The Perils of Population Based Claims in Democracy

The Perils of Population Based Claims in Democracy

Delimitation involves the re-alignment of parliamentary constituencies in relation to their population in order to provide proportionate representation. It has emerged as one of the most debated issues amongst the different interest groups. The fundamental question that emerges from this debate is whether the democracy is only about the numbers?

Many states of India have been successfully running family planning programs for decades. This has ensured their stabilized population growth and significant progress in human development. However, if political representation is solely determined by population, then the very states that have achieved success will now lose out politically. They have raised significant objections to the delimitation exercise and termed it “demographic penalty.”

After all the controversy on demographic penalty, the government of India has proposed a suggestion related to delimitation. The government proposes an increase in number of seats by fifty percent in all states. It indeed appears to be a good suggestion. In this way, the problem of the “demographic penalty,” might be solved. States that adopted population-control strategies over many years need not worry about losing their relative share of representation in Loksabha.

A similar debate which is equally relevant and more fundamental in nature is the increasing demand that political power and rewards must necessarily be determined by population. This has been put into words in the form of a popular slogan which says “jiski jitni hissedari, uski utni bhagidaari.” Though it seems to be quite logical, there are some serious implications of this demand in a democracy.

If the benefits and representation are connected to the population, it leads to a serious concern. The very people who tried to regulate their populations, who responded to government appeals and were responsible enough to take action, become victims of the wrong choice. It seems that their responsible behavior is left unaccounted for. On the other hand, the people who failed to appreciate the seriousness of the problem will have more rights simply due to their large number.

This concern was clearly expressed by the former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in an Interview with Javed Akhtar. The essence of what he said was: giving special rights only on the basis of majority is not justified in a democracy like India. His observation remains highly relevant today.

The concept of democracy is not just about figures. Instead, it should be about balancing and respecting those who have worked towards the country’s long-term objectives. When the majority rule becomes the ultimate criterion for making decisions, it may lead to democracy becoming a numbers game.

India now stands at an important point when the policy makers need to plan to reconcile the need for representative democracy with principles of justice and accountability. The decisions made today would determine the course of future governance and policymaking. A mature democracy must ensure representation, but it must also avoid creating incentives that go against national interest.

© Amit Tiwari

(This article was written on 17th April 2026. The views are personal. There can be different perspectives on this issue, and this discussion is a small effort to look at it from the lens of fairness and long term interest. )