India’s Delimitation Challenge: A Federal Reckoning

India, with its 1.4 billion citizens, is approaching a pivotal moment in its democratic evolution: the post-2026 delimitation of parliamentary and state assembly seats. Southern states, led by Telangana, fear a loss of political influence to the populous north, where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) holds sway. As the debate intensifies, proposed solutions aim to balance democratic representation with federal equity, while lessons from other federal systems offer context for India’s predicament.

The Southern Perspective

Telangana’s Chief Minister, Revanth Anumula, has voiced strong concerns. He calls for an end to what he terms a “delimitation policy against the South and Punjab,” advocating an exemption from the population-based formula—similar to the 7% of Lok Sabha seats reserved for Union Territories and northeastern states—and an increase in the south’s share from 24% (130 of 543 seats) to 33%, or roughly 180 seats. He argues this is essential to maintain the south’s role in national politics. K.T. Rama Rao (KTR), working president of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi, frames it as a matter of “cooperative federalism,” urging the Union to empower states rather than dominate them.

Their position reflects a structural tension. Since the Lok Sabha was fixed at 543 seats based on the 1971 Census (via the 42nd Amendment, extended in 2001), southern states like Telangana (population 35 million, fertility rate 1.8) have controlled growth, while northern states like Uttar Pradesh (240 million, fertility rate 2.4) have expanded rapidly. The BJP, with 80 of its 303 Lok Sabha seats from UP in 2024, stands to gain from this disparity, while southern states—Telangana’s GDP grew 11.2% in 2023—feel their contributions are overlooked.

Assessing Proposed Solutions

Several proposals have emerged to address this divide, each with distinct implications.

1. Increase State Assembly Seats
   • Description: Adjust assembly seats based on population (e.g., Telangana’s 119 to 130, UP’s 403 to over 500), while keeping the Lok Sabha at 543.
   • Strengths: Preserves southern influence in Parliament, enhances local representation, and avoids major constitutional changes.
   • Weaknesses: Northern states, led by the BJP, may resist limited Lok Sabha gains; additional MLAs, costing states around 2 crore rupees ($240,000) each annually, strain budgets.
   • Feasibility: High—requires minimal national overhaul and aligns with KTR’s emphasis on state empowerment.
2. Expand Lok Sabha, No Losses
   • Description: Increase Lok Sabha seats to 850, ensuring no state loses current numbers (south at 130+, UP from 80 to 120).
   • Strengths: Accommodates northern growth while stabilizing southern representation; reflects historical adjustments in other systems.
   • Weaknesses: Requires new infrastructure and broad political agreement, difficult with the BJP’s dominance (303 seats in 2024); southern proportion may still fall below 33%.
   • Feasibility: Medium—logistical and political barriers are significant.
3. Eligible Voters Basis
   • Description: Allocate seats by eligible voters, not population (southern turnout 75%, UP 60% in 2024).
   • Strengths: Could benefit states with high civic participation, like the south; mitigates population disparities.
   • Weaknesses: Lacks constitutional support and reliable data, undermining implementation.
   • Feasibility: Low—legal and practical challenges make it unlikely.
4. Financial Incentives
   • Description: Increase Finance Commission allocations for population-control states (south received 29% of the 15th Commission’s pool, UP 17.9%).
   • Strengths: Addresses equity without altering seats; supports federal balance.
   • Weaknesses: Does not resolve representation issues; northern states, including BJP-led ones, may oppose redistributing funds.
   • Feasibility: Medium—depends on Union willingness to adjust fiscal policy.
5. Freeze or Use 1971 Data
   • Description: Maintain current seats or use 1971 Census data (India’s population then: 548 million, now 1.4 billion) for another 30 years.
   • Strengths: Protects southern representation (130 seats); easy to enact given past freezes.
   • Weaknesses: Undermines democratic proportionality as northern populations soar; northern discontent could grow.
   • Feasibility: High—extends existing policy but risks long-term instability.
6. National Consensus & Flexibility
   • Description: Establish periodic reviews (e.g., every 10 years) through national dialogue.
   • Strengths: Promotes KTR’s cooperative federalism; allows adaptability to demographic shifts.
   • Weaknesses: Requires trust and coordination, strained by north-south tensions and BJP’s northern focus.
   • Feasibility: Medium—political will is a major obstacle.

Insights from Global Federal Systems

Other federations provide perspective. The United States’ House of Representatives (435 seats) adjusts decennially—California has 52, Wyoming 1—but its 100-seat Senate grants each state two, balancing population with equity. India’s Rajya Sabha (245 seats, UP 31, Telangana 7) lacks this equalizer, a gap the BJP shows little interest in closing. Germany’s Bundestag (736 seats in 2021) grows with population, offset by a Bundesrat where smaller states hold sway (Bremen 3 votes, Bavaria 6)—a flexibility India’s 1971 freeze eschews. Australia’s 151-seat House shifts regularly, backed by a 76-seat Senate giving each state 12, while Canada’s 338-seat Commons includes minimums (Prince Edward Island’s 4 seats for 160,000 people) akin to Anumala’s exemption idea. Brazil’s 513-seat Chamber caps large states (São Paulo at 70) to protect smaller ones—a concept northern BJP leaders might resist.

India’s Lok Sabha, static at 543 since 1976 despite a population tripling from 548 million to 1.4 billion, contrasts with these systems’ adaptability. Its scale exceeds America’s 435 or Australia’s 151, amplifying the challenge.

The Road Ahead

The most viable solution appears to be increasing assembly seats, preserving southern parliamentary weight while addressing northern growth—a fit with KTR’s state-centric vision. Adding Canadian-style seat minimums (e.g., 130 for the south) or Brazilian caps (UP at 100) could meet Anumala’s equity goal, though northern states, led by the BJP, may push back against limits on their Lok Sabha share. Financial incentives—raising the south’s tax share above 29%—could complement this, but representation remains unresolved. Reforming the Rajya Sabha for equal state representation (e.g., 20 seats each) would require constitutional changes the BJP’s northern base is unlikely to support.

This debate tests India’s federal framework. Telangana’s concerns highlight a north-south divide exacerbated by the BJP’s focus on populous states like Uttar Pradesh, which delivered 80 of its 303 seats in 2024. Global systems suggest a mix of population-based adjustments and regional safeguards—minimums, caps, or stronger state chambers. India’s path depends on overcoming northern resistance and forging a consensus by 2026, lest its federal compact fray under the weight of demographic disparity.