The primary contention against the delimitation draft is its reliance on the 2001 census rather than the latest demographic data.The move, according to JMM General Secretary Supriyo Bhattacharya, is a blatant attempt to benefit BJP by skewing constituency demarcations in its favor, especially in the northern and western states
Sanjay Pandey
The political landscape in India is witnessing yet another storm, this time over the proposed Lok Sabha delimitation draft set to take effect after 2026. The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), along with several opposition parties, has come out strongly against the draft, alleging that it is a calculated move by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to consolidate its electoral dominance at the cost of federal balance and social justice. The opposition’s anxiety is evident, with Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren set to strategize against it alongside Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin in Chennai on March 22. But what is it about this delimitation exercise that has set off alarm bells in the opposition ranks? Is it a genuine attempt to ensure proportional representation, or is there a deeper, more politically motivated design behind it?
The primary contention against the delimitation draft is its reliance on the 2001 census rather than the latest demographic data. The move, according to JMM General Secretary Supriyo Bhattacharya, is a blatant attempt to benefit BJP by skewing constituency demarcations in its favor, especially in the northern and western states. He has accused the central government of using this exercise as a tool to politically isolate the southern, eastern, and northeastern states, regions where the BJP has traditionally struggled to gain electoral ground.
Why the Opposition is Alarmed
A closer look at the proposed seat distribution exposes why parties like JMM, DMK, and others are vehemently opposing it. The increase in parliamentary seats is heavily tilted in favor of BJP-dominated states:
- Uttar Pradesh: From 80 to 143 seats
- Bihar: From 40 to 79 seats
- Madhya Pradesh: From 29 to 52 seats
- Gujarat: From 26 to 43 seats
- Rajasthan: From 25 to 50 seats
- Maharashtra: From 48 to 76 seats
In contrast, southern and eastern states, where BJP’s presence is relatively weak, have received a far more modest increase:
- Tamil Nadu: From 39 to 49 seats
- Karnataka: From 28 to 41 seats
- Andhra Pradesh & Telangana: From 42 to 54 seats
The opposition sees this as a deliberate effort to tip the electoral balance in favor of the BJP by giving disproportionate weight to the Hindi heartland. The most glaring issue is that while the overall number of seats is increasing, there is no corresponding increase in the reservation for Scheduled Tribes (ST), which is a critical factor in tribal-dominated regions like Jharkhand. As Bhattacharya pointed out, Jharkhand’s seats will increase from 14 to 24, but the ST-reserved seats will remain static at five. This, in effect, dilutes the political voice of tribal communities, who form the backbone of opposition politics in the state.
BJP’s Political Arithmetic
Experts argue that the BJP’s real intention behind this delimitation exercise is to cement its electoral dominance ahead of the 2029 general elections and beyond. Political analyst Prof. Ajay Jha believes that the delimitation is not merely about readjusting constituencies based on population growth but is a “well-orchestrated attempt to ensure that states with higher population growth—predominantly the BJP strongholds—receive the largest share of new seats.”
Jha further elaborates, “This will allow BJP to consolidate power without necessarily increasing its voter base. By expanding seats in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, where the party has a firm grip, BJP can ensure that even if it loses some votes in individual constituencies, the overall seat tally remains in its favor. Meanwhile, opposition parties in the south and northeast will see their influence wane due to relatively lower seat increments.”
Another significant aspect of this move is the impact on coalition politics. With an expanded number of constituencies in its strongholds, BJP can afford to be less dependent on its allies, particularly in states like Maharashtra and Bihar, where it has often relied on coalitions with regional parties.
The opposition parties, sensing a severe political threat, have called for an alternative approach to delimitation that does not disproportionately benefit any particular region or party. Their primary demand is that the delimitation should be based on the latest census rather than outdated data from 2001.
Additionally, they are advocating for a proportional increase in reserved seats to ensure fair representation for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin has been one of the vocal critics of the draft, arguing that “delimitation should be about equal representation, not political manipulation.”
Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has also slammed the draft, stating, “This is not delimitation; this is BJP’s blueprint for electoral hegemony. If the government was truly interested in fair representation, it would have ensured that all regions got an equitable share of new seats rather than favoring its strongholds.”
Is Delimitation in National Interest?
Proponents of the delimitation exercise argue that it is necessary to reflect population growth and ensure fair representation. BJP leaders have defended the move, claiming that it aligns with democratic principles and is essential for a more balanced electoral process. They also argue that states with lower population growth should not be penalized with fewer seats, as representation should be based on actual demographics.
However, the opposition dismisses these claims, contending that BJP’s version of delimitation is nothing but a ploy to marginalize non-Hindi-speaking states and consolidate its strongholds. Critics fear that this could disrupt the delicate balance of federalism in India, leading to increased political tensions between the north and south.
With the opposition gearing up for a nationwide protest and legal challenge against the delimitation draft, the coming months are likely to witness an intense political battle. The JMM’s decision to align with DMK and other regional parties signals the beginning of a broader coalition against what they perceive as BJP’s authoritarian overreach.
Legal experts suggest that the opposition could challenge the delimitation draft in court, arguing that using outdated census data violates constitutional principles. Meanwhile, public sentiment in states like Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, and the Northeast could play a crucial role in shaping the narrative around this contentious issue.
As the debate intensifies, one thing is clear—this delimitation exercise is not just about redrawing electoral maps; it is about the future of India’s political landscape. Will it lead to greater representation, or will it serve as another tool for electoral dominance? The answer will unfold in the political battles that lie ahead.
( Author, a seasoned bilingual journalist, is an expert on Jharkhand’s sociopolitical landscape.He can be reached at pandeysanjay945@gmail.com)
