Thinking beyond population count Premium

The time has come to go beyond population size as the lone yardstick of allocation and determination of political representation

The discourse on delimitation and financial devolution has caused an uproar in Parliament and some State Assemblies and poses a threat to the federal character of our nation. The development divide in India has its own derivative on the demographic divide, which needs recognition in the calculus of delimitation and financial devolution. The expiry of the constitutional freeze on the number of parliamentary seats is very near and has generated anxiety with regard to the political representation of peninsular States and those in the north.

The history of the delimitation exercise in India during 1951-71 indicates that the number of Lok Sabha seats was increased in response to the population increase that resulted in the population representation per seat. This rose from 7.3 lakh population per Lok Sabha seat in 1951 to 10.1 lakh population per seat in 1971, when the total number of seats reached the current size of 543. The freeze in this number since 1971 extends till 2026. Considering the trend of increasing the number of seats with the rising population, the total number of seats in accordance with the projected population size in 2026 amounts to 753 and the population representation per seat will be around 20 lakh. With this ratio, the reduced share of the population in peninsular States may well be represented by a fewer number of seats when compared with States such as Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and others, which are lagging behind on demographic progress.

This anxiety about political representation is genuine and was first confronted by the 15th Finance Commission when the population weight in the devolution exercise was substituted by 2011 data in place of the 1971 data. The Commission suggested weightage to demographic performance along with population performance. This revision increased the weight of the population component from 0.15 to 0.27 and serves as a balancer across States with a greater population count and poor demographic performances and States with a lower population count and better demographic performances.

The time has come to go beyond population size as the lone yardstick of allocation and determination of political representation. It is humorous to hear the argument that the southern States won’t lose a single seat in the delimitation exercise while the northern States will gain seats. There are multiple concerns that need attention in this delimitation exercise. The first is whether every seat should have an average representation of 20 lakh population, and therefore, an upper limit in the representational strength needs to be adopted that would ensure expansion of the size of the Lok Sabha with the rising population size of our nation. However, the contention lies in its regional distribution without distorting representation to an unacceptable level. A middle path to be considered could be population density instead of absolute population numbers. This is already the prevailing convention of seats in the northeast, which is already represented by a lower population size when compared to the urban centres of the country. Such an alternative would perhaps work out better given the fact that a lower population size may well be associated with a relatively greater density and a greater population size with a smaller density. Further, even maintaining the status quo may require a proportionate rise in the allocation of seats once the overall target is decided with an aggregate norm of population representation per seat.

The demographic wisdom, therefore, is to think beyond population count as a singular yardstick of allocation or devolution. In the devolution exercise carried out by the 15th Finance Commission, these aspects were debated, and a middle path was worked out that led to the introduction of demographic performance in the population component. Another sincere caution with regard to the population-based reading of any outcome needs a consideration of its characteristics and composition. The proposed exercise of delimitation and allocation would not escape this feature, given the complexity of gender and caste-based reservation of the said allocation. In each and every sphere, the population-based standardisation has been on its gross count, leading to a per capita measure, which is often quite misleading. This is getting adopted on a wider scale in the current SDG environment of generating indicators indiscriminately. We name it as per-capita hangover that does not enable scientific comparison (temporal or cross-sectional) of the state of affairs. The characteristics and composition of the population remain paramount in the assessment of needs and entitlements on the one hand and rights and privileges on the other. Hence, a raw population count being in the denominator without accommodating characteristic differences assumes equal for unequals.

A demographic reading of a population therefore involves recognition of all potential characteristics and attributes to weigh them and differentiate while making any comparative construct involving population count. Population is beyond a mere head count on issues of representation and allocation which is largely overlooked in common practice. Therefore, a demographic outlook remains the key to resolving the prevailing debates and controversies.