 |
| Amit Shah's Reasons for Trying to Assure the South |
In late February 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah made a striking declaration during a visit to Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu: no southern state would lose a single parliamentary seat due to the impending delimitation exercise. This assurance, delivered amidst growing regional anxieties, was a calculated move by one of India’s most influential political figures. It came at a time when southern states, particularly Tamil Nadu, were voicing concerns over a process they feared could diminish their political clout in the national legislature. Shah’s statement was not just a response to these fears but a strategic effort to bridge a widening north-south divide, maintain the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) fragile foothold in the south, and reinforce Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of a united, equitable India. To understand why Shah sought to reassure the south, we must delve into the complexities of delimitation, the historical context of India’s federal structure, the demographic disparity between regions, and the political stakes involved.
The Delimitation Debate: A Looming Concern
Delimitation, the process of redrawing parliamentary and assembly constituencies based on population data, is a constitutionally mandated exercise in India. The last major delimitation occurred in 2002, based on the 2001 census, but the number of Lok Sabha seats—543—remained unchanged due to a freeze imposed in 1976. This freeze, enacted through the 42nd Amendment under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was designed to incentivize population control by ensuring that states with lower population growth would not lose representation. At the time, southern states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh were already implementing effective family planning policies, while northern states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Rajasthan saw continued population surges.
Fast forward to 2025, and the freeze is set to lapse after the next census, originally scheduled for 2021 but delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. With the Modi government signaling that delimitation will follow the 2024 general elections, southern states have grown increasingly apprehensive. The fear is simple yet profound: a population-based redistribution of seats could disproportionately favor the north, where population growth has outpaced the south, potentially reducing the southern states’ share of Lok Sabha seats and, by extension, their influence in national policymaking.
For instance, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has warned that his state, currently with 39 Lok Sabha seats, could lose up to eight constituencies, dropping to 31. Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has echoed similar concerns, calling Shah’s assurances “unreliable” and accusing the BJP of using delimitation as a “weapon” to silence the south. These leaders argue that their states’ success in controlling population growth—a policy aligned with national goals—should not penalize them in the democratic process. The south’s anxiety is not unfounded: in most delimitation formulas based on population, the region stands to lose out relative to the north.
The North-South Divide: A Demographic and Political Fault Line
India’s federal structure thrives on a delicate balance between unity and diversity, but the north-south divide has long been a fault line. Demographically, the south has lower fertility rates and better human development indices—higher literacy, better healthcare, and greater economic stability—compared to many northern states. Tamil Nadu’s fertility rate, for example, is around 1.7 children per woman, well below the replacement level of 2.1, while Uttar Pradesh’s hovers above 2.4. This disparity is a testament to the south’s early adoption of family planning, a policy northern states embraced later and less effectively.
Politically, however, this demographic success translates into a paradox. The Lok Sabha’s seat allocation reflects population size, meaning states like Uttar Pradesh (currently 80 seats) and Bihar (40 seats) could see significant increases, while Tamil Nadu, Kerala (20 seats), and Karnataka (28 seats) might stagnate or decline. A back-of-the-envelope calculation based on 2025 population projections suggests that maintaining current seat shares while reflecting population growth could balloon the Lok Sabha to nearly 790 seats, with Uttar Pradesh alone jumping to 133. Such a shift would amplify the north’s dominance, potentially marginalizing the south’s voice in Parliament.
This imbalance is more than a numbers game—it’s a matter of power and identity. The south contributes disproportionately to India’s GDP, with states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka driving industrial and technological growth. Yet, their political representation has remained static for decades, fostering a sense of inequity. Southern leaders fear that a reduced parliamentary presence could weaken their leverage in national policy debates, from fiscal federalism to language rights, issues that have historically strained relations with the central government.
The BJP’s Southern Challenge
For Amit Shah and the BJP, the delimitation debate is a political minefield, particularly in the south, where the party has struggled to gain a strong foothold. Unlike the Hindi heartland, where the BJP dominates, southern states have been a tougher nut to crack. Tamil Nadu remains firmly under the Dravidian parties’ control, with the DMK and AIADMK holding sway. Karnataka is the BJP’s lone southern stronghold, but even there, it faces stiff competition from the Congress and Janata Dal (Secular). Kerala and Andhra Pradesh have consistently rebuffed the BJP’s advances, favoring regional players and the Left.
Shah’s reassurance, delivered in Coimbatore on February 26, 2025, was a direct counter to Tamil Nadu CM Stalin’s call for an all-party meeting on March 5 to build a “political consensus” against delimitation. Stalin’s rhetoric—that the exercise is a “sword hanging over South India”—resonates with a regional sentiment the BJP cannot ignore. The party’s electoral performance in the south has been lackluster; in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, it won just 29 of the 129 seats across Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Losing southern goodwill over delimitation could further erode its prospects in a region where it hopes to expand.
Moreover, the BJP faces accusations of cultural imposition, particularly over language. The south’s resistance to “Hindi imposition”—a recurring flashpoint—has intensified in recent years, with Tamil Nadu leading the charge. Shah’s visit coincided with protests over this issue, amplifying the need for a conciliatory stance. By promising that “not one seat will be reduced” and that southern states will get a “fair share” of any increase, Shah aimed to dispel fears of a northern bias and project the Modi government as a unifying force.
Historical Context: Lessons from the Past
The delimitation conundrum is not new. The 1976 freeze was itself a compromise, born out of southern states’ concerns during the Emergency. Leaders like Tamil Nadu’s M.G. Ramachandran and Andhra Pradesh’s N.T. Rama Rao feared that their states’ declining birth rates would cost them seats, a fear validated by earlier delimitation exercises. In 1952, 1963, and 1973, seat allocations shifted with population trends, but the 2002 exercise maintained the status quo, deferring the issue to a future generation.
That future is now. The Modi government’s push for delimitation aligns with its broader agenda of constitutional and administrative reform—think Article 370’s abrogation or the Uniform Civil Code. Yet, unlike those measures, delimitation risks alienating a key demographic. Shah’s pledge that “Prime Minister Narendra Modi has kept your interest in mind” invokes this reformist zeal while tempering it with pragmatism. It’s a nod to the BJP’s base—development and equity—while addressing southern skepticism.
The Mechanics of Reassurance: Can Shah Deliver?
Shah’s promise raises practical questions. If the south’s seats are not to decrease, and the north’s are to reflect population growth, the Lok Sabha must expand significantly. A 790-seat Parliament, as some projections suggest, would be a logistical and financial challenge, requiring new infrastructure and a rethink of legislative dynamics. Alternatively, the government could devise a hybrid formula, blending population with other factors like area or economic contribution, though this would spark its own controversies.
Southern leaders like Siddaramaiah remain unconvinced, alleging that Shah’s words mask a “deliberate attempt to undermine” their states. This distrust stems from a broader narrative of central overreach—whether over funds, language, or now representation. Shah countered these claims in Coimbatore, citing Rs 5 lakh crore in central funds to Tamil Nadu over the past decade, far exceeding the UPA’s Rs 1.5 lakh crore. Yet, the delimitation issue transcends fiscal debates; it’s about identity and fairness in a federal union.
Why Reassurance Matters Now
Shah’s outreach to the south in early 2025 is timely. With assembly elections looming in Tamil Nadu (2026) and Karnataka (2028), the BJP needs to build trust. The delimitation exercise, expected post-census, will shape the political landscape for decades, influencing not just Lok Sabha seats but state assemblies too. A misstep could galvanize a southern bloc against the BJP, as Stalin’s all-party meeting hints.
Beyond elections, Shah’s reassurance reflects a broader vision. The Modi government has staked its legacy on unifying India—culturally, administratively, and politically. A north-south rift over delimitation would undermine this narrative, exposing fissures in the “one nation” ethos. By framing the south as a partner, not a loser, Shah seeks to preempt this fracture.
Conclusion: A Balancing Act
Amit Shah’s pledge to the south is a high-stakes balancing act. It addresses legitimate fears of marginalization rooted in demographics and history, while navigating the BJP’s political ambitions in a region wary of its dominance. Whether his words translate into policy remains uncertain—delimitation’s complexities defy easy promises. Yet, the intent is clear: to reassure a region that feels its success has become its liability, and to sustain a federal compact strained by unequal growth. As India stands at this crossroads, Shah’s gambit underscores a truth as old as the republic itself—unity demands not just strength, but sensitivity to its diverse parts.
