Key resolutions were passed in the meeting, including a demand to extend the current delimitation freeze beyond 2026 and a call to protect the parliamentary representation of Southern states, which could be disproportionately affected due to their success in population control.
Published Mar 06, 2025 | 11:17 AM ⚊ Updated Mar 06, 2025 | 11:17 AM
Critics argue that delimitation based on current population would affect the representation of Southern states. (iStock)
Synopsis: The Tamil government convened an all-party meeting to oppose the proposed delimitation based on the 2026 Census. While some political analysts side with the argument that it would affect the representation of states that successfully implemented population control strategies, others argue that it was a fair move.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin convened an all-party meeting on Wednesday, 5 March, to discuss concerns over the proposed parliamentary constituency delimitation based on the 2026 Census data.
The meeting saw participation of 56 political parties, including the AIADMK and Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), while five parties — BJP, Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK), Tamil Maanila Congress, and two others — boycotted it. Discussions revolved around the potential impact of delimitation on Tamil Nadu’s political representation, despite the absence of any official announcement from the Union government.
Key resolutions were passed in the meeting, including a demand to extend the current delimitation freeze beyond 2026 and a call to protect the parliamentary representation of Southern states, which could be disproportionately affected due to their success in population control.
The meeting also resolved to form a joint action committee comprising MPs and representatives from Southern states to collectively oppose any move that could diminish their political influence.
Political commentator TN Ragu told South First that the DMK is rightly taking a strong stance against delimitation, emphasising that states that have effectively controlled their population growth should not be penalised.
He stressed the need for Southern states to unite in opposition to any delimitation move that could weaken their representation. According to Ragu, the threat posed by delimitation is real, and a strong, united stance is essential to counteract it effectively.
On the other hand, senior journalist and political commentator Malan Narayanan told South First that no formal delimitation process has been initiated yet. In 2023, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju stated in Parliament that delimitation would take place after the next population census.
“Given that the 2021 census was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the next census may be conducted in 2026, with completion taking at least a year. Under Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution, parliamentary and assembly constituencies must be redrawn based on the latest census data, a process that could take three years. This raises questions about why an all-party meeting was convened now, creating a sense of urgency,” he said.
Malan suggested that the sudden emphasis on this issue appears to be a calculated political move. “The Tamil Nadu government is facing widespread dissatisfaction across multiple sectors, including transport, electricity, agriculture, and education. Recent protests by government employees and teachers forced swift negotiations,” he said.
“Additionally, Tamil Nadu’s financial crisis is a pressing concern, with even the education minister admitting difficulties in paying salaries due to delayed central funds. With the state budget scheduled for 15 March —the last full-fledged budget before the 2026 elections — the DMK is under pressure to announce welfare measures despite financial constraints. By shifting focus to delimitation, the party aims to consolidate voter support and set the stage for the 2026 election as a battle between the state and the Centre,” he added.
Despite concerns about Tamil Nadu losing parliamentary representation, Malan argued that these fears may be misplaced. If constituencies are redrawn strictly based on population, Tamil Nadu may not lose seats but instead see an increase from 39 to 41.
This challenges the prevailing political outcry and raises questions about whether the DMK is leveraging the issue more for political gain than for a genuine resolution.
From a national perspective, delimitation is expected to create political turbulence. The most populated North Indian states — Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh — stand to gain more parliamentary seats, increasing their influence in national policymaking.
Ragu asserted that the redistribution of seats based on population size will inevitably favour these states, making it imperative for Tamil Nadu and other Southern states to challenge the move collectively.
Regardless of the methodology used — whether proportional or pro-rata — Uttar Pradesh will always have a higher number of constituencies due to its significantly larger population. Malan argued that concerns over Tamil Nadu receiving fewer constituencies are thus misplaced.
Even parties like the AIADMK and PMK — traditionally at odds with the DMK — acknowledged the gravity of the issue.
AIADMK leader Edappadi K Palaniswami recently reaffirmed that the DMK remains his party’s primary political adversary, yet AIADMK representatives attended the meeting, recognizing the risk of appearing indifferent to Tamil Nadu’s interests.
The AIADMK had also opposed the BJP-led Union government on the three-language policy, demonstrating its willingness to take a stand on key state-related matters.
Malan argued that issues concerning linguistic and state rights compel opposition parties to align with the ruling party. Failing to do so risks being labeled as betraying Tamil identity ahead of the 2026 elections.
“This forces all political parties to back the DMK’s stance, preventing the fragmentation of anti-DMK votes. The resolutions passed in the meeting, while symbolically significant, are unlikely to yield concrete policy changes, as the Union government is not legally obligated to act upon them,” he said.
Dravidar Kazhagam leader K Veeramani criticised the absence of certain parties, stating that those who boycotted the meeting missed an opportunity to advocate for Tamil Nadu’s interests.
The BJP dismissed the meeting as fear mongering, while NTK and Tamil Maanila Congress abstained without prior intimation.
Ragu noted that NTK’s absence is particularly notable, as it may stem from its leader Seeman’s personal and political differences with the DMK.
Given recent tensions between Seeman and the state government, NTK’s non-participation appears to be a strategic political move rather than a policy-driven decision.
Seeman has historically taken isolated stances on key political matters, and this instance follows that pattern.
Ragu stressed the importance of Tamil Nadu forging alliances with other southern states — particularly Telangana, Kerala, and Karnataka — to present a united front against the BJP-led Union government.
However, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s position remains uncertain due to his cautious approach toward the BJP, especially in light of unexpected election outcomes in Maharashtra and Haryana. This evolving political landscape might influence Naidu’s stance on the issue.
Malan noted that Telangana has already voiced its opposition to delimitation, with both the BRS and Congress registering objections.
Kerala is expected to fully support Tamil Nadu, as it is likely to be the most affected state due to its successful population control measures. Karnataka’s Congress government may also align with this movement, using it as an additional point against the BJP.
However, Malan argued that while these objections may generate political “noise,” they are unlikely to translate into an impactful “voice” capable of driving policy change.
Malan contended that the demand to defer constituency delimitation for another 30 years lacks logical consistency. “The core principle of the Lok Sabha is proportional representation based on population, and if the population has grown, parliamentary representation must be adjusted accordingly,” he said.
“While states that have successfully controlled their populations may not see an increase in seats, they have already reaped benefits in the form of better economic conditions, governance, and welfare measures. Since the Lok Sabha exists to represent the people, opposing a population-based redistribution of seats is not a rational stance,” he argued.
In contrast, Ragu warned that delimitation is not merely an electoral exercise but a critical issue that could significantly alter Tamil Nadu’s representation in Parliament.
Although the exact methodology and timeline remain unclear, he highlighted the risk of Southern states losing seats to Northern states with higher population growth. Ragu stressed that it was not just a DMK-versus-BJP debate but a larger fight for federal equity.
He called for Tamil Nadu and other Southern states to set aside political differences and unite to safeguard their representation. Supporting his argument, he referred to the “One Person, One Vote, One Value” principle, which underscores the democratic ideal that every vote should carry equal weight.
Ragu argued that if delimitation disproportionately favored states with higher population growth, it could violate this fundamental principle by granting greater political influence to certain regions while diminishing the voice of states that have successfully controlled their population.
“This is a moment that demands collective action. If we fail to act now, Tamil Nadu’s voice in national policy making could be permanently weakened,” Ragu cautioned.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
