Last Updated:
India’s delimitation debate heats up as BJP’s Murli Manohar Joshi backs redefining Lok Sabha by 2026 in a book’s foreward. Authors propose equal-sized states to balance electoral weight.
MM Joshi points out that many on the constitution drafting committee were disappointed by the inclusion of Gandhi’s views on rural India and Panchayati Raj. (Image: PTI)
India is witnessing a growing controversy surrounding delimitation, a process set to redefine the Lok Sabha’s composition based on population by 2026. This debate, particularly heated in the South, has brought to light the nuanced perspective of BJP veteran Murli Manohar Joshi, as expressed in his foreword for the book ‘Delimitation and States Reorganisation: For a better democracy in Bharat.’ The authors of the book, published by Blueone Ink Pvt Ltd, are Gautam Desiraju and Deekhit Bhattacharya.
Joshi appears to support delimitation, crediting Jan Sangh founder Deen Dayal Upadhyay’s vision of autonomous areas for the NDA’s creation of Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh. He invokes Upadhyay to emphasise the need for smaller administrative units and highlights the shortcomings of the draft Constitution, citing Kamalapathi Tripathi’s concerns. Joshi’s core belief rests on prioritising economic democracy, suggesting a shift beyond the current one-person-one-vote system.
This proposition might raise eyebrows even in the south. Joshi points out that many on the constitution drafting committee were disappointed by the inclusion of Gandhi’s views on rural India and Panchayati Raj. He highlights Upadhyay’s proposal for a commission to reorganize state boundaries, quoting the Jan Sangh’s 1952 resolution advocating for smaller, autonomous units based on administrative, economic, developmental, and security considerations.
“It may be of interest that Bharatiya Jan Sangh with Pt Deen Dayal Upadhyay as its founding General Secretary adopted a resolution in its very first plenary session (1952) suggesting the reorganisation of the proposed ad hoc provincial units (states) into smaller autonomous administrative units (Janpad) based on administrative, economic, developmental and security considerations,” writes Joshi.
Joshi credits Upadhyay’s vision for the formation of Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand.
UP = BIHAR = TAMIL NADU = KARNATAKA?
The book’s authors, Gautam Desiraju and Deekhit Bhattacharya, delve into Indira Gandhi’s decision to freeze delimitation based on 1971 figures, a move perceived as politically motivated and perpetuated by Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s extension until 2026. They propose a radical solution: a reconstructed political map with states of roughly equal size, thereby eliminating the north-south divide by balancing electoral weight and removing the distinction between north and south.
“The north–south divide itself would have been non-existent if states were roughly equally sized, as no one state would have disproportionate electoral heft, and nor would a clear dividing line exist between north and south, as none of the large northern states would exist in identifiable (and hence, targetable) forms,” the authors argue.
The authors cite Ambedkar and KM Panikkar’s dissenting note on the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, highlighting the disproportionate influence of larger states like Uttar Pradesh. They advocate for states with similar populations, deeming a 50-year delimitation freeze unhealthy for the current parliamentary and assembly constituency structure.
“…all states should be of roughly similar population. Freezing delimitation for a full fifty years is no solution… The present condition of our parliamentary and assembly constituency limits is not healthy,” the authors summarise.
75 STATES, TWEAK RAJYA SABHA, CONSTITUTION STILL IMPORTANT?
Desiraju and Bhattacharya envision a future India where the Constitution is not a static document but a dynamic framework for governance. “The Constitution has been reduced to being a frozen book of commandments which has descended from the skies, instead of being a fluvial documentation of governance which adjusts as the nation forges its own path of progress,” say the authors, adding that Nehru had stated that the Constitution was merely a ‘basis for further work’. The authors quote the ironman of India, Sardar Patel, having pronounced, ‘This Constitution is for a period of ten years’.
This is the beginning of a lot of unsettling by the authors in pursuit of Bharat. To achieve their vision of a balanced and prosperous India, the authors propose significant constitutional changes, including a more equitable distribution of power between the Union and state governments. Their radical proposal for 2025: seventy-five states with approximately 20 million people each.
Furthermore, they call for a debate on the relevance of the Rajya Sabha in its current form, suggesting alternatives such as a US Senate-like structure with equal representation for each state.
“Delimitation and States Reorganisation: For a better democracy in Bharat” goes beyond a timely intervention in a crucial political debate. It sparks discussion with its radical yet feasible ideas. With proposals like equal-sized states and Joshi calling it “the need of the hour,” the question remains: how will the government and opposition, especially in the south, respond?
