Bid to reshape electoral map, anti-national Act: Rahul on delimitation

Launching a sharp political attack, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Friday alleged that the proposed Women’s Reservation Bill — already cleared by Parliament in 2023 — is less about empowering women but more about “changing the political map of India” through a calibrated electoral redesign.

Intervening in the debate ahead of voting, the Congress leader questioned both the design and timing of the Bill, arguing that it raises “serious questions of intent”.

He maintained that the Bill, in its current form, departs significantly from the spirit of women’s empowerment — and instead being used as a facade to further the BJP’s political footprint.

"The Modi government is trying to redraw the political map. In effect, the government is telling the southern states, the northeastern states, and smaller states that, for the BJP to remain in power, their representation will be reduced. This is nothing short of an anti-national act," he said.

Gandhi drew a distinction between the present proposal and the Women’s Reservation Bill passed in 2023, which he described as the “real legislation.”

That law, he pointed out, promised 33% reservation for women but tied its implementation to a future delimitation exercise after a census — effectively pushing it to an uncertain timeline. Gandhi argued that the bill sidelines the long-pending demand for a caste census — a key Opposition plank — and fails to account for entrenched inequalities within women as a category.

By not providing sub-quotas for OBC, Dalit and minority women, he suggested, the Bill risks benefiting already privileged sections. Accusing the government of prioritizing “Manuvad over the Constitution,” he said the move could dilute the principle of social justice embedded in India’s democratic framework.

Calling it “nothing short of an anti-national Act,” Gandhi escalated his attack, claiming the Bill could marginalise vulnerable communities under the guise of reform. He asserted that the Opposition would close ranks to resist what it views as a intervention in federal structure and in the electoral system.

The debate grew heated when Gandhi invoked a “magician” analogy to describe the government’s approach, prompting Speaker Om Birla to caution him against digression.

Gandhi defended the metaphor as part of a broader argument, while the Speaker reiterated the need for parliamentary decorum. The treasury benches responded sharply, with parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju accusing Gandhi of disrespecting the prime minister and trivialising a landmark reform.

Responding, Gandhi sharpened his rhetoric: “What you are attempting to do is to take away the constitutional right from the people of India.” He accused the BJP of conflating itself with the nation, adding, “There is a big confusion in the minds of the BJP. They think they are the people of India… Do not hide behind the people of India like cowards. We are not attacking the people of India.”

At the core of the debate is the sequencing of women’s reservation with delimitation — a constitutionally mandated exercise that has been frozen since 1976 and is expected after the next census.

Delimitation recalibrates parliamentary seats based on population changes, a process that could increase representation for northern states while reducing the relative share of southern states that have controlled population growth.

Opposition parties fear that combining delimitation with women’s reservation could simultaneously redraw constituencies and reserve a third of them, creating a double shift in representation whose political consequences are difficult to predict.

They also argue that without a caste census, there is no empirical basis to ensure equitable distribution of reserved seats among backward and marginalised communities.

The government, however, has defended the framework, arguing that delimitation is a constitutional requirement and that implementing reservation without updating constituency boundaries would be administratively inconsistent. It maintains that the bill is a historic step toward gender justice, even if its rollout is contingent on future exercises.