Opinion | The Delimitation Debate: Why Stalin’s Argument Falls Flat
What Stalin is advocating is not healthy competition but a reckless game of one-upmanship, driven by an agenda to incite division, create instability, and ultimately challenge the Union itself
“As the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, I bring to everyone’s attention that the Lok Sabha delimitation exercise based on the 2026 Census is extremely dangerous. Southern States like Tamil Nadu have done a great job in controlling population growth. But if that is the reason why our strength in Parliament will decrease, if it can suppress our voice, how can it be justified?" Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister, MK Stalin, wrote in a post on X recently.
Such a post from Stalin is hardly surprising, as the DMK’s entire politics over the years has centred on regionalism and whipping up passions by deviously raking up the North-South divide at every available opportunity.
related stories
In sharp contrast, this is what the Union Home Minister, the highly erudite Amit Shah, said: “I want to reassure the people of South India that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has kept your interest in mind and will make sure that not even one seat is reduced. And whatever increase is there, the Southern states will get a fair share, there is no reason to doubt this." These reassuring words by Amit Shah, spoken at the inauguration of the BJP office in Coimbatore, Tiruvannamalai, last week, completely debunk the rabid lies spread by Stalin and the DMK.
Why is Stalin always propagating the North-South divide? Well, it is to polarise the narrative and appease his Dravidian vote bank. The question that arises, therefore, is—what exactly is delimitation?
Delimitation is simply the process of redrawing the boundaries of parliamentary and state assembly constituencies to reflect changes in population. It is conducted to ensure fair political representation based on demographic shifts and also determines how many seats will be reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), both in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. By questioning delimitation, Stalin is, in effect, questioning fair representation and the progressive idea of balancing population growth with parliamentary strength.
Delimitation is completely legitimate and constitutionally sanctioned vide Articles 82 and 170 of the Indian Constitution, wherein the number of seats and their boundaries are adjusted after each Census. This task is carried out on the basis of the latest Census data, by the Delimitation Commission, which is set up through a law passed by the Parliament. Constitutional requirements aside, delimitation aligns with the democratic principle of “one citizen, one vote, one value" and hence, DMK’s fear-mongering on this count is absolutely unacceptable.
A pan-India, full-fledged delimitation exercise was carried out three times, namely in 1952, 1963, and 1973, after the 1951, 1961, and 1971 Census exercises, respectively, with another delimitation occurring in 2002. Over the years, as India’s population grew, so did the number of Lok Sabha seats.
For example, as per the 1951 Census, the Lok Sabha had 494 seats based on India’s overall population at that time, which stood at 36.1 crore (7.3 lakh people per seat). After the 1961 Census, the Lok Sabha seat tally rose to 522, with an overall population of 43.9 crore (8.4 lakh people per seat). Similarly, after the 1971 Census, the Lok Sabha tally increased to 543 seats, with an overall population of 54.8 crore (10.1 lakh people per seat). However, the number of Lok Sabha seats has remained frozen since the 1971 Census.
Today, the number of seats in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha is still based on the 1971 Census figures—543 and 250 seats, respectively, in the Lower and Upper Houses of Parliament. Delimitation is, therefore, long overdue. Moreover, while the number of parliamentary seats remained unchanged, constituency boundaries and SC/ST reservations were adjusted after the 2001 Census and are set to be reviewed again after 2026.
Under normal circumstances, the 2021 Census would have dictated the next delimitation process, determining seat distribution, constituency boundaries, and SC/ST reservations. However, with the 2021 Census delayed due to the Covid pandemic and 2026 approaching, this is indeed the perfect time to have the delimitation debate.
It must be noted that the delimitation exercise can increase, decrease, or alter constituencies without changing the total number of parliamentary seats. That said, since the last delimitation took place decades ago, this time the process will almost certainly lead to an increase in the number of parliamentary seats, among other adjustments.
By 2026, India’s population is expected to reach 1.41 billion, a key factor in redrawing constituency boundaries. The Women’s Reservation Act must also be taken into consideration. If the patterns of 1951, 1961, and 1971 are followed, the number of Lok Sabha seats is likely to increase from 543 to 753, based on the projected population.
Currently, the southern states together hold 129 of the 543 Lok Sabha seats, with Telangana at 17 seats, Andhra Pradesh at 25, Kerala at 20, Tamil Nadu at 39, and Karnataka at 28. In the Lower House, 129 out of 543 seats equates to roughly 24 per cent representation for the southern states.
Now, post-delimitation, the scenario will possibly look like this—the overall number of Lok Sabha seats will rise from 543 to 753. For the southern states, based solely on a population ratio of 20 lakh per constituency, the number of seats will be: Telangana at 20, Andhra Pradesh at 28, Kerala at 19, Tamil Nadu at 41, and Karnataka at 36. Effectively, the tally for the southern states in absolute terms will rise from 129 to 144—an 11.63 per cent increase, not a decrease, as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin alleges.
Tamil Nadu’s own seat share will rise from 39 to 41, a 5.12 per cent increase. Yes, 144 seats out of 753 equates to 19 per cent representation, whereas the current 129 out of 543 is 24 per cent. But why is Stalin complaining? Tamil Nadu’s seat share in absolute terms is not decreasing—it is, in fact, rising by 5.12 per cent.
Stalin’s misgovernance has pushed the vibrant state of Tamil Nadu into financial ruin, with the overall debt reaching a massive Rs 8.3 lakh crore. Assuming the state’s GSDP stands at Rs 27 lakh crore, the debt-to-GSDP ratio works out to 30.74 per cent prima facie. However, if one digs deeper and includes the liabilities of loss-making entities such as TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu’s spiralling debt appears even worse—like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. It is precisely with the mala fide intent of hoodwinking the electorate and deflecting attention from its miserable track record that Stalin’s DMK continues to prop up this imaginary North-South divide.
The 2002 Delimitation Act mandated that delimitation should be based primarily on population and demographic composition, after extensive deliberations, with many constitutional experts weighing in on the matter. There is no need to fix something that is not broken. Population has always been the most relevant metric in past delimitation exercises in India—and for good reason. For the DMK and Stalin to now suggest that using population is a flawed yardstick is unacceptable and demonstrates utter disregard for established constitutional precedents.
Rahul Gandhi and the Congress Party, a close ally of the DMK, have been shouting from every available rooftop about proportional representation under the slogan “Jitni Aabadi, Utna Haq", which essentially calls for representation based on population. Congress launched this slogan as part of its appeasement-based politics, with an eye on minority votes, especially Muslim votes.
Now, consider the sheer hypocrisy of the DMK—it has not once spoken out against the “Jitni Aabadi" sloganeering of the Congress but has the audacity to question population-based delimitation. The DMK has no objection to population being the basis for deciding reservations, as advocated by its ally, the Congress Party. Then, by the same logic, why does the DMK object to population being the yardstick for delimitation? You cannot have your cake and eat it too!
Also, do not forget that Dalits (Scheduled Castes) have historically accounted for anywhere between 21 and 26 per cent of Tamil Nadu’s population. Delimitation will provide proper representation to Dalits, who have long been sidelined by the DMK. For instance, the DMK alone holds 133 out of 234 seats in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, and with its allies included, the tally rises to 159 seats. The grim reality, however, is that Dalits are inadequately represented within this grand tally of 159.
Stalin’s cabinet has 35 ministers, of whom only four are Dalits—meaning just 11.42 per cent of the cabinet comprises Dalits, despite their proportion in Tamil Nadu’s population being well above 21 per cent. Why is Stalin opposing delimitation? Is he afraid that post-delimitation, SCs will finally receive fair representation because the number of SC-reserved seats will rise? Does he fear the empowerment of Dalits? If so, why? If not, why oppose delimitation in the first place?
This also brings to the fore another contention regarding economic contribution and returns. Stalin has consistently complained that the Modi government has been unfair to Tamil Nadu—an utterly baseless claim. From popularising the works of Thiruvalluvar at every given opportunity to hosting the Kashi-Tamil Sangamam in Varanasi every year since 2022, with the sole aim of promoting Tamil arts, crafts, history, and literature, no Prime Minister in post-independence India has done as much to celebrate Tamil Nadu’s rich heritage as Modi.
Coming back to contributions, Maharashtra plays a significant role in both direct and indirect tax revenues. India comprises 28 States and 8 Union Territories, yet Maharashtra alone accounts for over 20 per cent of India’s industrial output, 16 per cent of total GST revenues, and a staggering 38.9 per cent of the country’s overall direct tax collections. By virtue of these impressive numbers, should Maharashtra then receive the lion’s share of representation in the Lok Sabha? The answer is no. The reason is simple—representation in the Lok Sabha cannot be based solely on financial contributions.
A State’s contribution to the national GDP or the overall tax kitty cannot serve as a benchmark to determine how many parliamentary seats it should hold. There is a well-established, time-tested formula that has been in place for decades and has worked seamlessly. Beyond financial contributions, numerous other factors come into play and must be recognised. There is no need to dismantle a fully functional system simply because Stalin feels the need for it.
By making the absurd argument that Tamil Nadu should be allocated Lok Sabha seats in proportion to its contribution to the Central government’s tax revenues, Stalin is simply stoking the embers of discord and resentment to deliberately provoke a larger North-South polarisation.
Maharashtra currently holds only 48 out of 543 seats in the Lok Sabha—just 8.83 per cent of the total—despite its substantial contribution to India’s GDP and tax revenues. If one were to follow Stalin’s flawed reasoning, Maharashtra should perhaps have 20 per cent or even 30 per cent of the 543 seats, and by his illogical argument, smaller States with minimal contributions would have no representation at all. However, in reality, governance operates within the framework of Constitutional checks and balances, making Stalin’s preposterous assertion—that Parliamentary representation should be based on Tamil Nadu’s contribution to India’s GDP—not only flawed but also dangerously warped. Competitive federalism is healthy, but confrontationist federalism is not. What Stalin is advocating is not healthy competition but a reckless game of one-upmanship, driven by an agenda to incite division, create instability, and ultimately challenge the Union itself.
Last but not least, the DMK’s and Stalin’s claim that they have successfully curbed population growth in Tamil Nadu and should therefore not be “penalised" by the delimitation process is completely baseless. Tamil Nadu’s population stood at 4.11 crore in 1971, increased to 7.21 crore in 2011, and further rose to 8.47 crore by 2024. Now consider Madhya Pradesh, which has followed a nearly identical growth trajectory. Its population was 4.16 crore in 1971, rose to 7.27 crore in 2011, and has now reached 8.86 crore in 2024. Despite this similar trend, Madhya Pradesh sends only 29 MPs to the Lok Sabha, whereas Tamil Nadu sends 39—significantly more.
If anyone has been “penalised," to borrow Stalin’s terminology, it is Madhya Pradesh, which, despite nearly identical population growth, has far fewer Lok Sabha seats than Tamil Nadu. It is precisely these historical distortions that the long-overdue delimitation process seeks to correct. Stalin should stop crying wolf, and if the DMK truly believes in Constitutional propriety—beyond mere rhetoric and lip service—it should welcome delimitation, not oppose it.
Sanju Verma is an Economist, National Spokesperson of the BJP and the Bestselling Author of ‘The Modi Gambit’. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
- Location :
- First Published: