A rare voice of support to the government from a well-known jurist, at a time there is a lot of opposition to the plan. Anyway, this will end up in the SC for sure so I don’t think it will happen before 2034.

Excerpts:

“Abhishek Banerjee, the MP from Diamond Harbour, represents approximately 20 lakh people…The MP from Lakshadweep represents only 48,000 people….Is a Calcuttan from Diamond Harbour only 2.43% of a Lakshwadeeper in India’s democracy?”

“The Tamil Nadu chief minister, M.K. Stalin, fears that if done on the basis of population, Tamil Nadu will lose seats in the Lok Sabha in comparison to the more populous states of the north….Conceptually, this framing is flawed. Delimitation is about effective representation. ”

“Yogendra Yadav has recently argued for freezing the current distribution of seats in Parliament for all times to come. This is intuitively attractive as a means of maintaining a fragile peace. But dig a bit deeper and it begins to unravel. A single MP cannot possibly effectively represent 3 million people as they do today.”

“As Atal Bihari Vajpayee memorably said in Parliament, parties may come and go but the nation must go on.”

https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/beyond-numbers-the-delimitation-debate-is-necessary-for-india-prnt/cid/2089765

https://scroll.in/latest/873517/centre-paid-vidhi-centre-for-legal-policy-nearly-rs-50-lakh-in-five-years-to-help-implement-aadhaar

Expected. Hope he continues to get paid.

That's not actually true for the US. Every state has the same number of senators. Electoral college retains proportions of electors of presidential candidates wildly out of proportion to population. Only congressional districts are subject to delimitation based on a decennial census. And even then there isnt that much variation in population growth across states as there is in India.

And the congress in US plays a very different role than does the parliament in India. its much more restrained in what it is for because they have a presidential form of government.

In the US, they also have this thing called a "Senate", where both California and Vermont have the same number of seats. The Senate (equal to the Rajya Sabha, broadly) is more important than the House of Representatives (broadly = Lok Sabha) in a lot of ways.

In India, the Lok Sabha is everything, the RS has little power. Your 1st Year Law Student analogy doesn't hold.

Bring in proper checks and balances, make Tamil Nadu (or Tripura) have the same political power as UP, and then, OK, lets talk population and PR.

Totally agree. People are jealous of his success and NLSIU-Oxford pedigree, plus the usual left-liberals hating Modi. So pure as hominem. The Aadhar issue is laughable. 50 lakhs in 5 years is peanuts. He is literally doing a social service, because a law firm would charge 5 crores in 5 years for the same advice and research.

Coming to delimitation, it’s an absolute necessity. The DMK is a totally corrupt party trying to set the country on fire by dividing the people.

What about the most neglected constituency of all: the middle class? Can’t we have more seats from middle-class constituencies, considering that we pay all the tax in the country? In my view, all the top 15 cities in India should have 30% of all Parliamentary seats. And that will also balance north-South representation.

Delimitation is about effective representation. But Araghya short sells the extent to which India really is a Union of States. We very nearly were not a country because of the language issue, delimitation would cut even deeper.

Southern states are arguing that theyre being punished for being successful in limiting population growth and punished for having successful economies as they contribute more to the national kitty than they take in. If one only sticks to the principle that representation must be based on population—one in effect encourages bad behaviour—the more people you make, the poorer they are, the more voice you will have in parliament. It starts off a race to the bottom.

This really isn't about which party will win or lose. Karnataka routinely votes for different parties or delivers mixed electoral results. It's as likely a state for the BJP as it is for the congress. However, even kannadigas would be wary of delimitation because there is a real bipartisan sense among people in the state that they are being taken for a ride.

These states are not successful because of some flip of the coin or because of the beneficence of the central government. They are successful because they have routinely voted based not on religious or caste based issues, although those factors may be present in a minor way, but on governance. Culturally as well, religious divisions run less deep in the southern states. You only notice the difference once youve lived in the north and the south, theyre like different countries in this respect. Political parties in the south know that they should have a list of accomplishments come election time or be prepared to lose sorely, that stoking religious or caste hatred would not tide them over in the face of failures in governance.

So they invest in the law and order, invest in schools, and keep their economies from running into debt by trying to attract new industries. Why do so many people from all over the country come to Bangalore, Hyderabad, and Chennai to study engineering and medicine and management and heck law? Why did tech companies set up shop in these cities rather than in Patna, Lucknow, or Ranchi? It certainly isnt because the people of Ranchi, Patna, or Lucknow are less industrious or less capable- many of those people work in tech and attend schools in the south. Its because their governments have neglected to invest in the same things- law and order, education, new and emerging industries etc.

We all want to live by noble ideas of one person one vote, one vote one value, southern states are not disputing the validity of that claim. But they are arguing that if we are so unequal in our priorities and our development, they would lose by artificially imposing a legal requirement of one vote one value on these disparate states. And they arent wrong. No amount of clever legal/ theoretical argument would convince them to give up their own self interest. Perhaps what would quiet their fears for sometime is a firm commitment by the states north of the Vindhyas to improve governance in their states over a definite period of time. But these commitments will have to remain essentially unenforceable.

Southern states would not be wrong to argue- if you dislike that you do not have effective representation, one vote one value, perhaps you should ensure that your state governemnt invests in family planning, education, and poverty reduction measures. The inefficiency is not caused due to choices made by the southern states after all but because of choices made by governments in the northern states.

We do have a negotiated federal compact. It's in the Constitution. If the southern states are dragged to a negotiating table against their will to redraw that compact, you might have to prepare for them being willing to walk away altogether. And- it won't do to point out that there arent enough military capabilities in the southern states for them to be able to sustain independence. Thats just a naked threat to comply or be subject to a conquest. And when we are at that point of negotiation- we will might have already lost the Constitution anyway. We are a union of states. We are not a conquered people and their conquerors.

Did I say there were no votebanks? Why do you like to fight strawmen? Here is what I said about south indian states: "These states are not successful because of some flip of the coin or because of the beneficence of the central government. They are successful because they have routinely voted based not on religious or caste based issues, although those factors may be present in a minor way, but on governance. Culturally as well, religious divisions run less deep in the southern states. You only notice the difference once youve lived in the north and the south, theyre like different countries in this respect. Political parties in the south know that they should have a list of accomplishments come election time or be prepared to lose sorely, that stoking religious or caste hatred would not tide them over in the face of failures in governance."

Please name for me the south indian government in history that has had nothing to show in terms of development or progress and yet retained power consecutively. AIMIM has 7 seats in the telangana legislative assembly. out of 119. Tell me why you think that means that governments in the south are voted in based on appeals to religion? That tally to me indicates that religious appeals of all kinds will not help you get far. Keralite politics has traditionally divided along class lines and ideological lines far more than it has on caste. Of course there are lingayats and vokkaligas- but even despite traditional divisions lingayats in the last legislative assembly crossed party lines and voted congress instead of Yediyurappas BJP. Why? Because Bommai had nothing to show for his term as CM. Vokkaligas are usually loyal to JDS, but JDS lost handily in the last election and DKS won them over why? Because JDS has corruption problems and because of Prajwal Revannas debauchery.

How much did all the rath yatra politics of the 80's help the BJP make a dent in south indian politics? Not a bit. When L.K Advani was doing his rath yatra, Karnataka was passing from the socialist tenure of ramakrishna hegde to the socialist tenure of Bangarappa. Kerala was going back and forth between two freedom fighters, one a congressman loyal to Rajiv and Indira Gandhi who prosecuted naxals during the emergency and another a communist who worked for labour rights. Tamil Nadu went back and forth between Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha, a choice between centre left and further left. And Andhra Pradesh was firmly in congress control until NT Rama rao came in. At the same time that people in north india are tearing each other up over some temple/mosque somewhere- what were south indians doing? Certainly not that. Tell me where I'm wrong.

What did the BJP have to do win in the south? Promise better governance and tone down the religious nonsense. You will never hear a chandrababu naidu or a yediyurappa spew the kind of religious appeal that gets Yogi Adityanath or even the prime minister elected. They dont do it because they know they wont win with that. South Indians do not have some trauma of partition, they simply do not view religion the same way. In fact when the Bommai government tried to do Hijab politics to save their government they were voted out- because they failed to provide governance.

I have nowhere claimed there arent votebanks. What I have claimed is that these loyalties are less set in stone. If your usual party does not work for you in an election, the people of karnataka will absolutely change up and vote the other guys in next election. And they certainly wont bother voting and turning out if they feel they havent gotten something in return from their elected government. And politicians know that. So while they might do a lot of corruption, and a lot of other stuff, they usually pick an issue or two and do a good job at that issue. Some times it's education, other times it's turning the state budget around, other times it's jobs, protecting labour class, electricity, food security, gas prices, or something else. That is what our elections are mainly about. Governance. Its not perfectly meritorious, and there is corruption. But without a record of governance and a list of achievements- an incumbent chief minister has a steep uphill climb in the south and no religous appeal is likely to save him.

In my limited experience and on ground knowledge, caste is very much a factor for votes at least in Telangana and Andhra - Reddy, Kamma, Kappu, Velmas, Gouds ! Casteism galore. The Bar Council elections are a good place for you to get a feeler into the systemic indoctrination of the caste system in Telangana and Andhra. However, I do agree with your view that Southern states were earlier focussed on population control and it’s unfair that they are now having to retract from their previous stance. Distress calls of all the southern CMs Revanth Reddy, CBN, Stalin to have more children in the wake of delimitation have been growing louder.