While looking at the long-term population trends of Uttar Pradesh and its Districts, in the process of preparing a resource atlas of Sambhal District, I was surprised to notice that the share of Uttar Pradesh in the population of India had been declining sharply and continuously from 1901 up to 1971. On further exploration, I learnt that the share of Bihar had continued to decline up to 1991, though the decline was not quite as sharp as in UP. On the other hand, the share of Kerala had been rising up to 1971 before beginning to sharply decline. Many other States which are witnessing decline in their share had a stable or rising share till recently.
The data implies that any delimitation based on recent numbers shall readjust representation for recent trends without taking into account long-term progression of population in different States. The long-term trends of population growth suggest that most of the States, including those who have experienced the greatest rise in shares, are likely to complete the cycle of demographic transition that began in the last century in the next three or four decades. That would be a more appropriate stage for carrying out a delimitation exercise. Such delimitation would reflect a more permanent state of demographic balance amongst different States.
In this note, we present the changing shares of major States of India from 1901-2011. We also give estimates of the number of seats in the Lok Sabha that different States would get if we were to use their populations at different points in this period of great demographic change. In a subsequent note, we give trends of changes in decadal growth for all major States.
All this needs to be considered to make an appropriate decision about delimitation. The data clearly suggests that it would be wise to wait for another three or four decades, as we have done since 1976, for the current phase of demographic progression to be completed.
Population-share of major States, estimated representation
and long-term population trends
1. Population-share of major States
In Table 1, we give the share of major States in the population of India from 1901 to 2011. Census of India retroactively recalculates and adjusts historical population numbers of earlier Censuses based on the updated jurisdictional boundaries. The Table here is based on such recalculated numbers in Table A-2 of Census 2011. Below, we discuss the pattern of change in share in some detail, while grouping the States in distinct geographical regions:
States of the Ganga-Brahmaputra Plains
Uttar Pradesh
As seen in Table 1, Uttar Pradesh holds by far the largest share in the population of India. Even after the separation of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh forms one-sixth of India in terms of population. In terms of area, it is only about one-fourteenth. Density of population in the State at 829 persons per square kilometre is two and a half times the average of India at 382.
The share of the State in 1901was nearly one-fifth, 19.57 percent to be exact. Between 1901 and 1911, the share declined by nearly 1.75 percentage points to 18.25 percent. The beginning of the twentieth century, and perhaps much of the nineteenth, was a difficult period for India and, especially for the State of Uttar Pradesh. In 1901-1911, the first decade of the century, the population of India grew by just 5.75 percent and that of Uttar Pradesh declined by 1.36 percent. The State then, like many parts of the country, was suffering from epidemics of malaria and bubonic plague, there was generalised scarcity of food and almost complete absence of clean drinking water, hygiene and basic health facilities.
The second decade of the twentieth century was worse than the first. During that decade, the epidemics, scarcity and lack of hygiene and health continued to persist, but were made worse by the large-scale recruitment of young men to serve the war-machine of the British as soldiers and labourers across the world and by repeated visitations of the deadly Spanish Flu during 1918. In that decade, the population of India as a whole suffered a decline of 0.31 percent. Population of the State fared much worse, it declined by 3.16 percent. Since, the State in that decade, unlike the previous decade of 1901-11, shared the decline with the whole country, its share in India declined by a relatively moderate half a percentage point.
After 1921, the population of India as a whole began to rise with some improvement in nutrition, hygiene and health. That year is considered the dividing line that launched India into a phase of continuous demographic growth. That phase is coming to an end now after nearly a century. But while much of the rest of the country began to improve, the conditions in Uttar Pradesh remained relatively poor, leading to its share in population continuing to decline up to 1971, when it reached 15.60, fully 4 percentage points below its share in 1901. Improvement in the share of Uttar Pradesh has occurred only during the last four decades. It has reached 16.50 in 2011, which is still 3 percentage points below its value in 1901.
The demographic story of Uttar Pradesh is the story of the impact of British colonisation of India at its worst. It took Uttar Pradesh, and many other parts of India, almost 3 decades after Independence to fully overcome the deleterious impact of that alien rule.
Bihar
Bihar, as constituted today (excluding Jharkhand) formed the second largest State by its share in the population of India in 1901. It formed 8.91 percent of India then. As the State, like Uttar Pradesh, began to suffer a continuous decline in its share from then onwards, its second position was taken over by Maharashtra in 1931. The share of Bihar continued to decline further— though more slowly than that of Uttar Pradesh— up to 1991, when it reached 7.62 percent.
In the two decades since then, the share of the State has risen by one percentage point to 8.60 percent which is still below 8.91 percent of 1901. Any fresh delimitation shall raise the representation of the State for the increase that has happened during these two decades.
Jharkhand
Though the share of Bihar has seen significant changes, that of Jharkhand, which was part of Bihar until recently but geographically lies largely outside the Ganga plains, on the Chhota Nagpur plateau, has remained almost unchanged. Between 1901 and 2011, its share in India has fluctuated in a narrow range between 2.6 and 2.8 percent. Delimitation now would probably not change anything for the State except for some rounding up or down.
West Bengal
The share of West Bengal remained remarkably stable between 7.0 and 7.3 percent in the entire pre-Independence period, except for a decline to slightly below 7 percent in 1921 and 1931. In the first decade after Independence, during 1951-1961, the share of the State rose significantly to reach around 8 percent. It remained nearly unchanged at that figure up to 1991. In the last two decades, however, the State has seen a decline in its share to 7.54 percent. Any delimitation at this stage shall be in the nature of a penalty for the decline of these two decades.
Assam
Assam had a very different experience than other States. The share of Assam in the population of India kept rising continuously throughout the British period and the rise persisted up to 1971. The share of the State was 1.35 percent in 1901, it doubled to 2.67 percent in 1971. This rise was a consequence of a systematic effort by the British to settle peasantry from several districts of what is now Bangladesh in the fertile plains of lower Assam. The effort continued through the entire British period and continued informally or illegally for some decades after Partition. The share of Assam in the population of India stabilised only after 1971. In 1971, 1981 and 1991 its share remained around 2.67 percent. In the last two decades, the share of the State has declined marginally to 2.58 percent. The decline is not significant enough to have any effect on Assam’s share in parliamentary representation in the case of a fresh delimitation.
Northern States
Rajasthan
Through the British period, the share of Rajasthan remained remarkably stable between 4.3 and 4.4, except for a decline to 4.1 in 1921 and 4.2 in 1931. This decline was related to the relatively intense impact of the disastrous decade of 1911-21 marked by the war and the great Spanish flu. At the end of the British period, Rajasthan had a share of 4.42 compared to 4.32 at the beginning of the twentieth century.
After Independence, however, the share of Rajasthan has risen continuously from decade to decade. It reached 4.70 in 1971 and has further risen to 5.66 now in 2011. Rajasthan is one of the States that shall gain substantially from any delimitation with the currently available data.
Haryana
Haryana, as constituted today, had a share of 1.94 percent in the population of India in 1901. The State suffered a great decline in 1901-1911, because the impact of the third wave of the Bubonic Plague that swept through India in early 1900s was the worst in the then Punjab that included Haryana. The southern districts of Punjab, which form Haryana now, also suffered from drought and famines. The share of Haryana in that decade fell from 1.94 to 1.66 percent.
For the next three decades, the share of the State remained nearly stable at around 1.65 percent. The decade of 1941-51 saw a dip from 1.65 to 1.57 percent associated largely with the massive movement of populations caused by the Partition.
From 1951 onwards, the share of Haryana in the population of India, like that of Rajasthan, has been rising continuously. It reached 1.83 percent in 1971 and 2.09 percent in 2011. This is another State that shall gain from a fresh delimitation with the currently available data.
Punjab
The pre-Independence demographic experience of Punjab is similar to that of Haryana. In the first decade of the twentieth century, the share of Punjab in the population of India fell sharply from 3.16 to 2.67 percent, for reasons that we have described earlier— visitation of the third wave of Plague, the continuing epidemics of malaria and famines and drought in several parts.
For the next three decades, the share of Punjab improved slowly to reach 3.01 percent in 1941. But the 1941-51 decade of War and Partition saw a much larger decline in Punjab than in Haryana. The share of Punjab in the population of India in 1951 was 2.54 percent.
From 1951 onwards, the share of Punjab, unlike that of Haryana, has been continuously declining. It reached 2.47 percent in 1971 and to 2.29 percent in 2011. The decline has been particularly sharp during the last two decades. Punjab, therefore, is one of the States that will lose in any delimitation exercise based on the current data.
The other three northern States— Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand—
are demographically small hilly States. Their parliamentary representation is not decided on the basis of share in population alone. However, as seen in the Table, Uttarakhand’s share has been remarkably stable between 0.82 to 0.85 percent in the whole of this period. It didn’t see a decline even in the first two difficult decades of the last century. Himachal Pradesh has followed the pattern of Punjab with its share in the population declining sharply during 1901-11 and again in 1941-51, followed by a continuous decline between 1951 and 2011. The share of Himachal Pradesh in 2011 is 0.57 percent compared to 0.63 percent in 1971 and 0.81 percent in 1901. Jammu and Kashmir had a share of 0.90 percent in 1901, it rose to 0.96 percent in 1911 and 1921, fell back to 0.90 percent in 1951. It suffered a further decline to 0.81 percent in 1961. Since then, the share of the State has been rising. It reached 0.84 percent in 1971 and is 1.04 percent in 2011.
Central and Western States
Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh, like other States of this region had a very different demographic experience than the States of the Ganga plains and even the northern States. During 1901-1911, the share of Madhya Pradesh went up from 5.32 to 5.65 percent as many other States suffered a decline. Over the next three decades, the share of Madhya Pradesh declined slowly to 5.39 in 1941 and had a somewhat sharper decline in the next decade to reach 5.16 percent in 1951. Since then, the share of the State has been continuously rising. It reached 5.48 percent in 1971 and is 6.00 percent in 2011. Madhya Pradesh is among the States that is likely to gain substantially in a delimitation carried out on the basis of the current populations.
Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh, which was part of Madhya Pradesh until 2000, also experienced a substantial rise in its share from 1.75 to 2.06 percent during 1901-11. Since then, its share has remained remarkably stable, fluctuating in the narrow range of 2.03 to 2.16 percent. The State is unlikely to be impacted one way or the other by a delimitation exercise.
Maharashtra
Maharashtra, like Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, experienced a substantial rise in its share in the population of India in the first decade of the twentieth century. It rose from 8.13 percent in 1901 to 8.52 percent in 1911. The share fell to 8.30 percent in the next decade, rose to 8.59 in 1931 and again fell to 8.40 percent in 1941. In the next decade of War and Partition, the State recorded a considerable gain, with its share rising to 8.86 percent in 1951. This was because of a considerable influx of the migrants from Pakistan to the State and particularly to the city of Mumbai after Partition.
After 1951, the share of Maharashtra has grown slowly up to 2001. But it has declined slightly during 2000-2011. This may be an indication of a long-term trend of declining growth. Its share in 1971 was 9.20 percent in 1971 and is nearly the same at 9.28 percent in 2011.
Gujarat
Gujarat is perhaps the only State whose share in the population of India has kept growing consistently since 1901. The only decline occurred in 1981-91, when the share of the State fell from 4.99 to 4.88. In has risen again to 4.99 in 2011. The share of Gujarat was 3.81 percent in 1901, 4.50 in 1951, 4.99 in 1971 and the same 4.99 in 2011.
Southern States
Odisha
Odisha is usually counted among the eastern States. We are counting it among the Southern States, because it has suffered a considerable decline in its share of the population of India, a trend that is similar to the Southern States.
Odisha had a share of 4.32 percent in 1901. It rose to 4.51 percent in 1911, when the share of many other States was declining. It fell marginally to 4.44 percent in 1921 and rose to 4.48 in 1931. After that, the share of the State has been continuously declining. It was 4.00 percent in 1961 and 1971 and is 3.47 percent in 2011. This decline puts Odisha among the States that are likely to lose the most in the case of a fresh delimitation on the basis of current data.
Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana)
The share of Andhra Pradesh, that has Odisha on its north, also rose considerable in the first decade, from 8.00 percent in 1901 to 8.51 percent in 1911. For the next four decades it hovered around 8.60. The share was 8.62 percent in 1951. Since Independence, the share of the State has been declining consistently and has reached 6.99 percent in 2011 compared to 7.94 in 1971, which forms the basis of the currently existing delimitation. The share of the State had remained nearly stable only during 1981-91. Since 1991, the decline has been sharper.
Andhra Pradesh, along with other Southern States, is likely to lose considerably if a fresh delimitation is done on the basis of the numbers of the latest Census.
Karnataka
The share of Karnataka has remained relatively stable up to the recent decades. Its share was 5.48 in 1901. It declined slowly to 5.10 in 1941, rose to 5.37 in 1951 and remained near that number up to 1971. There was a further rise to 5.43 in 1981. For the next three decades, the share of the State has been declining sharply compared to its earlier experience and has reached 5.10 percent in 2011. This decline of recent decades is likely to result in some loss for Karnataka if a fresh delimitation is done on the basis of the data of 2011.
Kerala
Unlike most other States, the share of Kerala in the population of India kept rising consistently from 1901 to 1971. Its share was 2.68 percent in 1901 and reached 3.89 percent in 1971. Since then, it has been rapidly declining and has reached 2.76 percent in 2011, which is very near its share of 2.68 percent in 1901. The deline since 1971 has negatived the gains of 1901 to 1971.
It seems that Kerala began its cycle of population growth and decline early and has already completed its demographic transition to reach a stage where its population shall soon be entering the phase of contraction. Kerala shall lose the most in its relative representation in the case of a fresh delimitation based on the latest data of 2011.
Tamil Nadu
Contrary to almost all other States, Tamil Nadu experienced a considerable rise in its share in both 1901-11 and 1911-21. At least one of these two decades had proved disastrous for other States. In these two decades, its share rose from 8.08 to 8.61 percent, making it the second largest State by population in 1921, after only Uttar Pradesh.
After 1921, the share of the State has continuously declined, except for a trivially small rise in 1951. The decline has been particularly sharp after 1971, though the 2011 numbers indicate some moderation of the declining trend.
The share of the State was 7.52 in 1971 and is 5.96 percent in 2011. The State is likely to lose the most in its absolute number of Lok Sabha seats in case of fresh delimitation.
2. Estimation of Lok Sabha Seats for different States
Based on the shares of major States in the population of India, we now proceed to estimate the number of Lok Sabha seats likely to be allocated to each State if we follow the same methodology that the Third Delimitation Commission, which submitted its report in 1976, had followed, but use the population figures of Census of 2011 instead of 1971 that was used by that Commission. For comparison, we also estimate the seats accruing to different States, if the same methodology were applied while using the population of 1951 or 1901. Before giving our estimates, we first describe the methodology adopted by the Third Commission (1970-76).
Methodology
The Commission began by calculating a “National Population Quotient” to arrive at the number of persons per allocable Lok Sabha Seat. For working out this quotient, the Commission adopted the following methodology:
Exclusions
Before working out the quotient, the Commission made the following allocations of seats for the Union Territories, the Small States and the Major States:
1. Union Territories: The Commission allocated 13 seats to the 7 Union Territories of that time. Table 3 lists these 7 UTs along with the number of seats allocated to these. These 13 seats were assigned from a separate “UTs Pool” created by the Parliament. This pool was capped at 20 in 1976. The seats in this pool were not subject to any consideration of population. As seen in Table 2, the Commission assigned 7 seats to the National Capital Territory of Delhi. If the Commission had used the same population quotient that it ultimately used for the major States, Delhi would have got only 3 seats. It assigned one seat each to the remaining 6 UTs. By the criterion of population, these 6 would have got just one seat between them.
2. Small States: The Commission allocated another 12 seats to seven small States. These States had been granted a fixed number of seats in the statutes through which these were created. The Commission did not have the power to change that number. The list of these 7 states and the number of seats allotted to each of these in given in Table 2. These seats were allocated from the States quota of Seats, which was constitutionally capped at a maximum of 525 at that time.
3. Major States: The Commission decided to allocate 517 Seats for the remaining 20 Major States, whose seats were to be decided proportionately to their population. This exceeded the then constitutional cap of 525 seats for the States, established by the 81st Amendment, but remained within the overall cap of 545 seats for the Lok Sabha.
4. Additional Seats for Some States: Out of the 517 seats for the States, the Commission further set aside 3 seats to be assigned to the hill states beyond their entitlement on the basis of population. Of these, 2 were allocated to Jammu & Kashmir and 1 to Himachal Pradesh.
Calculating the National Quotient
After allocating 13 seats for the UTs, 12 for the smaller States that had statutorily determined seats and setting aside 3 additional seats for the hill states of J&K and Himachal Pradesh, the Commission was left with 514 seats to be assigned to the 20 major States in proportion to their population as counted in Census 1971. To arrive at the quotient to be applied for these States, the Commission subtracted the population of the 7 UTs and 7 States, for which it had already made the allocation of seats, from the total population of India counted in 1971 and divided the remainder by 514 as below:
Following its logic, the Commission would have arrived at a national quotient of 10,44,979 persons per seat for the 514 allocable seats available with it. The Commission rounded it up to arrive at a neat national quotient of 10,44,000. This rounding up means that the population of India after subtracting the population of the UTs and the exempted States was divided by not 514 but by a number between 514 and 515, nearer 514.8, to arrive at the national quotient.
In Table 3 below, we give the number of seats calculated by this formula for each of the 20 States. Column “Actual (1971)” gives the actual number of seats assigned by the Commission after rounding up.
We follow exactly the same logic to calculate the number of seats that would accrue to each of these States if we were to use the population figures of the Census 2011. These calculated figures are given in Table 3 under column “2011”. Then, we round up the calculated numbers for 2011 and give the estimated number of seats for each of the 20 States as a result of fresh delimitation. In the last column, we tabulate the change in the number of seats that each State would face in the case of fresh delimitation on the basis of the population of 2011 compared to the seats it currently holds. To put the issues in a longer-term perspective, we also give in Table 3 the number of seats that would have accrued to each of the 20 States if we were to use the same methodology for the population of 1901 or 1951.
The “Actual (1971)” column of the Table includes the 2 seats allocated to J&K in addition its population-based entitlement of 4 and the one seat allocated to Himachal Pradesh in addition to its entitlement of 3.
Allocations among the newly created States
In 1976, when the allocations were made, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand were together and the calculated share of the undivided Uttar Pradesh was 84.61, rounded to 85. When Uttarakhand was carved out in 2000, it was decided to allocated 5 seats to Uttarakhand, by deciding the decimal fraction in favour of the smaller hill State.
Similarly, when Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar 14 seats out of the 54 of undivided Bihar were allocated to it. As the Table shows, this was according to their population. Chhattisgarh, which was carved out from Madhya Pradesh in 2000, was allocated 11 of the 40 seats of undivided State, exactly according to its population share.
Telangana was carved out in 2011, therefore the Census of 2011 could not recalculate the population of Telangana and Andhra separately for the earlier Censuses. Therefore, everywhere in this note, we give figures for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana together. The reorganization act allocated 17 seats to Telangana and 25 to Andhra Pradesh out of the 42 allocated to the undivided State.
When Sikkim was merged with India in 1975, it was statutorily allotted 1 seat in the Lok Sabha. This brought the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha to 543 from the 542 that the Delimitation Commission of 1976 had allocated.
The Actual (1971) column in Table 3 reflects these decisions about the allocation of seats to the newly created States.
Shifting the population basis to 2011: Abstract of Changes
In Table 4, we round up the numbers in Table 3 and list the gains and losses of different States if the population-based methodology of the Delimitation Commission of 1976 were to be applied to the earlier and later times. This puts the expected changes in a long-term perspective.
The Table shows that when we change the basis of calculation from the population figures of Census 1971 to Census 2011, it results in 24 seats changing between the 20 major States.
The States that lose seats are the four southern States of Tamil Nadu (-7), Kerala (-5), Andhra Pradesh (-5) and Karnataka (-1); two eastern States of Odisha (-3) and West Bengal (-2); and, Punjab (-1) in the northwest.
The States that gain are the heartland States of Uttar Pradesh (+7), Bihar (+6), Rajasthan (+5) and Madhya Pradesh (+3); Haryana (+1) in the northwest and Maharashtra (+1) in the southwest.
The States that retain the same number of Seats are also spread across diverse geographies. These include Assam in the northeast; Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh in central India and Gujarat in the west. In addition, the hill States of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh are likely to retain their seats unchanged. But in their case, allocation is not on the basis of population alone.
Below, we describe the experience of these three set of States in the long term perspective presented in Table 4, where we have compared how the current number of seats get allocated between different States on the basis of population figures of 1901, 1951, 1971 and 2011.
States likely to lose in fresh delimitation
Tamil Nadu
As we have noted above, if we were to delimit seats today based on the population of 2011 instead of 1976, Tamil Nadu would lose 7 seats. But in the delimitation of 1976, it had already lost 5 seats compared to its population-based share of 1951. Between 1951 and 2011, the State thus would have lost 12 seats because of lower growth of its population as compared to other States. In the pre-Independence period of 1901 to 1951, it would have gained 2 seats.
Kerala
Kerala will lose 5 seats on fresh delimitation. Unlike Tamil Nadu, the number of seats allocated to it in 1976 would have been the same on the basis of its population of 1951 also. In the pre-Independence period from 1901 to 1951, it would have gained 2 seats, if the same methodology were followed for sharing the same number of seats as in 1976.
Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana) will lose 5 seats on fresh delimitation. It had already lost 3 seats in the delimitation of 1976 compared to its population-based share in 1951. The State would have thus lost 8 seats between 1951 and 2011, because of the lower growth of its population as compared to other States. In the pre-Independence period from 1901 to 1951, when its population was rising, it would have gained 6 seats.
Karnataka
Karnataka will lose one seat on fresh delimitation based on the population of 2011. It would have obtained the same 28 seats in 1901, 1951 and 1971 on the basis of the methodology adopted by the Delimitation Commission of 1976.
Odisha
Odisha will lose 3 seats on fresh delimitation. However, its share in the delimitation of 1976 had remained unchanged. It would have got the same 21 seats on the basis of its population of 1951 or 1971. On the basis of 1901, it would have 22 seats. The likely loss of Odisha is thus entirely because of the slower growth of its population after 1971.
West Bengal
West Bengal will lose two seats in a fresh delimitation. If the delimitation were done on the basis of 1951, it would have got only 38 seats, instead of 42 it got on the basis of 1971. It would have got 37 seats on the basis of its population in 1901. The last delimitation happened at a point of time, when the share of the population of the State was the highest since 1901.
Punjab
Punjab will lose one seat in a fresh delimitation. If the delimitation were done on the basis of the population of 1951, it would have gotten the same 13 seats, and if the basis were shifted to 1901, it would have gotten 16. Punjab, like many States of the Ganga plains, lost heavily in its share of the population during the British rule. It was largely because the British concentrated on creating new irrigation facilities and improving agriculture in the western part of Pakistan, which went to Pakistan. In that period, many Sikhs migrated to that part of Punjab.
States likely to gain in fresh delimitation
Uttar Pradesh
On fresh limitation on the basis of 2011 data, Uttar Pradesh will gain 7 seats to reach 87. For the State, delimitation based on 1971 data created an anomaly. If the earlier delimitation had been done on the basis of the population of 1951, it would have got the same 87 seats that it may get now. If the same calculation were done on the basis of 1901 population-data, it would have got as many as 102 seats. This is because, as we have seen, the State suffered particularly badly during the British period. For Uttar Pradesh, a fresh delimitation would correct a wrong that happened because the last delimitation was done at a point of demographic transition when the share of the State in the population of India was at the lowest.
Bihar
Bihar, on fresh delimitation, will gain 6 seats to reach 46 in the Lok Sabha, making it the second highest gainer after Uttar Pradesh. It would have gotten 42 seats if the delimitation had been done on the basis of the population of 1951 and 46 if the basis for shifted to 1901. Thus delimitation on the basis of 2011 shall fully compensate for the loss in share of population that Bihar, along with Uttar Pradesh, suffered during the British period. Given current trends that indicate Bihar being two or three decades behind the country on the demographic transition curve, it will gain even more if the delimitation were to be done on the basis of Census 2027.
Rajasthan
On delimitation based on the 2011 Census, Rajasthan shall gain 5 seats to reach 30 seats in the current strength of the Lok Sabha, making it the third largest gainer after Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. It would have got 23 seats if the delimitation were done on the basis of Census of 1951 and 22 on the basis of 1901, showing a continuous gain since the beginning of the Census period. It shall gain even more than 5 seats, if the delimitation is done on the basis of the ongoing 2027 Census. In a succeeding note, we see that the growth rate of even Rajasthan has begun to moderate and it is likely to complete its growth phase in another three or four decades.
Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh shall gain 3 seats reaching a total of 32 seats in the Lok Sabha. Its share would have been 27 seats if the delimitation were done on the basis of the 1951 Census and slightly higher at 28 on the basis on 1901 Census. It shall gain even more if the data of Census 2027 is used. In a succeeding note, we see that the growth rate of this state also has begun to moderate.
Haryana
Haryana, unlike Punjab, shall gain one seat to reach 11 seats. It had gained two seats when the basis of delimitation was shifted from 1951 to 1971. Between 1901 and 1951, it had lost 2 seats. It may gain further if the delimitation is done on the basis of the ongoing Census 2027.
Maharashtra
Maharashtra shall gain 2 seats, taking the number of seats allocated to the State to 49. In this process of following the methodology of the 1971 Census for earlier and later Censuses, we notice that the share of Maharashtra has been continuously rising from 42 in 1901, to 46 in 1951, 48 in 1971 and 49 in 2011. The trends of population growth, that we discuss in a subsequent note and which are reflected in Table 1 above, indicate that Maharashtra shall probably lose when the delimitation is done on the basis of Census 2027.
Jammu & Kashmir
In the last delimitation, J&K was assigned 2 seats in addition to what it got on the basis of population. If this addition is continued, it shall gain one extra seat if the delimitation is done on the basis of Census 2011. In the last delimitation, it had lost one seat compared to what it would have got on the basis of Census 1951 or 1901. It may gain another seat if the delimitation is done on the basis of the next Census. As we see in a later note, its growth is now moderating.
States likely to retain the same number of Seats on fresh delimitation
Himachal Pradesh
In calculating the number of seats for Uttarakhand, we have assigned it one seat in addition to its share of 3 based on the population, as was done by the Delimitation Commission of 1976. On that basis, it barely retains its 4 seats in the Lok Sabha. From the population trends, that we discuss in a subsequent note, it seems certain to lose if the delimitation is done on the basis of the next Census.
Uttarakhand
In calculating the number of seats for this State, we have added the fractional seat to this State rather than assigning it to Uttar Pradesh, as was done by the Delimitation Commission of 1976. With this, the State continues to retain the same number of seats on the basis of Census 2011, as were assigned to it on the basis of Census 1971. This number remains the same for Census 1951 and 1901. It is unlikely to gain in any fresh delimitation based on Census 2027 also.
Assam
Assam just barely retains its 14 seats in the Lok Sabha on the basis of its population in 2011. The population trends indicate that it shall certainly lose in any fresh delimitation based on a future Census. In the delimitation of 1976, however, it had gained 3 seats compared to its share in 1951. The growth of the share of Assam that began in the pre-Independence period seems to have stabilized by 1971 or thereabouts.
Jharkhand
Jharkhand retains the same 14 seats that it got in 1976, if we calculate on the basis of Census 2011. But this is largely because of fortuitous rounding effects. On the basis of population, it has actually gained 0.8 fraction of a seat (Table 3). It shall certainly gain if the delimitation is done on the basis of the ongoing Census of 2027. Like for Bihar, it shall take another three or four decades for the share of Jharkhand to stabilize.
Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh retains its 11 seats if we calculate on the basis of Census 2011. That number remains unchanged, if we calculate on the basis of Census 1951 also. We have noticed that Chhattisgarh has seen a spurt in population during 2001-2011. The currently ongoing Census shall tell us whether such spurt persists.
Gujarat
Gujarat retains its 26 seats. But, like Jharkhand, this is because of fortuitous rounding effects. On the basis of population, it has actually gained 0.9 fraction of a seat (Table 3). The State is likely to gain in fresh delimitation based on the ongoing Census. In the delimitation of 1976, it had gained 2 seats as compared to its share in 1951 and 6 seats compared to its share in 1901. Gujarat has been gaining in share continuously since 1901. In our subsequent note, we see that Gujarat remains somewhat behind other States on the demographic transition curve.
Conclusion:
The analysis above brings out the following conclusions:
1. The share of different States in the total population of India has been changing since 1901. The pace and trend of change has been different for different States. The share of some States was rising in the earlier part of this period, the share of others began to rise in the later part.
2. The trends indicate that the States of India, like all of India together, have been passing through a demographic transition in this period. For some, the rise in population— that is generally a consequence of improvements in nutrition, health, hygiene and sanitation, etc. — began early. They were growing already in the British period. Many of those early beginners have passed through various stages of demographic transition, have completed the process and have entered the stage of stable or declining population. Others started late and are still at the stage of rising population.
3. Delimitation on the basis of population of a particular Census in this scenario means altering representation when the relative population of different States is changing sharply from decade to decade. Many of the States that would gain now if the delimitation is done on the basis of 2011 population may have lost when the delimitation was done on the basis of 1971 population. Others may have gained in the last delimitation and may gain again now. Still others, may have lost then and may lose again. It depends entirely on what stage of the demographic curve a State is lying at the particular point of time when the delimitation is undertaken.
4. We have described these changes for different States at several points of time. The pattern of changes shows that the process seems fundamentally arbitrary. That arbitrariness arises from trying to change representation when different States are still going through their separate processes of demographic transition.
5. As a consequence of the different stages of demographic transition in which different States happen to be today, a fresh delimitation would lead to four of the southern States, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana), Kerala and Karnataka losing substantial number of seats as compared to their current allocation. So shall Odisha, West Bengal and Punjab. Tamil Nadu is likely to lose as many as 7 seats and Kerala and Andhra Pradesh will lose 5 each. This is because these States have already completed their demographic transition, while others are several decades behind on that curve.
6. The data shows that all of the States of India, even the most laggard ones, are likely to reach the final stage of the transition within the next 3 to 4 decades. That will be a better time to undertake a reallocation of the seats in the Lok Sabha according to the stable or near stable population of different States.
7. In a subsequent note, we shall graphically show the ongoing process of demographic transition for different States. Those graphs show that all of the States are already reaching near the final stage of the transition.
8. The polity of India in the past has displayed the maturity and wisdom to not disturb relative representation of different States when the country is passing through a demographic transition. We have retained an embargo on such alterations for fifty years. Let us continue with that wise restrain for another three or four decades and await the completion of the transition in all States.
No comments:
Post a Comment