The Complications of Delimitation and Representation in Punjab

If considered along with the effects of Indian Independence, the India-Pakistan Partition and The Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966, Punjab’s representation in the Indian Parliament has already been reduced from a big share to marginal.

(Photo: Chetan Bhakuni/The Quint)

The state of Punjab is facing a crisis of representation in the Indian Parliament. The state derives its name, identity, culture, and history from a sub-nationalistic idea that has suffered multiple alterations and revisions over centuries and has historically held a sentiment of injustice within the Indian nation. This feeling of injustice is also caused partly by the reduction of representation that the state has endured in the 20th century. Representation is again expected to reduce, as recent events indicate, due to the upcoming delimitation exercise. In fact, if considered along with the effects of Indian Independence, the India-Pakistan Partition and The Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966, Punjab’s representation in the Indian Parliament has already been reduced from a big share to marginal. The upcoming delimitation exercise threatens to decrease it further. 

What is Delimitation?

Delimitation is a process of redrawing the boundaries of parliamentary and assembly constituencies to reflect changes in population over time. Incorporated in the Indian constitution as The Delimitation Act, the delimitation exercise is carried out every 10 years and is based on the population data of the most recent census. The first three delimitation exercises, i.e. 1952, 1963 and 1973, followed this mandate and the total number of constituencies kept increasing with the increasing population.

The representation of different states in the Parliament also kept changing as the definitions and boundaries of states evolved in the first three decades after independence. However, the proportion of seats was not changed following the 1973 delimitation. Through the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act 1976, the central government froze the total number of Parliamentary and State Assembly seats till the completion of the 2001 census.

The rationale behind this was that the nation was pushing family planning as a national agenda and states that had a higher proportion of seats in the parliament also had higher fertility rates and thus a higher population per Lok Sabha seat. Interstate delimitation would’ve meant that states with higher population growth rates would have gained LS seats increasing their proportional representation in the Lok Sabha. As regional identities were shaping up along linguistic lines, interstate delimitation would’ve potentially destabilised the young nation.

The next delimitation exercise that started in 2002 kept the number of seats in both national and state assemblies frozen. The issue was kept pending for almost 7 years due to the deep concerns of some states and eventually, the Supreme Court had to intervene to ensure the completion and implementation of the delimitation exercise. The nation came up with the National Population Policy in 2000 wherein a consensus was formed that the discrepancies among the states in terms of population growth will persist till the year 2026. Therefore, through the Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act 2002, the freeze on interstate delimitation was kept on till the next census after 2026.

History of Punjab’s Representation

Punjab’s representation in the national assembly has dwindled over the decades due to multiple historical events. The Punjab of yore was a much bigger entity but it has reduced in size as well as political influence due to the partition of India in 1947 and The Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966. Both these events left many unresolved issues that have shaped the politics of the region ever since. Even though the size of Punjab was reduced, the aspirations of Punjabis, having played an outsized role in the independence movement, remained intact. These events led to a feeling of betrayal among Punjabis. The unfilled Anandpur Sahib Resolution of 1973, the unimplemented Rajiv–Longowal Accord of 1985, and the political violence that the state witnessed from the 1970s to 1990s were direct outcomes of this sense of betrayal.

To paint a clearer picture, let’s take a look at the representation of Punjab in the national assembly in numbers. In the 1945 Indian general election for the Central Legislative Assembly, Punjab elected 12 members out of the 102 elected members. Provincial elections were held in British India in January 1946 to elect members of the legislative councils of the Indian provinces. Out of the 1585 seats that India voted for, 175 were from Punjab. The proportional representation of Punjab in the national scene in both these elections was above 11%.

When the constituent assembly was elected in 1946, Punjab had an 8.22% share or 32 out of 389 seats. After the members from Sindh, East Bengal, Balochistan, West Punjab and the North West Frontier Province withdrew to form the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in June 1947, the reduced state of Punjab that remained in India was left with a representation of 6.35% i.e. 19 out of 299 seats. In the first general elections of 1951-52, Punjab had 4.70% (23 out of 489 elected seats) representation. Its representation was marginally reduced in the next two elections, 4.45% (22 out of 494 elected seats) in the 1957 and 1962 general elections.

The Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966 was the next watershed moment in the region’s history. It further reduced the area of Punjab state and redistributed it into three states– some areas remained in Punjab, part of it was merged into Himachal Pradesh and a part formed the new state of Haryana. The Lok Sabha seats were also distributed among these states and the absolute numbers were embedded in the Act. Punjab was to get a fixed number of 13 Lok seats as per the Act and it has remained so ever since, even though the total number of seats in Lok Sabha has increased in the ensuing decades further decreasing Punjab’s proportional representation in the Lok Sabha. The representation of the state was 2.50% (13 out of 520 seats) in the 1967 general election, 2.51% (13 out of 518 seats) in the 1971 general election and 2.40% (13 out of 542 seats) in the 1977 general election. In the current election of 2024, Punjab will send 13 Members of Parliament (MPs) out of the 543 total elected Lok Sabha MPs giving her a representation of 2.39%.

Delimitation 2026 and Its Effects on Punjab

2026 is looming but population stabilisation as predicted in the National Population Policy 2000 is yet to be achieved. In fact, the interstate discrepancies in the number of voters per Lok Sabha seat have further increased over these years. According to a 2019 article “India’s Emerging Crisis of Representation” by Milan Vaishnav and Jamie Hintson for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Punjab, along with all the South Indian States will see a decrease in their share of seats based on projected population in different states in 2026. States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Haryana are expected to gain seats in the Lok Sabha. Punjab is expected to lose 1 Lok Sabha seat out of its 13 if the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha remains unchanged.

That will mean a further decrease of 20 percentage points and Punjab’s representation will further decrease to 2.20%. The article provides an alternative using the Webster method of delimitation under which the total number of seats in Lok Sabha is increased in such a manner that no state loses any seat. The minimum number of seats required for such an arrangement is 848. Punjab is expected to get 18 seats in that scenario. The proportion of Punjab’s representation in that case is 2.12% which is even lower. Other delimitation methods might throw up different numbers.

Given the recent events, it seems that the Centre Government is preparing for the second scenario wherein the total number of seats is increased. The construction of the New Parliament House which has a Lok Sabha chamber with 888 seats is a good indication of that. The repeated statements of Haryana BJP leaders like the ex-Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar and Speaker Gian Chand Gupta that Haryana is going to have 126 Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) after 2026 delimitation, up from the current 90, in the context of needing a new Legislative Assembly building, is also an indication of the same. The fact that the 2021 census has not started yet also indicates that the powers that be, are in a hurry to conduct the delimitation exercise. The last amendment in the Delimitation Act requires a census after 2026 for the Delimitation exercise to start. The 2021 census is likely to be delayed so that it can be conducted in 2026 and a delay of 5 years till the 2031 census can be avoided.

If these measures are implemented, Punjab is bound to see an erosion of its representation. With this erosion in representation, a depletion in the funds allocated to the state will follow. A large proportion of funds allocation in the erstwhile Planning Commission was linked to the states’ proportion in representation in the Lok Sabha. Even though the Niti Aayog does not follow the same model, a lesser number of MPs vastly decreases a state’s negotiation power within the Aayog.

Unresolved Issues of the Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966

One of the biggest issues with interstate reapportionment of Lok Sabha seats is the amendments required in the various state reorganization acts. As some of these acts contain the absolute number of Lok Sabha seats that each of the divided or newly formed states gets, these acts will need to be amended to implement any change in the number of Lok Sabha seats in all such states. The Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966 dictates that Punjab get 13 Lok Sabha seats and Haryana get 10 after the reorganization. These absolute numbers mentioned in the act will hamper any new apportionment after the 2026 delimitation and hence require an amendment.

Amending The Punjab Reorganisation Act will open up a pandora’s box. As mentioned earlier in this article, there are several unresolved issues regarding this reorganization and these issues were the primary reason behind the unrest in Punjab in the last quarter of the 20th century. The issues of Punjabi-speaking areas left in Haryana, the transfer of the state capital, Chandigarh to Punjab and the division of river waters are all, either directly or indirectly, linked to The Punjab Reorganisation Act. Any amendment to this act will reignite all of them. Even Haryana’s recent demand for land for a new state assembly in Chandigarh can be seen as a move by the Haryana government to fortify its interests in case of such an amendment.

The Feeling of Injustice and the Way Forward

One of the most widely used expressions in the Punjabi hinterland in the context of Punjab’s relationship with the Centre is “dhakka”, which means injustice. Injustice with Punjab by the Centre is a strong sentiment among Punjabis and one that has driven regional politics ever since the reorganisation. The decline in Punjab’s economic growth in the past two to three decades compared to the rest of the country and recent events like the farmers’ agitation have given a resurgence to this sentiment. Any move that adds fuel to this sentiment has the potential to again destabilise the region. The impending delimitation is clearly one such move.

The feeling of injustice among Punjabis is bound to get strengthened with Haryana getting an increase in its proportional representation in the Lok Sabha while Punjab suffers a decrease. This will be furthered by the fact that to resolve all the long pending issues which emerged with the reorganization of states, The Punjab Reorganisation Act needs to be amended; however, it hasn’t been done in decades despite the then prime minister promising it by signing The Rajiv-Longowal Accord. The Punjab Reorganisation Act will have to be amended to implement delimitation, thus adding to a feeling of injustice among the population.

Delimitation is exercised in almost every democratic nation through different methods like the Jefferson method, Hamilton method, Hill and Huntington method, Quota method, and the Webster method, among others, depending upon the consensus of the nation. The United States of America has changed the method of delimitation at least four times over its history. What method was followed in the previous delimitation exercises in India has never been specified or discussed.

The interests of the ruling parties of the times have prevailed over consensus on the methodology, as was highlighted by AK Verma in his 2006 Economic and Political Weekly Article, “Delimitation In India - Methodological Issues”. In the current circumstance, it is the Punjab leadership’s prerogative to voice its concerns about delimitation. In Tamil Nadu, another state that is bound to lose representation, delimitation is already a huge election issue in the run-up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. While Tamil Nadu might be in danger of losing more seats than Punjab, Punjab faces the much graver issue of losing its political stability. Being a border state with a history of political violence and cross-border interference, its leadership needs to be vocal about delimitation. Silence, as is being currently practised, is definitely not an option.

The impending delimitation needs to become a centrepiece of the political discourse in Punjab. Punjab’s leadership further needs to join forces with the leadership of states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, West Bengal, Orissa, and Karnataka, and initiate a discussion on which delimitation method should the country adopt in order to address the concerns of every state. Another demand that needs to be immediately pressed upon is the quick completion of the 2021 census so that impending delimitation is at least pushed till after the 2031 census, thereby granting the parties time to reach a consensus on the issue.

(Garry Birring is a sitting MLA from the state of Punjab. He is an engineer by education, with a Masters degree in Business Administration from the University of Oxford, England. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)