Delimitation: Will north India's gain be south India's loss?

India is facing a potential political storm centered around the redrawing of electoral districts to reflect population changes, with the southern states of India bearing the brunt. Leaders from these southern states are actively urging public mobilization to protect the region's political interests, as they believe the redrawing of constituencies could disrupt the existing balance of power, potentially diminishing their influence.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has likened the redrawing of constituencies to a "sword of Damocles" hanging over South India. His state, Tamil Nadu, is one of the five southern states of India and a major rival to Prime Minister Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). These five states (including Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Telangana) account for 20% of India's total population and outperform other regions of India in health, education, and economics, but these regions also have relatively low birth rates due to lower population growth rates.

Southern state leaders fear that they may lose seats in parliament in the future due to lower fertility rates and higher economic contributions, which they see as a "punishment" for the South. The more economically developed southern states have long contributed more to federal finances, while the more populous, less economically developed northern states receive a larger share based on need, creating a sense of inequity.

The Indian Constitution stipulates that parliamentary seats should be allocated according to the population of each state and ensure that constituencies are roughly equal in size. The Constitution also requires the redistribution of seats after each census to reflect the latest data. India had previously redrawn constituencies based on the decennial census in 1951, 1961, and 1971. However, successive governments have since suspended this work, fearing that differences in fertility rates between states would lead to an imbalance in representation. The next constituency redrawing is scheduled for 2026, but the outlook is uncertain as India has not conducted a census since 2011, and there is no clear timetable.

Yamini Aiyar, a senior fellow at Brown University, believes that Tamil Nadu is playing a leading role and that India is on the verge of a "federal stalemate." Currently, the number of seats in the lower house of parliament (Lok Sabha), which represents elected members, has increased from 494 to 543 and has remained unchanged since then. This means that although India's population has continued to grow since 1971, the number of Lok Sabha seats in each state has remained unchanged, with no new seats added. In 1951, each member of parliament represented slightly more than 700,000 people, but today, that number has soared to an average of 2.5 million people per member, more than three times the population represented by a member of the US House of Representatives. In comparison, British members of parliament represent an average of about 120,000 people.

Experts point out that all Indians face underrepresentation, albeit to varying degrees, because constituency sizes are too large. Shruti Rajagopalan, an economist at George Mason University, emphasized the "serious distributional inequality" that exists in India, namely the unequal distribution of political representation. For example, in Uttar Pradesh (UP), India's most populous state, each member of parliament represents about 3 million citizens, while in Kerala, where fertility rates are similar to those of many European countries, each member of parliament represents about 1.75 million people. This means that voters in Kerala have 1.7 times more influence in electing members of parliament than voters in Uttar Pradesh. Rajagopalan also pointed out that Tamil Nadu and Kerala currently have 9 and 6 more seats, respectively, than their population share, while populous, less economically developed states (such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh) have 9 and 12 fewer seats, respectively, than their population proportion. Stalin warned that Tamil Nadu could lose eight seats if constituencies are redrawn in 2026 based on projected population data.

Experts have proposed several solutions, but many require strong bipartisan consensus. One option is to increase the number of seats in the lower house, restoring the original constitutional ratio of one member of parliament per 750,000 people, which would expand the Lok Sabha to 1,872 seats. Another option is to increase the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha to ensure that no state loses its current number of seats, which is estimated to require increasing the number of seats in the Lok Sabha to 848. In addition, experts advocate for a more decentralized fiscal system in which states would have greater control over revenue and retain most or all of their income. Federal funds would be allocated based on development needs. Currently, states receive less than 40% of total revenue but account for about 60% of total expenditure, with the remainder raised and spent by the central government.

A third solution is to reform the composition of the upper house of parliament. The Rajya Sabha represents the interests of the states, with seats allocated proportionally to population, capped at 250. Members of the Rajya Sabha are elected by state legislatures rather than directly by the public. Milan Vaishnav of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggests that a radical approach could be taken, namely fixing the number of seats for each state in the upper house, similar to the US Senate. He argues that "transforming the upper house into a true forum for discussing the interests of the states could alleviate opposition to the redistribution of seats in the lower house."

In addition, there are other suggestions, such as splitting up large states—the top five states in India account for more than 45% of the total number of seats. Miheer Karandikar of the Takshashila Institution used Uttar Pradesh as an example to illustrate how large states can distort the situation. Currently, Uttar Pradesh accounts for about 14% of the total vote in India, and he estimates that this proportion could increase to 16% after the redrawing of constituencies, "which would maintain its position as the most important state in terms of political and legislative influence." Splitting up states like Uttar Pradesh may help solve the problem.

Currently, anxious southern state leaders (whose remarks are somewhat politically colored, as Tamil Nadu's elections will be held next summer) have joined colleagues in Punjab in urging the government to maintain the current seats and freeze constituency boundaries for 30 years, i.e., beyond 2026. In other words, they are calling for maintaining the status quo. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has so far not made any significant statements. Home Minister Amit Shah claimed that the southern states "will not lose even one seat" in the upcoming redrawing of constituencies, but its meaning is unclear. At the same time, the federal government's decision to withhold education funds and label the leadership of Tamil Nadu as "undemocratic and uncivilized" over a controversial education policy has deepened divisions.

Political scientist Suhas Palshikar warns that the north-south divide threatens India's federal structure. "The north-south perspective will only convince the people and parties of the north to push for the redrawing of constituencies, which will give them an advantage. This counter-mobilization in the north may make it impossible to reach any negotiated solution," Palshikar noted. He believes that expanding the size of the Lok Sabha and ensuring that no state loses its current strength is not only "a politically wise step" but will "enrich the idea of democracy in the Indian context." Balancing representation will be key to maintaining India's strained federal spirit.