(Exposing the manipulation of India's electoral institutions, is a key focus area in The Quint's reportage. Become a member and support our work)
The Narendra Modi government is all set to table the Delimitation Bill - it will involve redrawing boundaries of constituencies and increasing the total number of Lok Sabha seats from 543 to 850. The total number of seats in each state will be changed as per the latest census.
So far, delimitation of Lok Sabha and Assembly seats has been completed in one state and one Union Territory: Assam and Jammu and Kashmir. The manner in which this was done in these two places gives us an indication of what could happen nationwide.
Two processes explain how the entire exercise may be conducted in a way that benefits the BJP.
Selective use of population as a yardstick
'Gerrymandering' of seats
Selective Use of Population
Different standards were used in Assam and Jammu and Kashmir to change the boundaries of seats. In Jammu and Kashmir, the criteria of population was used to reduce the proportion of seats for the Muslim-majority Kashmir region and increase the proportion for the Hindu-majority Jammu region.
For example, the Anantnag Lok Sabha seat was reduced in population, and Muslim-majority areas in Jammu were added, even though the entire Pir Panjal mountain range lies between these two regions.
In Assam, the seats for Muslim-majority areas were reduced, despite a higher population. More on that in the next section.
The Jammu and Kashmir model - of using population as per the latest census - will be used to allocate seats to different states under the Delimitation Bill.
This will lead to a reduction in the proportion of seats in the southern states. These also happen to be states where the BJP performs poorly. It will also lead to an increase in the proportion of seats in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. (Calculations are courtesy The Hindu.)
Uttar Pradesh, which has 80 seats in the 543-member Lok Sabha at present, should have had 125 seats in the new 850-member Lok Sabha. It will now have 138 seats due to a higher population growth rate. Bihar, which should have had 62 seats, will now have 72. Rajasthan, which should have had 39, will have 47.
In contrast, Tamil Nadu, which should have had 61 seats in the increased Lok Sabha, will have 50. Kerala will have 23 instead of 31. Andhra Pradesh will have 34 instead of 39.
Gerrymandering of Seats
The basic principle of democracy is 'one person, one vote'. By extension, delimitation means that every seat has approximately the same number of voters.
If equitable division was the principle, each Lok Sabha seat in Assam should have 17.5 lakh voters. But in the Muslim-majority Dhubri seat, around 10 lakh extra voters were added. This means that the value of a vote in Dhubri is lesser than the other seats in Assam.
The extra 10 lakh voters added to Dhubri previously belonged to the Barpeta seat. The strategy was to move the Muslim-majority areas of Barpeta into Dhubri, making Barpeta a Hindu-majority seat overnight.
When the results came in, it was no surprise that for the first time, the NDA won the seat for the first time.
The seats in Assam have been divided in such a way that doesn't make geographic or demographic sense. Read this thread by information security and legal expert Srinivas Kodali to understand this.
The government seems to have divided seats in such a way that suits its own political calculations.
This can be understood through an important concept from US politics - gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is the deliberate manipulation of electoral district boundaries to give one political party or group an unfair advantage, often resulting in strangely shaped districts. If one looks at the maps of seats in Assam, it is a classic case of gerrymandering.
There are two components to gerrymandering: packing and cracking.
Packing is the concentration of Opposition voters in a small number of seats. With this, the Opposition party wins these particular seats with large margins but loses everywhere else. Dhubri in Assam is a perfect example of packing.
Cracking: This strategy spreads Opposition voters across many seats. By doing this, the party in power keeps a majority in as many districts as possible. Barpeta Lok Sabha seat is an example of cracking.
Responding to The Quint, former education minister of J&K, Naeem Akhtar said, "J&K and Assam delimitation was done by the same commission. Reduction of the electoral value of one community against another was the only ground rule for both. A permanent disempowerment."
Why Delimitation is Vote Chori Against the Opposition
To summarise, delimitation is a three-step vote-chori against the Opposition.
Step 1: The proportion of seats in southern states will be reduced.
These states are being penalised for better family planning initiated by previous central governments. Not just the South, Aam Aadmi Party MLA Garry Birring had written an article for The Quint arguing that delimitation could place Punjab at a disadvantage as well. We already saw how this was done in the Kashmir region. Be it the South, Punjab or Kashmir, these are all areas where the BJP is weak. Population will be used as a yardstick to reduce the representation of these areas.
Step 2: Selective use of population and census
In Assam, the government went for delimitation as per the 2001 census and not the latest figures, citing the need to "protect smaller communities". These also happen to be communities which have tended to vote for the BJP in the past few elections.
This could have be used to preserve the interests of linguistic minority states such as the South or Punjab, which will lose out as per the latest population figures. But the government chose not to do it. Clearly, population as a criteria and choice of census is being done in a way that benefits the BJP and harms the Opposition. '
Step 3: Gerrymandering, Packing and Cracking
Like Assam and J&K, seats are likely to be divided in such a way that Opposition voters get concentrated in a small number of seats and reduced to insignificance in a larger number of seats.
Big picture: Every step in the electoral process has become vulnerable to possible manipulation: Allocation of seats, drawing of boundaries, preparation of electoral rolls, deployment of polling officials, ineffective implementation of model code of conduct and, finally, polling day intimidation. And we haven't even begun talking about political funding.