To the dictionary of election terminology in India a new word has now been added that is delimitation. The redrawing of constituency boundaries at periodical intervals to adjust them to demographic changes is a well established practice in many democracies of the world. In India, we have managed to mystify the exercise and render it enormously complex.

The freeze on delimitation imposed in 1976 as part of the omnibus 42nd Constitution Amendment brought by Indira Gandhi was to assuage the fears of the southern states that their population planning might result in the loss of their share of Lok Sabha seats. The freeze to last till the Census of 2001 resulted in enormous disparities in constituency sizes. The dithering of successive governments in resuming the process thereafter, the manner in which the Delimitation Commission went about the task when it was eventually set up and the fear psychosis of many of our MPs about constituency changes have all helped to delay the process further. Nevertheless, the fact is, once after it happened, our politicians have shown remarkable alacrity in adjusting to the reality of delimited constituencies.

The impact

As our lumbering election process moves from one phase to another, some questions are now being raised. What are the implications of delimitation and to what extent will it influence the outcome? For the country as a whole, the average population per Lok Sabha constituency is now about 20 lakhs. Some disparities still persist at the interstate level. In Tamil Nadu, there is one Lok Sabha seat for every 16 lakhs of people whereas it is 20 in UP and 22 in Rajasthan. Still the disparity is far less than before and the variation within each state is minimum.

The question is whether the size of a constituency impacts the outcome. If the number of voters is very large, it is not possible for a candidate to reach all of them and the tendency will be to concentrate on the vote banks. It is also known that when the candidates are numerous, the votes cast are split. Because of our ?first past the post? system, majority of our MPs are elected on a minority of votes. In the 2004 general elections 93 got less than 40% of the votes cast and another 213 got less than 50%. It remains to be seen whether the resizing of the constituencies will alter the picture.

Next is the issue of SC/ST representation. As a result of delimitation, the number of SC seats has gone up from 79 in the last Lok Sabha to 84. The increase is small but it should be noted these additional SC seats are at the expense of the general seats. The change in the Assembly seats is more important.

In Andhra Pradesh, the SC seats in the Assembly have gone up from 39 to 48, in Maharashtra from 18 to 28 and in West Bengal from 59 to 68. UP has actually lost four SC seats from 89 to 85 as a result of the delimitation. The impact of this shift in SC seats and their geographical spread within a state will have to be assessed after the polls are concluded.

The divide

In 1971 only about 20% of the country?s population lived in rural areas. As compared to this, the 2001 Census indicates the country?s urban population to be about 28%. Much of this urban growth has taken place in metropolitan cities and other large agglomerations. In many parts of the country, we thus face the phenomenon of grossly under-represented urban areas and over-represented rural constituencies. The 2008 delimitation has had to grapple with this problem.

However, the task of identifying constituencies as urban or rural is not that easy. Utilising disaggregated data from the Delimitation Commission, the CSDS Delhi, has indicated that out of 540 Lok Sabha constituencies 342 are rural in the sense the rural population in these constituencies is 75% or more, in another 54 the urban population is predominant to the extent of 75% or more, while in the rest the rural and urban population are mixed in varying proportions. The predominantly urban constituencies are therefore just about 10% of the total Lok Sabha strength, which itself is not an adequate reflection of the 2001 Census. Further detailed examination may reveal a larger number depending on what percentage of urban population is taken as a cut off. The increase in urban constituencies will be more evident in the State Assemblies. It is estimated that the urban seats in the Maharashtra Assembly may go up from 90 to 120, in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh the increase may be about 25 seats and in West Bengal and Karnataka about 20.

Eye opener

Who are the contestants and what is their background? The matter used to be almost a mystery. The 2004 general elections was the first after the Supreme Court?s decision on disclosure by all candidates, of their assets and liabilities, educational background and criminal antecedents, if any. Civil society groups in many states, broadly identified as Election Watch came up, compiled the information from the affidavits and publicised the substance to the voters. Since then, an extensive network of Election Watch groups has come up in the country. For the 2009 elections, in addition to the Election Watch Groups, some NGOs have also attempted to prepare profiles of candidates in some constituencies of some cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Kolkata and Chennai. A few of these constituencies such as Malkajgiri or Chevella in Hyderabad and Bangalore Central are post delimitation urban constituencies. Are the characteristics of the contestants any different? From whatever information is available, this does not appear to be the case. The major parties have made their choice on the basis of political background or caste affiliation rather than any urban specialisation. Here again a more detailed analysis of the candidates contesting assembly seats especially those which have been carved out by delimitation may be of interest.

Whatever their initial fears, the political set up in the country have accepted delimitation as an inevitable reality and have adjusted their choice of candidates and electoral strategies suitably. Till the country?s population stabilises, changes in the demographic composition of the constituencies will have to be faced. The only way to deal with this is periodical delimitation as envisaged by the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Fourteenth Lok Sabha has done a disservice to the country and diminished the value of the cardinal principle of parity of vote by providing that delimitation will now be resumed only after the Census of 2026 which means the Census of 2031. By then the data base of the 2008 delimitation will have become 30 years old. Demographic disparities will surface again. After moving from the ?freeze? of 1972 to the ?defreeze? of 2008, we shall be covered once again by a ?refreeze? until after 2031. In the process yet another organising principle of constitution and democracy will be devalued.

The writer is Chairman, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi and the views expressed are personal

By the LAW

The Constitution and the Delimitation Law specify that as far as practicable, the ratio between population and a Lok Sabha seat will be similar within states and also between them. Because of the freeze over the years, this ratio has been vastly undermined. The oft repeated examples are of Chandni Chowk with 3.6 lakhs voters contrasted to outer Delhi of 28.2 lakhs or Thane with 27.71 lakhs voters compared to 7.19 lakhs in Mumbai south. The 2008 delimitation has significantly reduced this disparity.

The pattern

The recent delimitation has not followed any uniform approach in regard to the administrative units which are to be used as the building blocks for an assembly constituency. Out of 25 states where delimitation has been carried out, only in six delimitation and census units are the same. While it may be possible to characterise Assembly segments as rural or urban, this is difficult in the case of Parliament constituencies as these segments may not be uniform.