Listen to this article:

It seems that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is pushing for delimitation without the 2027 Census results, on the grounds that it will enable implementation of the 2023 Nari Vandan Adhiniyam Act by or before the 2029 general election (the 2027 Census results will only be released in 2028-2030, delaying implementation to 2034). Union home minister Amit Shah has engaged in several rounds of consultation with allies and opposition parties to seek support for legislation to this end. But is his initiative focused on implementing women’s reservation, as is claimed? Or is women’s reservation being used to push legislature expansion, especially of the Lok Sabha?

On March 24, news outlets, both digital and print, reported that Shah proposes a 50% increase in legislative seats so that one-third of total seats can be reserved for women. This would allow sitting MPs (85%  male) and MLAs (91% male) to retain their seats for reelection. The Lok Sabha will acquire 273 additional seats, bringing total seats to 816. In order to implement these proposals, the Modi administration will bring two bills – one for delimitation using the 2011 Census results, and the other a Constitutional amendment to freeze states’ seat shares at the current level.

By the evening of March 24, the same news outlets clarified that each of the four proposals was stand-alone – that is, the 50% legislature expansion was not linked to the 33% women’s reservation. But the math suggests the linkage – a 50% expansion is required to provide one-third for women without reallocating male MPs’ seats. So why the clarification?

Perhaps it was meant to obscure the targeted approach of the Modi administration. Women’s reservation is a good peg to hang the goal of legislature expansion on, since opposition parties’ support women’s rights, as do many of the vocal public; indeed, the Congress has piloted bills for women’s reservation since the 1990s (then opposed by the BJP as well as other parties). By contrast, legislature expansion is contested – most MPs want it, to alleviate the heavy burden that population increase has placed on them. But many in the public are ambiguous, given widespread disillusionment with elected representatives.

Moreover, most democracy analysts agree that parliament will barely function if the Lok Sabha is substantially expanded, an eventuality that might suit the BJP given its Speaker’s disinclination to allow debate. Tying women’s reservation to legislature expansion, therefore, cloaks its dual goal, of an 816-strong Lok Sabha – if anyone now debates the numbers, he/she will be accused of being anti-women – and protection of sitting male MPs.

Sweetening the deal, Shah’s offer to freeze states’ seat shares at the current level is clearly intended to win support of the southern states that, led by Tamil Nadu chief minister M.K. Stalin, strongly opposed Lok Sabha expansion since it would, on population count, reduce the southern states’ seat share to below a fifth of total seats (at present they stand at 23.9%). The Stalin administration has just released a massive report arguing that Lok Sabha expansion be limited to 7 seats; the issue of numbers was poised to dominate debate on expansion.

The freeze on states’ seat shares allays the southern states’ fears and extracts the quid pro quo of support for greater Lok Sabha expansion as well as delimitation using the 2011 Census, as Stalin implied in his tweet of March 24.

Why is the 2011 Census so important? The administration’s argument appears to be that it is the default option given the delayed 2027 Census, for which the BJP alone is at fault. But is that really the case? Women’s reservation is not dependent on legislature expansion or Census results; a delimitation commission only has to allocate one-third of total seats to women. It can be implemented in the current strength of Lok and Vidhan Sabhas.

Could it be that the Modi administration wishes to avoid the 2027 Census because it will include caste, and the ruling BJP is concerned how caste figures might impact public demands for representation? While the BJP’s electoral and activist base includes substantial numbers of the Other Backward Classes (OBC), its use of these castes and their prominence has caused considerable dissatisfaction amongst the upper castes; the Scheduled Castes (SC) appear to be turning away too, as are several Denotified Tribes that have been omitted from the 2027 Census’ list. Shah’s proposal, in fact, allows the BJP to omit the caste results in the 2027 Census, as happened with the 2011 Census.

What methodology will be used to allocate women’s seats? Shah’s strategy appears to be to get the 50% expansion passed by parliament, restricting a delimitation commission to the task of demarcation alone. Here too there is a danger – if a new delimitation commission follows the examples of the Jammu and Kashmir and Assam delimitations, it can redraw constituencies that reduce Muslim, and in some cases Scheduled Caste and Tribe, voters to an insignificant minority, and even to do away with Opposition strongholds altogether. And now they might have 816 constituencies to gerrymander.

Reportedly, Shah wished to rush the two bills enshrining his proposals through the current parliamentary session ending on April 4. Under opposition pressure, he agreed to postpone, perhaps to the monsoon session. Opposition parties have suggested an all-party meeting after the upcoming state elections, so that they can examine Shah’s proposals in depth.

Among the issues to consider, the uppermost are: (a) delinking women’s reservation from legislature expansion; (b) separately debating what number of additional seats are required to ease the burden on legislators; (c) ensuring that a new delimitation commission is headed by an impartial jurist who is well-versed on norms and means of democratic representation, and that it includes legislators of all parties in equal number, including at least 33 percent women; and (d) making it mandatory for the commission to put its draft recommendations in the public domain for feedback.

They might also raise a fifth issue: whether a proportion of reserved women’s seats should be allocated in constituencies from which no woman has won in the past 4-6 elections. Such a move would remove the taboo on women public figures in these constituencies and send a message to other constituencies regarded as male fiefdoms. The linkage proposed by Shah to protect sitting male legislators is not only unnecessary, but also shameful. And it relies on unproven assumptions.

Why should women’s seats be additional seats? Did the male MPs who voted for the bill do so only because they were assured that their seats would not be allocated to women? What made the male MPs so sure that they would be reelected? Parliamentary data does not substantiate that assumption.

Finally, it is time for Opposition parties to begin to identify and nurture women candidates. The BJP already has an advantage, since it embarked on the task some years ago. Unfortunately, none of the BJP’s women legislators have piloted or even supported women’s rights; they appear to constitute a shrill echo chamber for the Prime Minister and his administration. There is thus a large gap to fill.

Amongst the Opposition parties, the Trinamool Congress stands out for having the largest proportion of women legislators, who do their homework and are also combative, but almost every Opposition party includes articulate and committed women legislators, as the splendid debate on Operation Sindoor showed. I hope they will take a joint lead in formulating Opposition policy to ensure that women’s reservation is not instrumentalised to serve chauvinist ruling party interests. That is the least that Indian women deserve.

Radha Kumar is a writer and policy analyst. She was a government-appointed interlocutor for Jammu and Kashmir in 2010-11.

© The Wire