They Blocked It! The Opposition's Pointless Opposition

The Guardian, a secular news outlet, reports: The Indian government has failed to pass a bill to increase female representation in parliament after being accused of using the plan as a guise to redraw the country’s electoral map. It was the first time in twelve years in power that a constitutional amendment proposed by Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government was not passed by parliament.

The failure followed a fierce debate, with the government accused of an “attack on democracy” after it tethered a bill reserving one-third of parliamentary seats for women to a wider, controversial exercise of “delimitation”. The process would redraw parliamentary constituencies along population lines based on the 2011 census, and would increase the number of MPs in the lower chamber from 543 to about 850.

As a constitutional measure, the bill required a two-thirds majority, making it more challenging for the BJP and its National Democratic Alliance, which does not have an outright majority, to pass it. In the final tally, 298 MPs voted in favor and 230 against. India’s often fragmented opposition parties showed rare unity in fighting the bill. The Indian National Congress member Priyanka Gandhi Vadra called it an “open attack” on democracy.

Gaurav Gogoi accused the Modi government of trying to “bulldoze” delimitation through the back door. Delimitation is one of the most divisive federal issues in India. It is particularly contentious in more prosperous southern states such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which have reduced population growth in recent years and fear their political representation would be penalized. Meanwhile, poorer, more populous northern states – considered the BJP’s political heartland – stand to gain the most seats if redrawn.

 _____________________________________________________

The opposition united to block the bill aimed to increase women’s representation in Parliament, citing disagreements with the terms of delimitation. Critics questioned both the implementation of the women’s reservation bill and the potential impact of delimitation, arguing it favored poorer, less educated states of the country. The delimitation would happen today or tomorrow, as the population grows. It is a natural thing done to facilitate governance. The number of constituencies would increase based on population. This could result in more Muslim constituencies in Malabar and additional Hindu majority constituencies in North India.

However, contrary to the opposition’s opinion, PM Modi did not introduce the women's reservation bill in a crafty way by merging it with the delimitation exercise. The clause that the women's reservation would come into effect only after the delimitation exercise was a key feature of the bill passed with the opposition’s consent in 2023, not a new idea. The delimitation exercise is intended to facilitate governance by distributing seats in proportion to the area-wise population. If the opposition does not trust the census they did in 2011 when their parties were in power, we can do a fresh census and implement delimitation and the women’s reservation bill.

Now, to those who ask, can't we implement women's reservation with the present numbers? Yes, we can bring the women’s reservation bill with the current number of seats (550). However, it would be unwise to bring an amendment without including the delimitation based on the present census. It is like saying to a patient, prone to frequent attacks of appendicitis, now requiring pancreatic surgery, that we could do another surgery to remove the appendix at a later date. Or it would be like mopping the floor and setting another day to clean the ceiling fan, which would eventually spread more dirt in the room.

Therefore, the opposition’s lame excuse for failing the helpful and harmless women’s reservation bill, citing delimitation, stands exposed. The delimitation would happen today or tomorrow after a fresh census. It will not affect the seat share of southern states, as the opposition is misinforming their southern audience. The seat share of southern states before the delimitation exercise (120/550) and after delimitation (197/850) will remain the same: 23 percent. Likewise, the seat share of the poor and large northern states will also be the same as before, that is, 77 percent.

So, I am not happy about this harmless and helpful bill not passing through. By spreading misinformation and hiding important details of the 2023 bill, such as linking women’s reservation with the delimitation exercise, the opposition might think they won. However, it is not the opposition's victory. It shows their lack of confidence in winning the hearts of the poor and large northern states. It shows their insecurity and fear of failure. I pray that the poor and illiterate North Indian would decide the fate of Bharat and continue to elect NDA with a thumping majority.

Furthermore, Bharat will never forget how Mr. Elite described voting rights in Bharat. We had thought he and his friends were protectors of the weak. His embarrassing statement runs completely counter to the spirit of the Constitution. He said, "We risk creating a tyranny of the demographic majority where a handful of large, poor states could theoretically determine the fate of the entire country.” Well, Mr. Elite, who will decide who decides the fate of Bharat? The constitution or the educated elite. How can you say that the poor farmers and fishermen cannot decide the country's fate?

According to him, only the wealthy and educated must decide the country's fate. The poor voter's vote carries less weight than the wealthy elite's. Only because voters in North India are choosing the BJP and Modi, their vote carries less weight. What if Mr. Elite were in the BJP or NDA? What if Mr. Elite lived in one of these poorer and larger states? Will he still make the same heartless comment about the poor? It shows how much the opposition distrusts democracy, where a poor farmer can elect an elite millionaire (Mr. Tharoor) and send him to the parliament to be his voice.

The Guardian’s observation that “more prosperous southern states such as Kerala would lose significant representation” is not entirely accurate. In reality, before delimitation it stands (129/550), after delimitation it will be (197/850). The proportion (23%) remains the same.  Further, the number of seats in Kerala would increase by 50% (from 20 to 30). Uttar Pradesh would increase its seats by 60% (from 80 to 130) despite its higher population growth. The difference is not great. Besides, Kerala is smaller than Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh is six times the size of Kerala. So if we take area into account, the seats in UP must be around 180 if distributed fairly. Kerala already benefits from a higher population density than north Indian states.

Again, Bharat is one undivided country where the rich and the poor, the literate and the illiterate, enjoy equal rights. The so-called wealthier states did not grow in a vacuum. Their economic success is linked to the contributions of poorer states, which supply agricultural resources and manpower. The Hindu growth rate is considerably less than that of the Muslims in these wealthy states. However, the same opposition that demeans the uneducated Hindu voter of North India reacts sensitively when questioned about the rights of the rapidly growing Islamic population of the Southern states. Alas! The Muslim is poor, oppressed, and illiterate, and needs more reservations.

The central question is not whether the Southern states' population is growing as rapidly as the North's, but which people group is increasing its population, and at whose expense. Why is the South Indian Muslim community deliberately not cooperating with the national agenda of population control? Whereas the Hindu population is declining steadily, the Muslim population growth rate is at its all-time high in these prosperous states. So, is it the Hindus, who are declining due to their efforts to help the national population-control agenda, that the opposition is concerned about?

Not at all! Suppose we question the Muslim population growth rate and whether the illiterate Muslim person of South India has equal rights as the literate South Indian Hindu who is controlling his birth rate for the nation, the opposition's response would invariably favor the Islamic poor. They would go on to say, "The South Indian poor Islamic man is willing to educate and raise his children, even if there are many of them. They are backward and needy." Why can't the opposition think and argue along the same lines for the North Indian poor person?

In my view, opposition is insecure. To protect their seat share in Parliament, they voted against women's empowerment only because the bill gives equal rights to undereducated Hindu North Indian and the educated South Indian to decide the nation’s fate (PM). The women's reservation bill will eventually pass because no one can defeat what is right for long. Even so, this result is an eye-opener for those who fail to identify the Jinnahs roaming around in Nehru’s garments who love the Islamic law that does not treat women equally, and then blame the Manusmriti.

In sum, the opposition’s decision to block the bill centered less on opposition to women’s empowerment and more on concerns over the redistribution of political power through delimitation. Their insecurity about seat share motivated their vote, even at the cost of delaying women’s reservation. The broader implication is that debates about representation in Bharat reflect deeper divides about who should have a stronger voice in the nation’s future: the educated elite or the poor and underrepresented. Despite current obstacles, the women’s reservation bill is likely to pass, affirming the broader principle of equal representation.