Tamil Nadu Victory Party’s Vijay has penned a lengthy five-page letter opposing the upcoming delimitation process. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that his arguments are nothing more than a rehash of DMK’s tired narratives. Worse, his reasoning is riddled with contradictions, selective amnesia regarding constitutional principles, and a lack of foresight. Here’s a systematic rebuttal to each of his points:
1. The 84th Amendment & Population-Based Representation
Vijay argues that delimitation based on population will be unfair to Tamil Nadu and other southern states, as it will reduce their representation in Parliament. However, Article 81 of the Indian Constitution is clear: Lok Sabha seats must be distributed based on population to ensure equal representation. The core principle of democracy is ‘one person, one vote, one value.’
The 84th Amendment (2001) froze the total number of Lok Sabha and State Assembly seats based on the 1971 Census until the first Census after 2026. The last Census that happened was in 2011 which is now outdated. The 2020 Census of India was postponed indefinitely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has not been conducted yet. So, it is high time for a Census now and it is only logical that the delimitation is done based on 2026 Census and not the outdated 1971 Census.
His grievance that Tamil Nadu will be “punished” for controlling its population is misplaced. The idea behind delimitation is not to “reward” or “punish” states but to ensure fair representation based on demographic realities. If anything, states with larger populations are currently underrepresented, violating the very democratic principle Vijay claims to uphold.
Amit Shah has assured that southern states, including Tamil Nadu, would not experience a reduction in their parliamentary representation. He also emphasized that any increase in parliamentary seats would be allocated fairly, ensuring that no state’s representation is diminished.
He reiterated that the delimitation process would be conducted on a pro-rata basis, maintaining equitable representation for all states. A pro-rata increase ensures that no state loses seats outright but instead gains seats in proportion to its current share of India’s total population. This is different from a pure population-based redistribution, which could reduce the representation of states with lower population growth.
If India’s total population has doubled since 1971, a proportional seat increase might raise the total from 545 to 800 seats. Tamil Nadu’s share would also increase proportionally to reflect its current population relative to the national total.
2. False Alarm Over Southern States Losing Influence
Vijay mimics the DMK’s fear-mongering by portraying delimitation as an assault on the South. But he conveniently overlooks the fact that parliamentary representation must evolve with actual population shifts over time. This includes the significant population growth in southern states since the 1971 Census, which remains the outdated basis for the current allocation of 545 seats in Parliament. Southern states are not being targeted—democracy is merely being implemented as per constitutional mandates. Additionally, Parliament has always balanced regional interests through the Rajya Sabha, where representation is not solely population-based.
His claim that the South will lose political influence ignores the reality that governance is devoid of any basis as Tamil Nadu will not lose seats. The only thing unclear is how much the seats will increase for each state. For political influence, the quality of political leadership in ensuring economic growth, policy effectiveness, and governance quality matter more than numerical representation. If Tamil Nadu has excelled in these areas, it will continue to wield influence, just as states like Maharashtra and Gujarat have done despite not having the highest number of MPs.
3. Increasing Lok Sabha Seats is Logical and Necessary
Vijay dismisses the idea of expanding Lok Sabha seats by arguing that Parliamentarians already struggle to ask questions during Question Hour. This is an absurd non-sequitur. The issue of time allocation in Parliament is an operational concern, not a reason to deny rightful representation to millions of citizens.
Vijay’s argument that adding more MPs is pointless because not all MPs get to ask questions during Question Hour is like saying, “What’s the use of more students in a school if not everyone gets to answer a question in class?” Just like students don’t just attend school to speak but to learn, collaborate, and participate in various activities, MPs don’t exist only to ask questions—they debate laws, oversee governance, and represent people’s issues in multiple ways. The ballot system for Question Hour ensures fairness, not suppression, just like a teacher calling on different students daily. More MPs mean better representation for a growing population, preventing a few states from dominating decisions. Freezing seats at 1971 levels is as absurd as keeping a classroom size the same, even when more kids are enrolling. Vijay’s logic is lazy, misleading, and purely DMK-style fearmongering—designed to stoke emotions rather than address facts.
A growing population necessitates more representatives to ensure effective governance. The United States, which he conveniently cites later, has adjusted its congressional representation multiple times in history before capping it. India, with a population four times that of the U.S., cannot remain frozen in time with an outdated allocation based on 1971 Census.
4. Hypocrisy On Parliamentary Functioning & Electoral Processes
Vijay claims that Parliament is failing its role and suggests reforms like Prime Minister’s Question Time (a British practice). But if we are to follow the British model, should we also allocate reserved seats in Parliament for religious leaders, as the UK does for Church of England bishops in the House of Lords? If England, a self-declared Christian nation, reserves seats for the Church of England in its Parliament, should Hindu-majority India also allocate seats to sadhus and mutt heads in the legislature? If Vijay wants to selectively import British parliamentary traditions, is he willing to embrace this as well?
Similarly, his demand that Election Commissioners be appointed by consensus is a DMK-style talking point, completely unrelated to delimitation. The Election Commission already functions independently, and delimitation is carried out by a separate Delimitation Commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. His attempt to cast aspersions on these institutions reeks of opportunistic fear-mongering.
5. False Equivalence with the U.S. House of Representatives
Vijay cites the U.S. model, where the number of seats in the House of Representatives is fixed at 435. What he conveniently ignores is that the U.S. follows a system of proportional reallocation, where seats are redistributed among states based on population shifts every 10 years. The fixed number of 435 doesn’t mean states retain the same representation indefinitely—it means states with declining populations lose seats while growing states gain them.
If Vijay truly wants India to follow the U.S. model, he should advocate for an automatic reallocation of seats every decade, which would be even more disadvantageous to Tamil Nadu.
6. The Federalism Myth: Misrepresenting Rajya Sabha Representation
One of Vijay’s most laughable assertions is that Rajya Sabha representation should be made equal for all states, similar to the U.S. Senate. This betrays his ignorance of India’s federal structure. Unlike the U.S., India is a quasi-federal nation with a unitary bias. Our Constitution clearly does not provide for equal state representation in Rajya Sabha because states are administrative units, not sovereign entities.
His idea would mean that states like Goa and Sikkim would have the same representation as Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, which would be an absurd distortion of federal balance. If anything, this demand contradicts his earlier complaint about reducing Tamil Nadu’s influence!
7. Financial Autonomy & Political Opportunism
Vijay parrots another DMK line about how Tamil Nadu should have greater financial independence. But the current system already considers economic disparities between states. Tamil Nadu is one of the biggest beneficiaries of central funds, receiving significant allocations for infrastructure, health, and education. His demand for even more financial autonomy is nothing but subnationalist posturing, rather than a genuine policy concern.
8. The Real Agenda: Regional Victimhood Politics
Ultimately, Vijay’s opposition to delimitation is nothing but an exercise in manufacturing a sub-nationalist narrative with separatist undercurrent. By deliberately misinterpreting constitutional provisions and parroting DMK narratives, he is proving to be a pale imitation of the party he claims to oppose. His claims are neither rooted in legal reasoning nor in a genuine concern for democracy. Instead, they are an attempt to stoke unnecessary fears and push a Tamil Nadu vs. North India narrative for political gains.
Constitution Over Political Expediency
Delimitation is a constitutional necessity, not a conspiracy against Tamil Nadu or the South. The Indian Constitution is designed to adapt to demographic realities while maintaining regional balance. Vijay’s letter is nothing but a misleading, uninformed, and politically motivated attempt to stir up regional animosity.
Rather than playing victim, leaders like him should focus on ensuring Tamil Nadu’s continued economic and social progress within a fair, democratic framework. But given his eagerness to ape the DMK, it’s clear that intellectual consistency and constitutional integrity are the last things on his mind.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.