A Case for Fair Delimitation

Delimitation is an act or process of fixing limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies for the purpose of electing representative in the parliament or legislative assembly. Periodic exercise of delimitation is necessary for successful working of democracy as it prevents distortion arising due to demographic changes. The primary objective of delimitation is therefore to provide equal representation of the people in the decision making power of the government.

In India, delimitation commissions have been constituted 4 times in 1952, 1962, 1973, and in 2002. Although Article 82 and 170 of the Indian constitution provide for delimitation of constituencies for parliament and legislative assembly in the states every decennial census, the last delimitation exercise was done after a gap of 30 years based on 2001 census. In this 30 years period the population has increase by more than 87%. However, even this exercise was half-hearted as the parliament by its Constitution (Eighty-Fourth) Amendment Act 2002 frozen the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha and Assemblies till 2026.

Similarly in Nagaland, the last delimitation to the Legislative Assembly was done in the year 1976 based on the 1971 census. This delimitation exercise was criticised as there was a lot of population disparities vis-a-vis the allocation of constituencies. In fact, the suspension of delimitation exercise in the state till date have defeated the very purpose of electoral democracy, as the principle of “one vote, one value” is undermined. This malapportionment of constituencies have led to many unwanted social conflicts and hatred in Nagaland. Therefore the announcement of the Fourth delimitation Commission 2002 by Election Commission was received by the people as an opportunity for rectifying the past injustice. However, to the utter dismay of people’s hope, and in spite of Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of delimitation in the case of Nagaland, politics won over people’s hope and the delimitation for assembly in Nagaland was exempted through an Ordinance promulgated by the president of India in 2008 on the ground of threat perception.

The Presidential Ordinance which amended the Delimitation Act 2002 added section 10A, that reads:

“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 4, 8 and 9, if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen whereby the unity and integrity of India is threatened or there is a serious threat to the peace and public order, he may, by order, defer the delimitation exercise in a State.

(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament.”

In exercise of the powers under section 10(A) of the Act, the Government of India has issued an order on 8th February 2008 deferring the delimitation exercise in the state of Nagaland.

Taking a post-mortem, people have shown that the situation in 2008 did not warrant for the deferment of delimitation exercise on the ground of “seriously threatening the peace and public order, and the unity and integrity of the nation”. In fact, the situation was worse when the two delimitation exercises in the past were conducted in 1964 and 1972. The Naga political unrest was at its peak, not only in terms of fratricidal killings but also hostility towards anything Indian.  However, this had no bearing on the delimitation exercise, and the delimitations were conducted successfully. Therefore delimitation exercise and Naga political talks are not mutually inclusive, and the need of the hour is fair delimitation.

On analysing the data of the last 12th General election to the legislative assembly 2013, it was found that the average electorate for the Nagaland state came out to be 19974.15 per constituency (See table No 1). It can also be seen that five districts, viz, Dimapur, Peren, Kiphire, Wokha and Phek are having an average number of electorate that is above the state average. However, districts like Kohima, Longleng, Tuensang, Mon, Zunheboto and Mokokchung have a lower average number of electorates than the state average. The correlation between the number of seats and average electorate among the districts shows a negative value of -.79. This shows that districts having higher average voters have lower seats while districts having higher seats have lower average electorate.  In other words, there is disproportionate representation to the state legislative assembly among the districts.

Thus, there is an urgent need to redistribute the number of seats to all the districts so that there is a fair distribution of electoral constituencies in the state. Looking at the data there are two Options available (also shown in the table below) in order to achieve a just delimitation result.

Option I: To redistribute the number of seats in every district by taking the lowest average number of electorate from the state assembly constituencies, i,e, 13540 per constituency.

Option II: To take the state average number of electorate i,e, 19974.15 per constituency and restructure the seat allotment in every district.

Table No 1: Before and After Delimitation an Analytical Scenerio

Sources: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Nagaland 2013.

If we follow the first option, the state needs to enhance the assembly seat to 89, which means there will be an increase of assembly seats by another 29 seats. However, if the government chooses the second option then there will not be any increase of seat but only redistribution of seats from the existing one.

Given the precondition set by the Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act 2001 that freezes the total number of seats, this Option I is not on the table at the moment. Therefore the Option II is the only option available for us. Similarly even in the future the “principle of equity” should be paramount for any delimitation exercise necessitating due to settlement of the Naga political issue.

In 2004 the state government gave two excuses for deferment of delimitation: One, tribal dynamics; two, crucial stage of the ongoing peace process. Regarding the tribal dynamics, no doubt, Nagaland state is a tribal state with 90% of the total population constituting tribes in the state. There are 16 tribes recognised by the state, and a few unrecognised ethic groups such as other Naga tribes, Kachari, Garo, Bengalis, etc. found in Dimapur district. Since 1970 all 60 Legislative Assembly seats in the state are occupied by these 16 tribes in different proportions. Each district in the state belongs to, and inhabited by a particular tribe or a combination of two or three tribes, exception being Dimapur where almost all the tribes in Nagaland are found in large number. In short, Naga society is still very parochial and ridden by tribalism. Therefore any alteration in the existing tribal configuration is always viewed from the narrow lens of tribalism. In the same manner, after every general election, the formation of ministry in the state is viewed from tribal prism. This mentality influences the elected ministers, and the “Minister forgets that he is a minister of Nagaland, and he becomes the minister of his own constituency, minister of his own tribe, becomes the minister of his own clan” (Wouters 2018: 264). This being the reality, the existing territorial constituencies only reflects the injustice endured by some tribes and undue advantage enjoyed by few tribes at the expense of others.

With regard to the second excuse, i.e. the crucial stage of Naga peace process, 16 years have passed after reaching the “crucial stage” of the Naga peace process, and still the NDPP (Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party), via press releases, is giving the same old reason time and again. Will the delimitation exercise impede or obstruct the Naga settlement? This may not be the case. Naga settlement may come anytime but this should not be the excuse for rectifying the anomalies in the distribution of assembly constituencies in the state, afterall, three elections have been conducted already under this unfair distribution and people are victimised for too long due to this malapportionment.

One should understand that any form of change is resisted by people in power who are getting undue advantage and benefit out of the existing system. They have concertedly resisted using every possible means such as, manipulation of state power, court case etc; because status quo serves their vested interest. However, politics being an “authoritative allocation of values in the society”, the current commission should do whatever is just; if necessary impose their decision, as the decision of the commission cannot be challenged by the court. Only this will reflect the true voice of the people.

Prof. Zarenthung Ezung and Dr. Phyoben Odyuo
Mokokchung