north-south-binary-contradicts-the-principle-of-federalism

Creating North-South binary on delimitation contradicts principle of federalism

 

While some states may have genuine apprehensions over losing the representative strength in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Parliament), creating a ‘North-South’ binary, contradicts and undermines the idea of federalism.

 

There indeed is a need for working out a new formula for deciding representation of states in the Lok Sabha, which should not solely be based on population alone, but it should not mean that leaders like Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin are allowed to set and sell their partisan agenda, which is for sure prompted by many more reasons. Tamil Nadu is going for assembly polls next year. Stalin is trying to foist his own agenda on the entire nation.

 

Stalin’s assertion is too simplistic. To suggest that India can be defined in terms of a “single binary concept” of “North and South”, is a complete misnomer and undermines the distinct regional, lingual and cultural identity of individual states set up primarily on the basis of language. In fact, this ‘North-South’ concept goes contradictory to the idea of federalism that Stalin claims to assert and defend.

 

India has five distinct geographical regions; north, south, east, west and central. None of these five regions are monolithic. In what we describe as “north”, we have distinct and diverse provinces like Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. UP and Bihar may have certain things, including language, in common, but they have diverse dialects, food and cultural habits.

 

Then there is the “east” with Assam, West Bengal, Odisha, Manipur, Tripura, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram. All these eight states are different from each other in terms of language and culture and many more things.

 

There is a distinct “west” comprising Rajasthan, Gujarat, Goa and Maharashtra. All these four states have distinct languages, distinct cultures, distinct climates, to name a few.

 

And we have the “south”, for which Stalin has assumed the role of the sole representative. South again is also not a monolithic entity. Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka are as different from each other as they are from, what Stalin calls, the “north”.

 

Stalin’s bogey against the delimitation, claiming that it will be disadvantageous for the “south”, needs to be viewed in a larger context of his earlier stand on the NEET, National Education Policy and “three-language” formula. Besides, the outrageously parochial and sectarian remarks of his unapologetic son Udhaynidhi Stalin against Sanatan Dharam that it needs to be wiped out, is part of the same script.

 

The assembly elections in Tamil Nadu are scheduled for next year. Stalin may be faced with anti-incumbency. He is now trying to project himself as a Dravidian icon in the same role as that of his father M Karunanidhi and before him Periyar, both of whom were staunch votaries of a distinct Tamil identity. Their politics and, by inheritance, that of Stalin, too, has been based on “anti-Hindi” and “anti-north” sentiment. Stalin’s “north-south” bogey, as if nothing else exists in India, has the same context.

 

Suggesting that the entire “south” that consists of just “five” states, will be disadvantaged and discriminated against in case the delimitation is based on an old formula of population alone, lacks logic. Besides the fact that the “south” has not been any monolithic entity, there has never been any discrimination against the “south” in any way by any government at the Centre.

 

Moreover, leaders from the “south” have assumed all important positions, including that of the President and Prime Minister of the country, besides holding important ministerial positions in successive governments at the Centre.

 

The Bharatiya Janata Party may, right now, be a dominant party in the north, parts of eastern India and the Western India, it has a good presence in Karnataka also, where it has formed a government of its own from time to time. It has a fair presence in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and has started making inroads into Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the main cause of concern for Stalin.

 

Stalin has been trying to place and pitch himself as the voice of “opposition” resistance against the “rampaging” BJP.

 

He and his son tried to counter the BJP’s Hindutva plank by condemning and maligning Sanatan Dharma, suggesting it needs to be completely wiped out. That idea did not find many buyers. Rather it proved counterproductive to some extent.

 

Then he resorted to opposition against Hindi language, again an argument which was not bought by any other “southern” state. Now, he has come out against the “delimitation”.

 

Except the two Congress Chief Ministers of Karnataka and Telangana, no other southern state has come in his support.

 

Just like he is projecting himself as standing up to the BJP’s southern campaign, Mamata Bannerjee has been doing in West Bengal, although the circumstances are entirely different, none of the opposition parties from the “north”, which are stringently opposed to the BJP have commented anything on the “delimitation” debate.

 

Stalin appears to have started believing that the “entire north”, by which he means, everything other than “five southern” states, are always going to be with the BJP.

 

The BJP lost in the biggest “northern” state of UP, where Samajwadi Party and the Congress together trounced the BJP in the Lok Sabha elections. Obviously, if there are more seats in UP, parties like SP and the Congress will also stand to gain.

 

Democracy has its own advantages and disadvantages. The concept of universal franchise grants the right of single vote to every individual. Even if the “northern” states get larger number of parliamentary seats, which in any case and according to any formula they will, it will not be necessarily against any other state, including the southern states. Because, in India, unlike in the United States, we do not have the formula of the “winner takes it all”.

 

The proportional representation based on population has worked very well so far. There has not been any discrimination against any state till date. Conceiving and feeding imaginary doubts for petty partisan interests is not new in Indian politics.

 

There indeed is a need for reframing the policy and formula for representation in the Lok Sabha and maintaining the balance and equilibrium but trying to create an imaginary divide between the “south” and the “north” is completely unwarranted and unacceptable as it is divisive and sectarian in intent.