This is the second of a two-part article on the Women’s Reservation Bill. The first part was published on 27 November 2022.
In order to formulate a new legislation bringing parity to women together with denting the ‘structural violence’ of the present size of our constituencies, it is crucial to first understand the seat-scarcity psychosis that gripped Parliamentarians on the Women’s Reservation Bill (WRB) causing such shameful, unprecedented scenes within Parliament.
The Constitution (Article 81) stipulates the composition of the House of the People. Its Clause (2)(a)( b) require allocations to each State made so “the ratio between the number and the population of the State is so far as practicable, the same for all States” (emphasis added); further, each State is divided into territorial constituencies wherein the ratio between the population of each constituency and the seat-numbers is practically the same. Article 170 Clause 2 reiterates the same for State Legislative Assemblies (SLAs) Article 82 lays down readjustment after each decadal census. Article 81 Clause 1 provides for the upper number for Lok Sabha seats in States/ UTs but this has consistently changed over the years. (Article 170 Clause 1 has a range: 60- 500).
The Constituent Assembly’s ideal of Parliamentary Constituency (PC) of half-million-one million had India’s 360 million population distributed in 1951 into 401 PCs and 489 seats (Note that difference!) After each census-count, as also reorganization/addition of states, the number of constituencies and seats readjusted: by 1971, the 401 constituencies/ 489 seats had climbed to 543.
This revision-process was interrupted in 1976 through the Emergency-era-42nd Constitutional amendment – endorsed by the post-Emergency Janata government – in the cause of population-control. Periodic updating/re-allocation of constituencies to states and within states was frozen till 2000 A.D. at the number and distribution prevailing at 1971-population levels, when the numbers-and-ratio-principle had been quite fairly aligned.
As 2000 drew near, the failure of the legislative-intent to promote family planning and its huge unintended consequences on the nation’s polity became clear. The progressive Southern states stood to be penalized for their excellent demographic management by losing as many as 15 seats in Parliament, besides SLAs; the recalcitrant Northern states stood to gain even more for their non-performance. Also, constituencies had grown differentially during the 30-year freeze; 204 mainly-urban constituencies were grossly oversize; 40 per cent of all constituencies exceeded their state averages. The value of an individual vote differed widely within one state. Protracted political negotiations followed. An appraisal of the Constitutional principles identified maintaining the ratio of population and seats between and within states as stipulated in Article 81 Clause (2) (a() and (b)as essential. So, holding steadfast to 1971-determined ratio and allocations, Delimitation 2002 was mandated to reconfigure constituencies on 1991 census basis (later 2001). The larger population was distributed, as equally as possible, within the existing constituency-allocations but with better geographical and administrative coherence.
This exercise resulted in neat building blocks: local, SLC, PCs. However, each constituency stood uniformly bloated as the doubled population – a billion in 2001 crammed into the 1971 half-billion distribution pattern. Post-2002 Delimitation each PC averaged 1.5 to 2 million population; six states exceeded 2 million; four smaller states remained below a million average. SLAs in 15 states averaged 2.3 lakhs each; four states averaged 3.3 lakhs and UP- 4 lakhs plus.
In vain attention was drawn to this unhealthy scenario and the need to examine dual-constituencies (DCs) in lieu of the controversy-ridden WRB with which the then-dominant Congress was besotted. Axiomatic that over 30 years each constituency would grow still more monstrously-large (as they have) becoming open-season for money-and muscle-power; representatives too remote to serve.
No surprise then that a large number of MPs/MLas with declared criminal charges has emerged: now 43 per cent MPs or nearly half the lawmakers with declared criminal charges; many with serious crimes against women. One-third women-MPS have declared criminal charges, testifying to quite another female-persona in the political fray.
In the 2024 General Elections voters alone will average 1.4 million to over 2 million in a larger-state PC – the earlier total population! For, beyond voting population is the substantial below-19 age-cohort. State-wise projections add another 28 to 40 per cent on this score; Bihar another 43 per cent plus! This huge segment of the young demands even greater, sensitive policy attention/inputs if a demographic dividend, not disaster is to result. Can such gargantuan numbers be managed? Post-2026-Delimitation more issues will arise.
So, to return to the DC concept that could halve constituency-size while placing a woman as equal partner in each constituency creating total gender-parity. The resultant ‘feminization of the political processes’ could also be a game-changer: with potential to universalize feminization of political tools and action as more suiting contemporary ground-needs, ushering a 21st century revolution reminiscent of the Gandhian ‘feminization of politics’ during the freedom struggle when the ‘feminine attributes’ of ahimsa and satyagraha enabled masses of women to emerge and also gave the male-psyche another sensibility. For grooming the large youth population as an asset and building sustainable clean green environment are issues for which women have always demonstrated particular empathy and skills. Dual-membership is another Gandhian legacy: born out of his riposte to the British communal-awards-with-separate-electorates. Consequently, India started its democratic innings in 1951 with 401 demarcated constituencies but 489 representatives –because as many as 86 came from dual-member,1 triple-member constituencies. In 1957 constituency-numbers increased to 403, seats to 494, with 91 representatives from DCs! In both these early elections one-third of all MPs were elected from double/multi-member constituencies. 400 SLAs were dual-member.
This process was unfortunately reversed in 1961 because of the political setback to a leading politician in a DC – Shri VV Giri who went on to become India’s fourth President. A political campaign mounted thereafter canvased DCs as too large – exceeding one million! – for effective management. Quick drafting and enactment of The Abolition of Two Member Constituencies Act (1961) followed, mandating Delimitation Commission immediately set-up and inter alia all DCs-member constituencies converted into single-member before the next General Elections later that year. It was done.
The Abolition of Two Member Act (1961) provides a mirror-model and methodology for the reversion of the process to two-members-per-constituency, now with one reserved for a woman.
In 1961/62 the task was completed within the year without the aid of computers. Today all 543 PCs and 4120 SLCs stand meticulously computer-mapped complete with tabulated-data on all constituent-units available in the Election Commission archives. I have personally retrieved and shown samples at a recent lecture at India International Centre. More significantly, Justice Kuldip Singh then-head Delimitation Commission (2002) had shared in 2008 that when no population re-distribution was required a simple bifurcation of territories could be executed within few months, given political directive.
So why not draft a new Constitutional Amendment Bill: The Creation of Double Member Constituencies Act (2022) dropping the failed extension of women’s rights through Special Provisions Relating to Certain Classes and upfronting the Constitutional promise of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15? Amend the principal articles dealing directly with the Composition of Parliament and State Legislatures respectively: Articles 80/81 and 170/171 and inter alia (or simultaneously) set-up Delimitation Commission (2023) with mandate to bisect, as equally as practicable, each and every constituency, completing the task within the year!
As seen, the Constitution does not place any ceiling on the upper limit of Parliament representatives; State Legislatures have wide range. Thus, only the previously frequently changed Clause (1) of Article 80 (and Article 170) require modification by reinserting higher upper numbers. The substantive Constitutional concern with the ratio principle between and within states enunciated by Clause 2 (a) and (b) would remain untouched, as also the number of constituencies with only the number of representatives increasing – as was the case till 1961.The fine political balance is unaffected.
Article 80 dealing with the Composition of the Council of States is complex regarding mode of election but with brackets on actual numbers is amenable to change. Article 171 (Legislative Councils) does not quantify, only stipulates ‘not to exceed one third of the members of the legislative assembly’. However, the above is only indicative of the needed thrust – details need careful drafting by legal experts. Bifurcation of each constituency is the ideal – uniformly downsizing all constituencies – creating a three-quarters/one million to a million and half range for PCs (SLCs downsize equivalently) while providing equal parity to women. But fifty percent of constituencies turned dual is another workable option. It ensures the minimum 33 per cent reservation to women (the magical arithmetic of 50 percent added to any number and the addition earmarked unfailingly yields 33 per cent for the earmarked!). In this model half would then be left to open competition for both men and women; dual and single blocks could interchange for the next general election. Parity remains. The process cannot but be substantially salutary to the conduct of politics. Doubling 543 Parliamentarians/ 4120 State Legislators may appear mind-boggling – but such numbers are not large for India’s.3 billion-growing population. Democratic countries, a fraction of India’s population-and-area have more sizable numbers proportionately. (UK: 68 million population; 650 MPs; Sweden:- 10 million population; 349 Parliamentarians.) Increased cost to the exchequer? “Small change,” considering a financial system supporting over 9 million representatives in three tiers. Besides, enormous savings accrue with more efficient clean representation.
In sum: Parliament has the necessary powers to summon a Special Session and bring forward new Legislation: Creation of Dual/Double Constituencies (2023). Precedents exist. The government has the requisite majority to make it a reality. The tools to administratively accomplish the task within the year also exist. Fresh thinking could set the entire political system on a positive course with spinoffs – including on issues inevitably ahead with post 2026 Delimitation. India would become a world exemplar. That – or a third of the driver-seats in cars careening downhill?