Telling Tall Tales is a fortnightly column by Tara Krishnaswamy on matters that matter.
Chew on this. The five southern states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu put together are projected to add 2.9 crores of population from 2011-36. Uttar Pradesh alone will likely add 5.8 crores – double that of the south – in the same period. Bihar's population is projected to grow at 42% during this time by the National Commission on Population.
With the imminent census and looming delimitation, one can deduce the composition of Lok Sabha, ex ante. The political representation of south India might fall from 140 of 543 seats, to 165 of 848, as per Carnegie Endowment's analysis. Its heft will diminish from 25% to 19%, that is, from over a quarter of the Lok Sabha to less than a fifth.
What aggravates matters is that the south is already carrying an economic cross. The 20% of Indian population that lives in the southern states generates more than 30% of India's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) while the 26% that lives in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar generates upwards of 13% of the GDP. As a consequence, for every rupee received by the five southern states as their share of taxes, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar together received five times as much.
High population, low human development indicators, and poor economic outcomes of states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar make them reliant on external receipts. This phenomenon has already been mulcting southern (and some other states) economically, but now threatens to also politically devalue the south.
Delimitation of constituencies within states is a numbers game where every voter is theoretically equal, rich or poor, employed or jobless, healthy and educated, or not; and the more, the merrier.
A perverse challenge faces the Union of India. Demographic conquest will result in the democratic defeat of the south. Delimitation will rightly redeem the one person, one vote covenant for the more populous, under-represented states. However, it will extract painful pounds of flesh from the south.
Uttar Pradesh and Bihar will likely net 222 of 848 seats. They are already outsized, with 120 of 543 seats – 22% of the Lok Sabha – but will rise to behemoth proportions at 26%, per projections. The south will be belittled for controlling demography and expanding economy, and forced to cede political capital, to their own detriment. A double negative externality — economic burden and political diminution.
Political scientists have suggested a balance of power by tweaking the Rajya Sabha, knowing well that the Upper House is subordinate in powers to the Lok Sabha. This is a vexed issue but certain observations surface. Below are two approaches for affected states to consider in their dialogue with the Union.
I. Political concessions
Uttar Pradesh is not uniformly poor. Broadly, its western parts are significantly better off, its central portions struggling, and its east, worse off. It is not a novel idea to consider dividing the state accordingly, and is not a hostile ask. The population of the divided states will still be entitled to the same enhanced volume of representation. The plus is that its constituent parts can pursue different economic and political trajectories.
This advantages not only the people of Uttar Pradesh with better possibilities of human development and economic outcomes, but also benefactor states in the south and west. The better off western and central parts of Uttar Pradesh, in the short and medium terms, may be able to reduce their lean on others' purse strings.
Fewer voters also makes it easier for new political formations to win elections. State divisions, starting with Andhra Pradesh from Madras; Telangana from Andhra Pradesh; Bihar from Bengal; and Jharkhand from Odisha and Bihar, have all thrown up new platforms.
Similar reasoning could be considered for splitting up Bihar, but would not apply to Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra, which, though large, have regulated fertility and population growth rates.
The other reason to consider spawning states from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is the adverse effect of their population rise on political decision making in the Union. As homogenous political units, they will be able to sway the pendulum very far towards the Gangetic plains, achieving hegemonic status within the Lok Sabha. While national ruling parties may be tempted to leave these states untouched if it is to their current advantage, it will boomerang when electoral fortunes reverse. It is detrimental to the stability of the Union at large, when one or two states overbear and overshadow national decisions.
It also obligates the Union to change its tack with states that are falling far behind, regardless of who runs them, instead of simply shovelling money at them, year after year. This brings us to the second approach.
II. Economic unshackling
At least 10 large states – Maharashtra, Karnataka, Haryana, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal – receive under a rupee for equivalent contribution. The rest of their taxes go towards funding the priorities of other states or the Union. Their hands are further shackled with tied funds. Yet, these are the very states with lower populations and higher potential, even in the short-term. Untying their share of devolutions can provide the economic breathing room needed to boost growth and salve their economic penalties.
This would mean that the Union micromanages only those states that are not special-category, but whose external receipts exceed a rupee for a rupee. Tied grants could be limited in geography to such underperforming states, and in scope, to their nutritional, health, and educational outcomes.
In addition, monies derived from benefactor states' contributions that are earmarked for sharing with non-special category beneficiary states, could be held in a distinct wallet, separate from Union monies. Such monies, coming at the cost of public goods and citizen welfare in the home states, may not be shared unconditionally with beneficiary states. It should be disbursed only as tied grants for human development, and not for non-critical, discretionary expenditures.
Transferring benefactor states' monies into a black hole in beneficiary states is unjustifiable public expense in a country with deprivation, indignity, and lack of opportunity, even in benefactor states.
For instance, Maharashtra's contributions that are out of reach of Vidarbha's long-suffering farmers, and transferred to, say, Uttar Pradesh, should be channelled towards nutrition or maternal health schemes, not media blitz for its government. Similarly, Karnataka's money, that is unavailable to the women of Raichur, should go towards Madhya Pradesh's Pubic Health Centres or Public Distribution System, but not state-sponsored festival celebrations. This way, the progress against human development of the beneficiary states can be measured, and devolutions reworked.
It is a common sense move towards self-sufficiency of beneficiary states and attempts to break the coupling of lack of accountability and fiscal dependency. The Union's current approach is rank opposite. It grips the reins of benefactor states tight, and allows beneficiary states a long leash, due to which the better-off states are unable to escape the middle income trap, and the lesser-off states are unable to flee the poverty trap.
In summary, India faces Sophie's Choice with delimitation. Neither the population explosion, nor the economic insufficiency of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar can be normalised in the short term. The south can decry and delay, but when delimitation does eventually manifest, the upsurge of Gangetic seats will be immoderate. However, the political dwarfing of the south does not have to be.
India could approach this as a large data problem and distribute to conquer. Chunking high density, low performing states into smaller states, along with prudent fiscal controls may prevent the accumulation of authority in a couple of states, at the cost of others. This will moderate Uttar Pradesh and Bihar's overweening sway upon the Union, and perhaps enable a more balanced transition into a reconfigured India.
Tara Krishnaswamy is a political creature with an urge to write. She works on political and policy communication.
Views expressed are the author's own.