Editorial 1: Taking India back to the drawing board
Context
- The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2023, which promises 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha, and in the Legislative Assemblies of States and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, sheds the spotlight on another crucial aspect of representative democracy — the delimitation of electoral constituencies.
History
- Since the 1970s, there has been no change in the number of Lok Sabha seats. The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 froze the delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies as per the Census of 1971, up to the Census which was to be conducted in 2001.
- However, in 2001, the day of reckoning was pushed further to 2026. This was done through an amendment to Article 82 by the Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act.
- While the boundaries of electoral constituencies were redrawn in 2002, there was no change in the number of seats in the Lok Sabha.
- Only after 2026 will we consider changing the number of seats in the Lok Sabha.
- Strictly speaking, the relevant numbers as to population are expected to come from the 2031 Census, which will be the first census after 2026.
Delimitation as of now
- Article 81 of the Constitution says that each State gets seats in the Lok Sabha in proportion to its population.
- The freeze on delimitation effected in 1976 was to allay the concerns of States which took a lead in population control and which were faced with the prospect of reduction of their number of seats in the Lok Sabha.
- The practical consequences, however, of the 1976 freeze is that the allocation done on the basis of the 1971 Census continues to hold good for the present population figures.
- India’s population has, of course, increased significantly since then. Using figures from 1971 to represent today’s population runs contrary to the grain of the Constitution besides obviously distorting what representative democracy stands for.
- The exercise of delimitation also implicates the constitutional values of federalism and representation of States as consolidated units.
- In the preceding decades, the population of the north has increased at a faster pace as compared with the south. In practical terms, this means that MPs in States in north India represent more voters than MPs in the south.
- Given this context, the question of delimitation necessarily has serious implications for both the individual voter as well as the States.
Delimitation in the near future
- The delimitation of constituencies will need answers to certain vexed questions.
- The 2021 Census was pushed courtesy of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Union Home Minister has indicated that the next Census and subsequent delimitation will be conducted after the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.
- Even more vexed are the qualitative concerns that will determine how boundaries of electoral constituencies will be redrawn.
- If done entirely in terms of proportion of population, the redrawing of constituencies would yield more seats to States in the north, given their higher population.
- Besides concerns around representation, this will also lead to distrust on the part of States in the south.
Way forward
- The recently concluded delimitation in Assam, ahead of the 2024 Assembly elections, witnessed widespread concerns around how altering the boundaries of certain districts and renaming certain constituencies can have a potentially acute impact on the representation of specific communities. That is all the indication needed to start a robust conversation around delimitation sooner than later.
Editorial 2: An economic corridor, the Israel link and the geopolitics
Context
- The 2023 summit of the G-20 under India’s presidency went exceptionally well given the group’s limited economic approach to the complex issues that the world faces, from climate change and underdevelopment, wealth concentration and poverty and, most critically for our times, falling democratic norms and principles of peace.
The G20 summit in India
- India’s remarkable success at the summit this year, in early September, was captured by the global press, except in China, for various outcomes such as the inclusion of the African Union in the G-20, a tangible offer of clean energy through a biofuel alliance, increasing substantial aid for Asia-Africa, an economic corridor that connects India, West Asia and Europe using an ambitious rail and shipping link, and the Delhi Declaration which was a joint statement of all the group.
A candid view
- The joint statement called the Delhi Declaration is newsworthy because of the fractured international order and power struggles between India and the United States with China or the U.S. with Russia.
- Despite the absence of China’s President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the summit, India still got their agreement for the declaration which sums up the achievement.
- Substantially speaking, the statement is pareve as it does not name Russia for aggression against Ukraine; but it does evoke the United Nations charter and principles of territorial sovereignty.
- But the boldest outcome, and unanticipated by many, was the announcement of the economic corridor (the “India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor”), of a rail-ship route, to transport goods to Europe from India via the United Arab Emirates-Saudi Arabia-Jordan-Israel.
- Such a project will change the geopolitics for the future. The fact that it challenges China’s Belt and Road Initiative is beside the more significant point.
Israel’s absence, possible factors
- India ‘set a precedent in G20 history by inviting the most Middle Eastern countries ever to take part as guests in the group’s key summit’, and one wonders why Israel, India’s strategic partner also from the region, was not given such an invitation.
- As a host, India invited nine non-member countries — Bangladesh, Egypt, Mauritius, Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Singapore, Spain, and the United Arab Emirates — to the summit.
- Perhaps factors such as a meet between Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Mr. Netanyahu may have been impossible unless there was diplomatic normalisation.
A push for peace
- Saudi Arabia is willing to end the diplomatic boycott of Israel.
- It is a historical change because such an acceptance of Israel by the most important, religiously speaking, Muslim country, will help Israel with other countries such as Pakistan (already willing), Indonesia and Malaysia.
- For such a change, Saudis demand that Israel commits to the two-state solution and the well-being of the Palestinian people, even if the occupation does not end soon.
Way forward
- Israel-Palestine peace is a very challenging aim and given the rise of extremism on both sides, it appears all the more impossible. Saudi Arabia is aware of it and is still interested in having deliberations to walk smoothly among Arabs and other Muslims while working with the Biden administration to make peace with the State of Israel. The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor will have to wait until this happens.
