Delimitation #2: Solutions

In the last blog, we went over the history and consequences of delimitation in Inda. In this one, we go over the solutions Shruti Rajagopalan proposes.

 

Solution 1: Fiscal Federalism + Perfect Apportionment of Seats

As mentioned, the reason delimitation is so contentious is that it is about money. This solution is, therefore, about moving to a completely decentralized system, where states get to keep (most of their) revenue, and the Center has little to give to states on any criteria.

 

The richer states would have no objections left and delimitation could go ahead. Total MP count would be increased, relative share of MP’s across states would reflect their population, India’s MP-to-population could be brought closer to other countries, and with fewer constituents, MP’s would take better address their constituents’ needs.

 

An obvious problem is that the Center would not be willing to give up its share (and control) of the money. In addition, the poorer states can’t raise enough revenue for all their needs, as this graph shows. While the revenue collection of all states has increased with time, the gap between how much the richer and poorer states can collect has only increased. It is a sad truth: states need money to get better, but they can’t raise much money (in-state) until they become richer. It's the classic chicken and egg problem.

 

In theory, there is a solution for this problem: migration to richer states. But:

“A fiscally decentralized system would rely more on migration pull through economic productivity of the southern states, which isn’t simple because of linguistic fractionalization.”

 

Solution 2: Money Transfers via (US) Senate-Style Rajya Sabha

To address the above chicken and egg problem, one way could be to restructure the Rajya Sabha (RS) to have the same number of representatives from each state, regardless of population. (This is how the US Senate is structured).

 

Next, the quantum of money to be transferred to each state would be decided by this new-format RS, not the Lok Sabha. Since this RS has the same number of representatives from each state, it will be more balanced and avoid the risk of being run by poorer states with higher populations.

 

The drawback with this approach?

“The problem is that while it resolves the malapportionment in the Lok Sabha, it introduces a more severe version of it in the Rajya Sabha!”

 

Solution 3: Create a new Revenue Sabha

Restructure the Rajya Sabha to be based on a combo of two attributes of each state: (1) Population, and (2) Revenue the state collects. The more revenue a state collects on its own, the more the RS members it sends, helping balance the pull of raw population count of a state.

 

In this model too, the Rajya Sabha would decide amount of money transferred to states, not the Lok Sabha. And since per-state member count is n0t just based on population but also richness, it would lead to more balanced outcomes.

 

Another advantage of this model, she says, is that it incentivizes states to increase their in-state revenue collection as it would increase their RS count and thus its say in financial matters. Plus, it is not easy to fake revenue collection.

~~

 

So there, those are Rajagopalan’s proposals. Right or not, they certainly serve as the starting point for more debates and ideas. And yes, they all need constitutional changes. But the problem of delimitation is already showing that our Constitution needs some changes on this matter anyway. Besides, a Constitution is not written in stone – that’s why we have Amendments, right?