‘Delimitation must move beyond numbers’

As Opposition parties across India raise alarm over the BJP’s bid to enforce a population-based delimitation at the national level, the DMK in Tamil Nadu, which can see the writing on the wall, is up in arms. Chief minister M.K. Stalin even burnt a copy of the proposed bill in Namakkal and hoisted a black flag in rejection of a ‘black law’.

The party argues that a delimitation exercise that is driven solely by population risks altering the democratic balance and weakening India’s federal structure. Salem Dharanidharan, national spokesperson of the DMK, tells K.A. Shaji why delimitation must move beyond numbers and reflect both demographic realities and governance outcomes.

What is the DMK’s proposed solution to the delimitation question?

The DMK’s position is anchored in constitutional precedent and political prudence. It argues that the current framework should continue for at least the next 25 years, much like earlier freezes that protected states that implemented national priorities such as population control. This continuity is necessary to prevent sudden distortions in representation and to preserve federal balance.

At the same time, the party calls for evolving a consensus-driven formula rather than imposing unilateral redistribution.

Population alone cannot be the determining factor because it ignores decades of policy choices that shaped demographic outcomes differently across states. Tamil Nadu’s sustained investments in public health and education brought down fertility rates significantly, while other states followed different paths. A purely population-based model would reward uneven growth and penalise governance success, which the DMK considers fundamentally unjust.

Should development indicators be considered alongside population?

The DMK believes this is central to any fair framework. Tamil Nadu ranks among the leading states in literacy, healthcare outcomes and social welfare delivery, with lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy than the national average. It is also one of the largest contributors to the Union’s tax revenues, supported by a diversified and industrialised economy. Reducing representation to population alone turns democracy into a mechanical exercise.

The DMK argues that human development indicators, fiscal contribution and governance efficiency must be factored in alongside demographic data. Without such balance, the system risks incentivising poor governance combined with higher population growth. Representation, in its view, must reflect both people and performance.

Is increasing the number of parliamentary seats a viable solution?

The DMK does not dismiss this possibility but insists it requires careful deliberation. India’s population has more than doubled since 1971 [in fact, 2.7x, from ~55 crore to an estimated 148 crore – Ed] while the number of parliamentary seats has remained unchanged, making expansion a logical consideration. However, such a move cannot be treated as a simple technical adjustment because it has significant implications for federal balance and political representation.

The party argues that any expansion must follow detailed discussions involving experts, political parties and states. It also stresses that representation should be strengthened across all tiers, including state Assemblies, panchayats and urban local bodies.

Strengthening these institutions is essential to deepen democracy at the grassroots. Only after reinforcing these layers should Parliament expansion be considered as part of a broader reform.

How can India reconcile a constitutional mandate with federal trust?

The Constitution provides both a framework and flexibility, as demonstrated by past decisions to freeze delimitation in the national interest. Reconciling mandate with trust requires a consultative process involving states, political parties and independent experts. Without such engagement, delimitation will be seen as an imposed exercise that favours certain regions.

Trust in federal institutions depends on transparency and inclusiveness. The DMK emphasises that democracy is not only about procedure but also about fairness. Any process that undermines this balance risks weakening the Union itself. Consultation and consensus are, therefore, essential.

Why has this issue resonated so strongly in Tamil Nadu?

The issue resonates because people understand the implications in concrete terms.

Tamil Nadu invested heavily in public health, education and social welfare, achieving stabilised population growth and improved quality of life. There is now a widespread perception that this success could translate into reduced political representation.

This creates a strong sense of injustice that goes beyond policy debate. The issue is seen as one of dignity and fairness. It is also linked to a broader sentiment that southern states are not adequately recognised for their contributions. This explains the depth and intensity of the response.

What is fundamentally at stake for southern states?

At stake is the balance of Indian democracy. If representation is determined purely by population, political power could become concentrated in a few regions, weakening the federal structure. This would also reshape national policy priorities in ways that may not reflect the diversity of the country.

Southern states contribute significantly to economic output and governance standards, yet their political voice could diminish. This creates a mismatch between contribution and representation. The DMK sees this as a structural issue with long-term consequences for India’s unity.

What is the DMK’s biggest concern about the current approach?

The concern goes beyond methodology to questions of intent and outcome. There is a perception that delimitation could be shaped to consolidate political advantage and reduce space for opposition. Such a shift risks deepening regional imbalances and altering electoral dynamics across the country.

There is also anxiety that regions with strong alternative political traditions may be weakened. This would influence not just representation but the nature of democratic competition. Without transparency and safeguards, these concerns become serious.

How does the DMK respond to the argument that representation must reflect population?

The DMK accepts that population is an important factor but rejects it as the sole basis. India is a Union of states, not a unitary system governed only by numbers. A purely population-based model ignores differences in governance, development and policy choices.

It risks concentrating power in regions with higher demographic growth while marginalising others. It also overlooks the role of public policy in shaping population trends. Representation must, therefore, balance demographic realities with development and federal equity.

Why does the DMK say Tamil Nadu is being penalised for success?

Tamil Nadu achieved significant reductions in fertility through sustained investments in healthcare, education and welfare. As a result, its population stabilised earlier than in many other states. If seats are redistributed purely on current population, states with higher growth gain more representation while Tamil Nadu’s share declines. This effectively penalises states that implemented national priorities responsibly.

Could this become a constitutional crisis?

At present, it remains a political issue that can still be addressed within the constitutional framework. The Constitution allows flexibility, as seen in earlier freezes on delimitation. This provides space for dialogue, negotiation and consensus-building. If the process is pushed through without addressing concerns, it could strain Centre-state relations, which could escalate into a constitutional crisis.

Is delimitation likely to become a long-term political faultline?

There is a strong possibility if handled without care. Questions of representation and federal balance have historically shaped Indian politics, and delimitation brings both into sharp focus. It also intersects with issues of regional equity, governance and democratic fairness. But it also presents an opportunity to strengthen federalism if approached with consensus.