A Surya Prakash By

The President, Pranab Mukherjee has recently advocated an upward revision in the strength of the Lok Sabha, “to give true expression to the will of the people”. He has asked that if Great Britain can have more than 600 parliamentary constituencies, why can’t India with 1.28 billion people, have more seats.

The president’s concern for greater and more meaningful representation of the people in the Parliament is well placed, but there are serious political implications if the seats are raised in a mechanical fashion based on the population of each state. Such an exercise will amount to punishing the Southern states and

some in the East and the West, which diligently took to population control and rewarding the ‘BIMARU’ (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh) states which have displayed gross irresponsibility with regard to a programme which is so critical to India’s progress.

Article 81(2)(a) of the Constitution says the manner in which seats are allotted to each state in the Lok Sabha shall be “in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States”. Under Article 82, the Parliament can appoint an authority

after each decennial census to determine the seats for each state. But the problem is that while the states in the South took to family planning in a big way, the ‘BIMARU’ states lagged behind. Therefore, any mechanical enforcement of the ratio of seats to population will not do.

This writer first noticed the political imbalance that would creep in if the revision was done merely on the basis of population, after the 1981 census. Since then, the imbalance has become even more

pronounced.

The problem is as follows: Between 1981-91, the decadal growth rate of population (in percentage) for the ‘BIMARU’ states was: Bihar (23.54); MP (26.84);Rajasthan (28.44);UP (25.85). As against this,

the decadal growth rate of the four southern states was: Kerala (14.32); Tamil Nadu (15.39);Karnataka (21.12); and Andhra Pradesh (24.20). The gap between the ‘BIMARU’ and the southern states got wider the following decade between 1991-2001. Here, the ‘BIMARU’ states’ growth rate was as follows; Bihar (28.62); MP (24.26); Rajasthan (28.41); and UP (25.85). As against this, the percentage growth in the South was: Kerala (9.43); Tamil Nadu (11.72); Karnataka (17.51); and Andhra Pradesh (14.59).

As can be seen here, the population growth rate in the southern states is half or even one-third of that in the ‘BIMARU’ states. Finally, when we come to the decade 2001-2011, the difference becomes rather glaring. During this decade the ‘BIMARU’ growth rate was: Bihar (25.07); MP (20.30); Rajasthan (21.44); and UP (20.09), whereas in the South, it was as follows: Kerala (4.86); Tamil Nadu (15.60); Karnataka (15.67); and Andhra Pradesh (11.10).

As can be seen from this data, while Bihar's population increased by 28.62 per cent between 1991-2001, Kerala’s population grew by just 9.43 per cent; again, while Bihar's population grew by over 25 per cent between 2001-2011, Kerala’s grew by just 4.86 per cent. Similarly, as against Bihar’s high growth rate,

Tamil Nadu’s population grew by 11.72 per cent and 15.60 per cent in the two decades in question.The contrast is quite obvious with respect to other southern states as well.

The contrast between the ‘BIMARU’ states and some states in the East and the West is also quite pronounced in the last 20 years. For example, in the East, Orissa’s decadal growth rate has been just 16.25 per cent between 1991-2001 and 13.97 in 2001-2011. In the West, Goa’s decadal growth rate was just 15.21 per cent and 8.17 per cent in the two decades in question.

So, would there be any justification to revise the strength of the Lok Sabha without a formula to give weightage to the more responsible states in the South, East and West?

The strength of the Lok Sabha and the legislatures was frozen in 1976 until the first census after the year 2000. The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government considered the revision in 2003 but had to abandon it after the argument for weightage for the South gained ground. It therefore decided to put a freeze on the strength of the House until the census after the year 2026, which, in effect means, after 2031, the year of the decennial census. Apart from the danger of enfeeblement of the South and a few other states, an upward revision of the strength of the Lok Sabha has other implications.

If you have one MP for one million people, the Lok Sabha will have 1300 MPs. Who will manage this unwieldy House, when the Speaker is seen struggling to contain the slanging matches in the current

545-member Assembly? In any case, there cannot be an upward revision of the strength of the Lok Sabha until a formula is hammered out to give due weightage to all states with a lower birth rate over the last fifty years. Such a formula will have to give an incentive to these states. More importantly, they will have to ensure, for example, that the current ratio between Kerala and Uttar Pradesh (20:80 or 1:4) is not altered to the disadvantage of Kerala. This will require the amendment of Article 81, which merely talks of numbers.

No reasonable person will accept the proposition that states which were so irresponsible as to allow reckless population growth will be rewarded, while states that sincerely implemented the government's family planning programme will be punished!

However, if there is resistance from the ‘BIMARU’ states to such a formula that will protect the interests of the four Southern states and some states like Orissa and Goa, the strength of the Lok Sabha

should be frozen forever!

(The author is Chairman, Prasar Bharati

Email: suryamedia@gmail.com)