the country. It still has a pan-India presence.
When the Congress opposes the “delimitation” on the premise that the “southern” states will be at a disadvantage, which in fact they will not be, it cuts itself to a small size. By implication, it also alienates the “northern” states, which, like DMK, it (the Congress) feels will get additional advantage just because they are more populous. Actually Tamil Nadu has disproportionately more number of Lok Sabha MPs as compared to all the northern states like UP and Bihar when it comes to the population.
The Congress has problems with Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan gaining extra seats for obvious reasons. In fact, the party has issues only with UP and Bihar as it has negligible footprints there. In MP and Rajasthan, it remains very much in the contest. The party apparently believes that once these four states get extra MPs, it will be difficult to displace and defeat the Bharatiya Janata Party from the Centre. This is quite a defeatist belief. The party has a strong and formidable presence in MP and Rajasthan, while its allies, the Samajwadi Party and Rashtriya Janata Dal are doing equally well in UP and Bihar, respectively.
By opposing the delimitation just on the pretext of “north-south” divide, the Congress has placed itself in league with a small regional party like the DMK, whose ideology does not go beyond the Tamil borders. And it really does not need to. The DMK is a Tamil-centric party. More parochial and xenophobic it acts, the more traction it finds in certain quarters to entrench itself in Tamil Nadu. It is difficult to understand what logic did the Congress find in opposing the delimitation, other than “just opposing it for the sake of opposition”, because the BJP is doing it.
While population is necessarily to be the basis for providing representation to any state, still northern states are already at a great disadvantage as compared to the southern states. Take for example the case of Tamil Nadu. According to the 2011 census, its population was about 7.21 crore, while it has 39 Lok Sabha MPs. The population of Madhya Pradesh, according to the 2011 census is 8.58 crore, 1.3 crore more than TN and yet it has only 29 Lok Sabha MPs, 10 less than TN. Similarly, Bihar’s population is 10.41 crore, 3.2 crore more than Tamil Nadu and it has just one extra LS seat than TN. Uttar Pradesh’s population is about 20 crore and it has 80 MPs. While UP’s population is almost three times more than TN, yet the number of LS MPs is just double than TN.
This explodes the myth that the ‘southern states’ are being or will be put at a disadvantage just because they did better on population control. These states, particularly Tamil Nadu, are already getting extra advantage than the “northern” states, as the figures reveal, Tamil Nadu is doubly advantaged over Uttar Pradesh in terms of its ratio of MPs to its population.
Also read: Govt must allay delimitation fears; call Stalin’s bluff
So far, there is no clarity as to how the number of seats will be increased. Initially it was suggested that the seats will be increased proportionately by 50 per cent for each state against their existing numbers. While Tamil Nadu has a problem with that also, it will put the northern states actually at a greater disadvantage, as they will continue to have lesser number of seats against their population as compared to states like Tamil Nadu.
The main argument against the population-based increase in the number of seats is that population control should not be held against those states which have done well about it. But why to hold it against the more populous states either? Besides, arguing against population-based representation undermines the very idea of the “universal adult franchise” that was adopted by the founding fathers of our constitution. The suggestions that the number of seats should be based on both population as well as the GDP, like Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy recently suggested, amounts to making the richer states more equal than the poorer ones. This hits at the basic right to equality.
Even if the argument of “disadvantage to and discrimination with” the “southern states” was correct, the Congress should not have put itself in the midst of this “divide”. What suits DMK does not necessarily suit Congress also, just because they are both opposed to the BJP.
With the current positioning the Congress has directly pitched itself against the interests of states like UP, MP, Bihar and Rajasthan. This can have consequences in the long term.
The southern states in any case have never been at any disadvantage. They have had two Prime Ministers, besides many Presidents of the Republic and not to speak of holding ministerial positions. At times, some political parties, with just one MP have got ministerial berths also.
The Congress owes it to the nation to act as a responsible opposition and not be guided by the smaller parties like the DMK. Congress, not the DMK should have set the opposition agenda. Sadly, it is the other way round. Interestingly, it suits the BJP, which has managed to make the Congress walk into its trap.
Follow us
