Decentralisation: The Optimal Path Forward, According to Leading Data Expert

The suggested delimitation plan is flawed and impractical, leading to understandable concerns among southern states and their politicians, according to a prominent data analyst based in Chennai.

“They face the risk of diminishing political influence and relevance amid the forthcoming conflict over delimitation, which may significantly curtail their representation in Parliament,” states Nilakantan RS.

If the seats in the Lok Sabha are redistributed based on the last census data from 2011, the effects on seat distribution could be substantial. With northern India experiencing a comparatively rapid population growth, using current population figures for seat allocation would result in states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Kerala losing Lok Sabha seats, while states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh stand to gain.

The end result would be an increase in constituencies in northern states, disproportionately elevating their representation, which would severely disadvantage southern states that consistently outperform the North on numerous metrics, including per capita income, central tax contributions, infrastructure, healthcare, and education.

Coping with the population growth from the North

The South also exhibits higher urbanization, lower infant mortality rates, and greater life expectancy. The contention is that the South is subsidizing the North while shouldering the consequences of the North’s population growth, unemployment, poverty, inadequate infrastructure, and

“If I have one child and my neighbor has 10, should I bear the costs of my neighbor?” questions Nilakantan, who has written a bestselling book titled ‘South vs North: India’s Great Divide’.

Nilakantan expresses concern that India is moving towards extreme centralization, which has historically led to

“We must dramatically limit the powers of the Union government so that these resource allocation dilemmas can be addressed at the state level. States would fulfill their own requirements first and then transfer necessary revenue to the Union for its essential functions like defense and foreign affairs. Alternatively, the Union could halt expenditures on state matters. A practical first step would be to dismantle central flagship programs and return those funds to the states,” he suggests.

Nilakantan adds: “In the 2025 Union Budget, central flagship programs represent a major portion of the budget. Why shouldn’t this financial support be redirected back to the states? Why should the central government interfere with state language policies, which should remain within the purview of the states?”

Any future delimitation, likely occurring after 2026, will need to effectively balance two fundamental principles – federalism and the idea of ‘one person, one vote, one value’. Aren’t these principles vital to the constitutional rearrangement of constituencies that is mandated every decade following a census?

However, Nilakantan is not entirely persuaded. He believes that decentralization, rather than delimitation, is the key solution. “While there are no easy answers, what is certainly needed is equitable representation of the will of the populace in how they are governed. The delimitation process jeopardizes that,” he asserts.

As per government surveys, the three southern states boast a per capita income that is three times higher than that of the three least affluent states. Over the last 25 years, the income disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest of the 12 largest states has widened, now exceeding a staggering 300% gap.

Recent comments by Union Home Minister asserting that southern states would retain all their parliamentary seats post-delimitation have sparked strong backlash from both the ruling Congress party and the opposition Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) in Telangana.

The Tamil Nadu government has convened a meeting of southern Chief Ministers on March 5 to deliberate on delimitation among other topics, symbolizing the significant divide over a matter that political parties have typically approached cautiously until recently.

So, could judicial intervention provide resolution to this complex situation? “Absolutely not. This is a political issue, not a judicial one. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution, while this discussion revolves around the Constitution itself,” Nilakantan argues.