The proportional representation of all states will remain the same even after the government’s bills expanding the strength of the Lok Sabha to 850 and fast-tracking women’s reservation go through, Union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju said in an interview, adding that it will be made clear in Parliament. Follow live updates on special Parliament session today.
Edited excerpts:
The Opposition’s grievance is the timing of the bills. It comes in the middle of elections and sidesteps the ongoing census.
If we bring it before the Lok Sabha elections, they will say that you are bringing it to get benefit …If we don’t do it now, after five months, there’s another round of elections. Then, you will say you are doing it for the Uttar Pradesh elections. Every year there are two rounds of elections… How can you stall the issue and link it with the state elections? It has nothing to do with it. This is a totally undesirable argument being put forward by the Opposition. Let us be very clear, women’s reservation cannot be equated with any kind of political agenda or used for political benefits. The bill was passed earlier, it is only a case of implementation.
Why not wait 10 more days for the elections to get over?
Every day is becoming too big a burden and they are talking about 2-3 weeks (of waiting). Other parties have come, what is their (Congress, TMC, DMK) problem? This is not a mathematical issue. And if we wanted that, we could have done it before the Assam and Kerala elections.
They also want to know the justification for the mechanical 50% increase in seats?
We have already offered this while talking with different political parties, whether it was the NDA allies, the third (neutral) parties or some of the INDI alliance members, only the four —Congress, TMC, Aam Aadmi Party and the Left—did not attend the meeting. All those parties have been briefed that the increase of 50% is because we have to give 33% (seats) to women. And why are we increasing the seats? India is the only democratic nation where each MP represents nearly 25 to 27 lakh. This is the size of a small country. In the UK, the average MP represents 70,000 and yet they have 600 MPs in the House of Commons. India only has 543. In 1971, when the last delimitation was carried out, India’s population was less than 60 crore, today, it’s more than 140 crore. It is a heavy burden for the MPs to represent so many.
Why sidestep the ongoing census?
If we wait, we cannot implement it by 2029. It will take nearly three years because of the caste-based census. You know there are more than 51,000 different castes and it will take a long time to determine who is which caste. Secondly, to go for the delimitation of 543 seats, the commission will go for drafting. And after that, they will go to each location for a public hearing. Do you think that it can be completed in one year?
You have repeatedly said the proportion of states will be maintained. So why is the word proportion missing from the draft bill?
Proportionately the representation from the states will remain the same. It will be clearly stated when the bill is introduced. The proportionate thing is based on the population within the state.
The draft says the delimitation commission will decide how many seats, and according to the 2011 census.
Once it is decided by Parliament that the representation will be proportional to existing ratio and the percentage and the increase is 50%, then it applies for Lok Sabha and the assembly seats.
The commission will work within that framework given by Parliament…It will be clearly specified. It is going to be the power of the delimitation commission.I would appeal to the opposition parties, not to get confused. We had offered this proposal when we met last time, and it will be the same, and everything will be made clear.
At the moment they have your word.
No, it is there (in the bill).
There are concerns, again, about the delimitation, as of now it is mandatory for the delimitation to be done on the basis of the latest census.
Because the next census will not be ready.
So going forward will it be a political decision? It is now a constitutional obligation after every census.
Whatever was decided in 1971, the increase will be 50% of the seats which were determined then. In other words, the southern state should be happy and have no problems because they have successfully implemented family planning and they are not losing the seats…The proportionate number of seats remain the same. They are not penalised for reducing the population, rather, it has been retained. The ratio of increase and the percentage of their share in the total seats will remain the same.
You’re saying going forward, whatever delimitation exercise happens, the number of seats will be determined with 1971 as the base.
The 1971 delimitation determined the numbers of seats for each state, So, the ratio of increase… the percentage of their share in the total seats in Parliament, which we’ve been seeing.
You said the southern states are fortunate but the Opposition is unwilling to accept this. P Chidambaram claims that the current representation of the five southern states is 24.3%; this figure will fall to 20.7% after delimitation.
But that’s proportional. MPs in states with bigger populations have more people to take care of. A person like Chidambaram should not give false figures to dilute calculations.
Will you accept that there is something in the wording of the bill, which has created distrust?
Every MP in India is representative of at least 26 lakh…Let us come to arithmetic. Karnataka moves from 28 to 42 Tamil Nadu moves from 39 to 59, Kerala from 20 to 30, Andhra Pradesh from 25 to 38 and Telangana from 17 to 26. The 5 southern states gained 66 seats and their collective share of Lok Sabha is now 24% and it remains the same. The coalition arithmetic that determines who forms the government does not change…The proportional weight that shapes every legislative outcome stays the same.
Rahul Gandhi is insisting on OBC reservation and even Akilesh Yadav has said that the government is trying to avoid caste census.
We are talking about women’s reservation. As of now SC and ST reservation is part of the constitutional provisions, OBC reservation is not; where does the question of OBC come from?
What if the opposition parties oppose the bills? Are you confident of its passage if the Congress does not back it?
They will not be able to oppose it, otherwise they will have to live with the black spot of having blocked the reservation. It’s not a question of confidence. It’s a question of commitment. It’s a national commitment.