Delimitation - Injustice to the South

Rana Yashwant: In the politics of our country, there are three issues that are often discussed: the Uniform Civil Code, One Nation One Election, and Delimitation. It is believed that these three issues can potentially redefine the course and direction of Indian politics. Among these, delimitation is a topic that is being discussed, but it has created far more uproar, especially between the states of North India and South India.

When delimitation was done during the time of independence, it was decided that the maximum number in the Lok Sabha would remain at 500. Later, it was increased to 543, and the number can go up to a maximum of 550. But the delimitation that should have happened by now is scheduled for 2026, and even before it takes place, there is an uproar— the larger the population, the more seats are allocated.

Now, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, if you combine the populations of both states, account for about one-fourth of the country's population, but they have only 125 seats. In contrast, the five states of South India—Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana—have a combined population of around 21% and a total of 129 seats.

Now, if the seats are distributed based on population, it is obvious that the North Indian states will gain more seats in the Lok Sabha. The South Indian states argue: "We reduced our population, served the nation, and now we are suffering losses as well. Why is this?" It is very obvious that this question brings up many other questions, all of which need answers.

That's why today I thought of discussing this with Acharya Prashant Ji. Sir, you are very, very welcome.

This delimitation and the uproar surrounding it—because you keep thinking about this topic many times—how do you see this issue right now?

Acharya Prashant: We have delayed this problem for 50 years, but we cannot postpone it anymore. We have to face it now.

What is delimitation? This delimitation—we have to explain this concept. Now, Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution are designed to preserve the principles of democracy. It gives us a system in which the value of the vote of every citizen, irrespective of the place that he belongs to, should be absolutely and totally the same.

It shouldn't work this way wherein, say, 10,000 people are electing their representatives for the Lok Sabha, and maybe somewhere else, 10 lakh people are electing their representatives for the Lok Sabha. Now, if this is happening, then the value of the votes of those 10,000 people would be much more than those 10 lakh people.

Now, the biggest concern over here is the interlock that is happening between federalism and democracy. The federal structure of India and the democratic system of India are getting interlocked. How are they getting interlocked?

In 1991, we opted for delimitation. Now, what is delimitation?

Take any constituency—it can be of Vidhaan Sabha or Lok Sabha. They delimited the entire thing. They adjusted the figures accordingly, and....

Rana Yashwant: Adjusted the boundaries..

Acharya Prashant: Then they changed the boundaries.

When we started off, the total number of Lok Sabha seats was less than 500. Then, they gradually increased—from 1951 to 1961, to 1971—and now they are approximately around 550. It was only in 1971 that we realized that this increase in the number of seats is because of all those states…

Rana Yashwant: Where the population is growing.

Acharya Prashant: Whose population is increasing rapidly. Their contribution to human development is very less, they are highly underdeveloped, and yet, they are highly incentivized, as their representation in the Lok Sabha is increasing at a rapid rate.

Now, if their Lok Sabha representation increases, it reflects in the Rajya Sabha too. So, when this disproportion was observed, this thing was stopped in 1971.

Now, 50 years later, in 2021, it was assumed that the North Indian states, they would catch up with the rest of the country. They would catch up with the South Indian states on different indexes of human development. But the opposite has happened. The North Indian states have fallen further behind on all human development indicators.

Now, if we again opt for delimitation—the number of seats back then, in that period, had just about increased by 50 in 30 years. Today, if they are increased, they would approximately touch the 850 mark, the North India….

Rana Yashwant: The new Lok Sabha…

Acharya Prashant: Yes, that's why. That's why it's been done.

The northern states of India have increased their population to such a massive extent that approximately 70 to 80% of the new seats would be allotted to them. The seats of South Indian states will also increase because even their population has increased, but the ratio between North India and South India will be totally imbalanced—massively imbalanced. It will be a skewed ratio.

Now, the par ratio of the states of South India, their relative strength in comparison with North India, will go weak. Now, just assume that out of the 545 seats, they have X% of seats. We'll take up all the five southern states—Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra, and Karnataka.

Now, if they have X% of seats and suppose we go for delimitation in accordance with the current population, then their seats will decrease from X percentage to 0.7X or 0.8X. And this would be in percentage—absolutely, they would increase, but in comparison with the northern states, they would decrease.

Now, this is absolute injustice. This would be a direct injustice, and there cannot be an explanation for this.

How is this unjust? I can explain it to you.

Rana Yashwant: Of course, please go ahead.

Acharya Prashant: See, everything that has made this nation prosperous has largely happened in the southern states, right? You only told me that it is the citizens who make the country. Now, the welfare of the country and its citizens has been done predominantly by the southern states, and there's no doubt about it.

If you take up the education sector, just for example, I can share certain things with you. Talking about the education sector, then we'll talk about the literacy rate. The difference in literacy rates is 20% between the North and the South—20%. Now, we talked about the five southern states.

Now, we'll take up the five northern states—UP, MP, Rajasthan, Bihar—we'll add up Jharkhand with Bihar and Chhattisgarh with Madhya Pradesh. If we consider these examples, Kerala has nearly 100% literacy, while Bihar is around 60%.

Now, who has done the job better? Kerala. But who will be punished? Kerala. And the punishment will have different dimensions. We'll talk about it later, and I will also suggest a solution that I feel should work.

We can take some other examples too. If we compare Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the difference in their literacy rate is way too much. And there's one more thing called mean years of schooling. This is the average number of years that a person has spent during his education in school.

The difference in this ratio too is 50%. In the southern states, it's about 6.5, and in the northern states, it's about 4.25 years. Now, if you add 50% to 4.25 years, then it comes down to 6.5. So, Southern India is 50% ahead in this aspect too.

And this decision wasn’t taken during independence. This is their conscious choice. The southern states have worked hard, taken tough decisions. They have taken tough decisions regarding the education sector. We haven't taken those kinds of decisions. They took the right decisions, they took the tough decisions, they went the hard way, and we cannot penalize them for the same.

I'll tell you one more thing. You will be surprised to know that an average South Indian family spends around 40% of their total income on education. Now, the average North Indian family spends around 10 to 20% of their total income on education. And we should also know that when the income of the average North Indian family is one-third of the South Indian family.

Firstly, the income is less, and then imagine spending 10-20% on education from that. Now, the average South Indian family—the middle-class family or the lower-middle-class family—they spend about 40% of their total income on education.

Rana Yashwant: I'll explain to you what Acharya Ji is saying. If a North Indian family earns 100 rupees, then they spend 20 rupees on education. Now, a South Indian family earns twice that amount, so on 200 rupees, it spends 40%—80 rupees.

Acharya Prashant: They earn three times more than us. Our average annual income is about 70,000, while theirs is 220,000. There's so much of a difference.

Rana Yashwant: It is a big gap.

Now, here is another question. Since we want proportional representation to take place, if 30 lakh people in North India elect one MP, and 8-10 lakh people in South India elect one MP. Doesn't that mean a person in the South is effectively worth three people in the North? Don't you think that it is harming North India?

Acharya Prashant: See, I will talk about the solution. I will talk about the solution and how we can make a way out of it. I'll give you one more statistic about education. After keeping this statistic in mind, the solution that I will suggest would appeal much more to you; otherwise, the solution wouldn't sound comprehensive enough.

Now, the number of education loans taken all over India. Now, taking an education loan is a decision, right? 70% of those education loans are taken in South India, while only 15% are taken in North India.

It's not that South Indian families always have that kind of money. They make tough decisions, they even go for loans, but they ensure that their children get educated—70%. They have a smaller population, yet 70% of the education loans in the country are taken in the South. 15%—only 15% are taken in North India, and the remaining 15% elsewhere.

Are you getting my point?

We'll have a look at things which are not coincidental. Those things happen only when a human being or his society takes decisions consciously.

Earlier, I talked about per capita income. In the South, it's about 2.25 lakh rupees, while in the North, it is about 70,000 rupees. And even this 70,000 rupees includes remittances sent by North Indians working in the South. If you remove that, the per capita income in the North would be even lower.

Now, one thing that needs to be added to the per capita income of North India is the massive fertile land—land that the South doesn't have. Despite having such a massive fertile land, the per capita income in the North is less than a third of the South's.

They definitely deserve some credit because this isn’t just about resources. It's about hard work, self-reliance, and discipline.

Rana Yashwant: About decisions.

Acharya Prashant: Yes, it's about the decisions the society makes.

Shouldn't the community that made better decisions be rewarded or not? Are you getting my point? There are some other issues too.

Now, the biggest stain on India is that nearly 4 crore women are missing from our population. These women are almost entirely from North and West India—distinctly North and West India; include Rajasthan and Gujarat in the West. We consider Rajasthan as the northern part—add Gujarat to it.

The notorious reputation regarding female foeticide is not associated with the South.

Rana Yashwant: This is in the North.

Acharya Prashant: Yes, this is a North-centric issue. These actions don’t happen by accident or coincidence. There's absolutely no doubt that these are deliberate decisions.

There are many other factors that we should consider—things like unemployment or startups, that is, innovation in a particular field. How much has that progressed? All of the progress regarding these particular things is significantly more in the South compared to the North. And after all this, when you see how much tax revenue comes from the South, you'll be totally astonished.

Rana Yashwant: Really?

Acharya Prashant: Karnataka contributes 1.26 lakh crore. Tamil Nadu — around 86,000 crore. Uttar Pradesh—23,000 crore. And Bihar — 6,000 crore.

Rana Yashwant: So they are earning and contributing too?

Acharya Prashant: Yes, absolutely. They're earning and contributing.

And you must also know that this isn’t just state tax—it’s central tax. And this goes to the government. The Finance Commission redistributes 41% of sharable central taxes to the states. And when the Finance Commission redistributes it, the criteria that are used in this redistribution are population and the total area of the state.

Rana Yashwant: And this benefits the North.

Acharya Prashant: Yes, the money from the South ends up going to the North. And this, precisely, is the money that is used for the development projects that are happening in the North.

All the development projects that are happening in the North—the roads, the dams—are funded significantly by the taxes from the South. So this is already a form of injustice to the South.

Rana Yashwant: That’s unfair.

Acharya Prashant: Yes, we are doing injustice to them. That's definitely injustice.

If you have a close look at the metrics used by the Finance Commission to allocate funds to the states—if you have a very close look at them—they seem very fair. But if you dig deeper, based on every single metric, there's a certain weightage and criteria to it. If you have this much, you'll get this much. So, based on this, the funds are allocated to the states.

Now, all the metrics used by the Finance Commission, directly or indirectly, they use poverty and population as the main factors. Now, where is the population higher?

Rana Yashwant: In the North.

Acharya Prashant: Where there is more poverty. So, the funds that are allocated from the center are majorly distributed in the northern part of India. But where has the center received it from?

Rana Yashwant: From the South.

Acharya Prashant: They have received it from the South.

And we should also understand that the bigger the state is, the more money it needs to administer it. So poverty, the total area of the state, and population—because of these factors, UP, MP, and Bihar get the most. So this is already a kind of injustice.

So why can't we all opt for this particular thing that in delimitation, we should increase the number of MLAs in assemblies and give the northern states 20 to 30 more years, that—introspect yourself and show us a considerable improvement, and we will reconsider it in 2051.

I'm saying this because, in a family, if one sibling feels unfairly treated, it risks breaking the family apart. And there's definitely injustice.

Rana Yashwant: Chandrababu Naidu made a statement that it's time to increase the population though he was referring to the fact that India is aging, and the total fertility rate of the country has dropped to 2.1. In the South, it is even lower—around 1.6.

So we can see that, through his entire statement, he was trying to explain that if the younger generation doesn't grow, at a certain point of time, the country will age rapidly. So, to escape aging, we need to continue giving birth.

So don't you think that Chandrababu Naidu has given this statement out of fear?

Acharya Prashant: Absolutely, yes.

It's definitely coming out of that fear only—nothing else. And this is definitely not unique to us. This is happening in many developed countries. What they do is, they incentivize women to have more children.

But you know, the root of this discussion lies somewhere else. The definition of old age has changed. The societies where the percentage of oldish people is increasing—all of them are highly developed. In these developed societies, average life expectancy has also increased.

In South India, life expectancy at birth is 10 to 15 years higher than in the North, depending on which states you are comparing. When people used to die at 60, which age was considered as old age? Tell me the number. You could call them old at 45, thinking they had only 15 years left.

But now, people live till 90. So shouldn't we consider them fit till at least 70? Right? Now, medical science has advanced. Your per capita income is higher. Your average life is more. You are better educated. Your foreign exposure is more. You have everything—you have insurance, government schemes. You're living in a developed place.

In India, there are many parts, especially in South India, like Goa—their living standards are almost on par with China regarding per capita income and also regarding some other criteria. So now, you can't call yourself an old man at 50. Even at 70, you cannot be called an old man. We, sitting here in North India, think a 70-year-old is an old man. But is he?

Look at Trump. He became president at the age of 78. Do you really think he considers himself old? Yes, we are very familiar with this culture. In politics, age doesn't matter.

You know it very well. If a person is hale and hearty, if his lifestyle is good, if he's taking care of himself, he wouldn't grow old that early. So this idea of old age is irrelevant—totally irrelevant.

Rana Yashwant: So this statement of Chandrababu Naidu is completely out of the fear of delimitation and a major drop in the…

Acharya Prashant: See, See. He's creating a sensation, and it's all about vote bank politics. So it's all about that, basically. But even if you set aside his statement, this thing wouldn't appeal to our consciousness also. That we have reduced the seat share of those who have worked utterly sincerely, disciplined themselves, and made progress. Don't you think it's gross injustice?

Rana Yashwant: All right then, another question arises.

It's one country, and there's a movement and exchange between the North and South. So why are South Indian states so aware, so progressive, and steadily growing stronger over the period of time, while North India remains plagued by weakness and falling behind?

Acharya Prashant: What a question you have asked. Trust me, trust me, this is my biggest pain, and this is what I've been trying to explain to North India but people think I'm trying to hurt them.

See, the thing that we call our culture, has drifted far from the real Dharma. And what we call Dharma has moved far from philosophy and truth. And this is the problem in North India.

And North India is much more stubborn and aggressive compared to the South, and because of this, it resists change. A lot of reform movements took place in India over the past 250 years—movements to bring about a very positive change in society.

Now, they mostly happen in the South or in the West, like Maharashtra, or in some parts of Bengal but the Hindi Heartland was largely left out of these reforms.

So there was no social or religious reform, which is why we have lagged behind. See, when we say that India's per capita income is about $2,400, do UP and Bihar contribute to this? Now, you can remove the income of the non-resident North Indians from that particular equation.

Rana Yashwant: It falls even more.

Acharya Prashant: It won't even be $1,000. I feel very sorry to say this. I feel very painful. But we are the slum house of this world.

Rana Yashwant: North India.

Acharya Prashant: North India. And as I'm a North Indian, I'm talking about myself too. We are the slum of this world. But we take great pride regarding ourselves, our great Indian tradition, and things like that.

See, the South was ready to change and reform. Even the South was extremely orthodox. For example, if you go to Tamil Nadu and if you see the temple re-entry movement of Kerala—so what kind of regressive practices, social, religious, and caste-based oppression will you find in North India; it was as bad, if not worse, in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. But they reformed. And it's so astonishing—but they reformed. And they reformed in a big way. And that's stupendous.

North India has simply refused to change. We are simply stuck with the same old regressive programs.

And you know, these programs have become even more intense during the last two to three decades. See the new Babas that are coming up. There's hardly anyone from South India.

There's this South Indian Baba who we all know, but he fled away. He went away, and he has established his base on some island. The rest of all these so-called Babas that are cropping up, who are making this country very regressive—all of them are coming up from North India. Most of the regressive activities are happening in North India, and our public is supporting them very much.

We didn't focus on education in North India, whereas the South invested big time in that sector. And that's why when the IT sector started opening up, Noida didn't make it. Nor Gurgaon made it. Nor Chandigarh made it. But Bengaluru did it. And then Hyderabad did it. And then Pune. And then Mumbai.

Because to do some international work, you require educated people. And they aren't available in North India, whereas the population is much more in North India. Look at the engineering colleges in Tamil Nadu and also in Telangana. If you compare them to UP, which has crossed 20 crore in population, we are nowhere in front of them.

If you go to Infosys and have a really close look, you'll be surprised by the number of South Indians over there. You'll be really surprised. If you see the numbers over there, the ratio—it is completely filled with South Indians. Look at the overseas Indian communities. How many North Indians are there?

Forget Canada, because those are Punjabis. Forget Canada. Take the example of the US or Europe. If you see the overseas Indian communities over there, mostly they are South Indians because they are focused on education. We are stuck with our age-old tradition, and we refuse to change. And no matter what happens, we will not change. It's loud and clear.

Rana Yashwant: Now again, a question arises. You are suggesting increasing the number of seats in assemblies. But you are also saying we should wait until 2051 to reconsider whether we should increase Lok Sabha seats or not. In the meantime, we should give time to North India to catch up with South India.

Acharya Prashant: Yes.

Rana Yashwant: But in North India, there's been a narrative growing loud for years now—"Grow your population. If you won’t do it, then your existence is in danger. The larger our population, the more secure we'll be."

So we can clearly reach the point that this entire mindset seems to oppose the kind of reforms and improvements you are advocating.

Acharya Prashant: You had a discussion with me about Israel. Tell me, how many Jews are there in the world?

Rana Yashwant: I guess around 1 crore?

Acharya Prashant: 73 lakh people have already monopolized the whole world. Why should we increase our numbers? Why? Why should we increase our population? They tell Hindus to increase their numbers. There's also a section of people in Muslims who say that—"Increase the numbers, and you will get that kind of representation, and we'll dominate."

This kind of thing. And now this trend is catching up with the Hindus too—"Increase your population." You tell me, why should we increase it? Just 73 lakh Jews are dominating this world. Just 73 lakhs. What's the use of it? You are already 120 crore, and we hardly have a life.

And if 120 crore is not making you feel secure, how would 500 crore make you feel so? If you look at the global population growth rates—I mean, at what rate is the global population increasing? And if you compare it with the growth rate of the Hindus, Hindus are still growing faster than the world's average population growth rate.

Yes, I acknowledge Muslims are growing even faster, all right. But this means that the percentage of Hindus in the world population today is not less than what it was 50 years ago. It might have gone up a little, and even 30 years later, it's not going to decrease.

And if it goes up or down by 0.1 or 0.2%, what difference will it make? It's not a question of numbers—we are not cattle. It's all about wisdom. We are humans. One human being who is educated, intelligent, brave, and aware can outweigh so many fools out there.

We don't have to create a herd of fools. I repeat—73 lakh Jews are dominating this world. Look at the Jains. Look at the Sikhs. Are they counting their numbers? There aren't too many Jains, there aren't too many Sikhs, and their population growth rate is even lower than Muslims or Hindus. And they aren't concerned about this. And they're not saying, "Come on, we'll increase our numbers." This is the way it should be.

If we want a good life, we shouldn't be living like herds of animals out there. But yes, we should consider one point over here—that in democracy, heads are counted and not what's inside those heads. That I know. And that is where the problem is. And there should be a solution to this problem. And we will have a separate discussion on that one. And I definitely acknowledge that problem.

Rana Yashwant: So here, Acharya Ji is saying, as Iqbal once said, that democracy is a system where people are counted, not weighed. You are saying we should weigh them—education, capability, and prosperity should matter. If you focus on these, then definitely we will create a strong society.

Weak, helpless, poor, dependent—by simply increasing the number of such individuals in our society, we can't increase our influence at all. History won't remember us for that.

Acharya Prashant: Rana Ji, what would happen? When we were slaves, our population was 100 times larger than those who enslaved us. Did the population save us? They had technology, they had science, they had inventions, they had research. These are the things that empower society, and we are not talking about this. We are simply stuck at this—"Increase the population."

Back in 1757, during the Battle of Plassey, your population was so huge. You had 17 times as many troops as the British yet, you lost the battle, right? Your numbers simply doesn’t matter. One missile—one missile from Israel is good enough for the entirety of Iran. Israel has a small population. Iran has a large and huge territory. But then what? What will you do?

What will you achieve with such a massive population and such a massive piece of land? What matters is what kind of a human you are—the quality of the human being. We need to better that. We are focusing on quantity instead of quality.

Rana Yashwant: The discussion began with delimitation, and from delimitation, it has led us to examine North Indian society and its mindset. And there are some undeniable facts here that demand serious thought and reflection. We must think about it.

Acharya Ji, I'd like to thank you a lot. I feel this discussion has been immensely meaningful, and viewers should revisit these points again and again to grasp their significance thoroughly.

show_less