This delimitation issue has put Tamil Nadu and other southern states in a difficult position, and Chief Minister MK Stalin’s remarks—though dramatic—highlight a genuine concern that has been brewing for years. The irony is striking: states like Tamil Nadu successfully implemented family planning policies and kept their population growth under control, yet they now face the possibility of losing political representation in the Lok Sabha because of their efficiency. On the other hand, northern states that continued to see high population growth stand to gain more seats, which creates a fundamental imbalance in political power.
The core argument from Stalin and other southern leaders is that a state’s representation in Parliament should not be determined solely by population growth, as this would unfairly penalize states that performed well in controlling their numbers. Instead, they argue that factors such as economic contribution, literacy rates, and development indices should also be considered in the delimitation process. Tamil Nadu, for instance, has been one of the biggest contributors to India’s economy, ranking among the top states in terms of GDP and industrial output. Should a state that drives economic progress be punished simply because it has fewer people?
Union Home Minister Amit Shah has assured that no state will lose seats due to delimitation, but there is skepticism about how this will play out in practice. If the total number of Lok Sabha seats is increased from 543 to 848, Tamil Nadu might gain additional seats, but the key question remains: will its share of representation remain proportionate, or will it be diluted in favor of northern states? While clearly rhetorical and impractical given Tamil Nadu’s low fertility rate, Stalin's call for increased birth rates underscores his desperation to ensure the state’s voice is not diminished in national politics.
Statistically, Tamil Nadu would need a near-impossible baby boom to maintain its share of seats if representation is based solely on population. With a fertility rate of just 1.52, far below the national average of 2.01, the state would have to more than double its birth rate in just two years to match the numbers needed. Given the biological and social realities, this is simply not feasible. The alternative, therefore, is a political battle to redefine how representation is allocated in a way that does not penalize states for past success in population control.
As this debate intensifies, it is likely to become a major flashpoint in national politics. Southern states may push for constitutional amendments or new frameworks that factor in governance efficiency, economic contribution, and human development indices alongside population. Meanwhile, northern states that stand to gain from a population-based delimitation may resist any such changes. The outcome of this debate will shape India’s federal structure and political balance for decades to come.
What do you think would be the fairest solution? Should delimitation strictly follow population numbers, or should a more nuanced approach be adopted to ensure fairness for all states?
