THE following paragraph is taken from the speech of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar while he was presenting the draft constitution in the Constituent Assembly on 25 November, 1949. ‘…There is complete absence of two things in Indian society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which means elevation for some and degradation for others. On the economic plane, we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of January, 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life?’

This speech expresses concern about the contradiction between the prevalent inequality in India’s social and economic life whereas the new constitution provided for political equality by recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. The Congress rulers of free India under the prime ministership of Indira Gandhi removed this contradiction, not by promoting equality in social and economic life as desired by Ambedkar, but by initiating the process of taking away the political equality (of one vote one value) and paving the way for different value to one vote of the voters of different constituencies, even in the same state.

This was made possible through Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment Act. Under this act the process of delimitation/readjustment of constituencies and representation was suspended till after 2001 AD. This resulted in the devaluation of the vote of outer Delhi voters (more than 30 lakh voters to elect one Member of Parliament) and overvaluation of the voter of Chandani Chowk (around 4 lakh voters to elect one Member of Parliament) in Delhi. A similar situation prevailed in many other big cities; for example the total number of voters in the Uttrahalli assembly constituency in Bangalore for the 2004 Karnataka assembly election was more than 13 lakh while the total number of voters in Bangalore’s Shivaji Nagar assembly constituency was only 81,358.

 

This means that the real value of one vote of a voter in the Chandani Chowk parliamentary constituency was around eight times the value of one vote of a voter of outer Delhi parliamentary constituency. Similarly, the real value of one vote in the Shivaji Nagar assembly constituency was around 1 7 times the value of the vote in the Uttrahalli assembly constituency.

It is essential to make the elections fair, in terms of one person one vote and one vote one value, and save our democracy from ‘overvaluation and undervaluation’ of votes in two different constituencies of the same state or city. The Constitution of India had taken ample care to keep the value of vote same for all voters in a state (for legislative assembly) and between states (for Lok Sabha) by providing that ‘upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People and to the state assemblies and the division of each state into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted’ (Article 82 of the Constitution).

‘There shall be allotted to each state a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the state is, so far as practicable, the same for all states (Article 81-2a);

Each state shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the state’ (Article 81-2b).

In this article, the expression ‘population’ means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published (Article 81-3).

Now, this freezing has again been brought into effect through the 84th and 87th Constitutional Amendment Act, according to which the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the states and the division of each state into territorial constituencies will be frozen on the basis of the 2001 Census until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published. In simple terms this means that the next election on the basis of new delimitation of constituencies will take place only around year 2036 or 2037 on the basis of the 2031 Census. This again will create problems of under- and over-representation of people belonging to certain constituencies.

 

The Constitution had originally provided for the readjustment of seats allotted to the various States and union territories, and delimitation of the constituencies after every census, on the basis of the population as reported in the census. But since 1975, no new delimitation or readjustment of parliamentary or legislative assembly constituencies has been undertaken. The first election on the basis of the new delimitation (based on 2001 Census) is currently being conducted for the Karnataka legislative assembly (May 2008). All the elections held up to April 2008 in India were on the basis of delimitation/ readjustment of constituencies based on the 1971 census population. The result of this noncompliance with the original provisions of the Constitution regarding delimitation/readjustment of territorial constituencies after every census, is that the value of a vote for some voters in the same state (but voters of different constituencies) became many time more after a decade or so as compared to other voters of the same state.

 

Unprecedented changes in the distribution of India’s population are taking place. In the past three decades, between 1971 and 2001, the share of urban population in the total population of India has substantially increased from 19.52% in 1971 to 27.8% in 2001 and the share of rural population has declined from 80.5% in 1971 to 72.2% in 2001. Of the 477 million increase in India’s total population between 1971 and 2001, the increase in urban population was 178 million and the increase in rural population was 299 million (see Table 3).

If we take the case of Karnataka (see Table 1), its rural population increased form 22.17 million in 1971 to 34.81 million in 2001 (or around 1.6 times) and its urban population increased form 7.12 million in 1971 to 17.9 million in 2001 (or more than 2.5 times). On the other hand, the total population of Karnataka increased from 29.29 million in 1971 to 52.73 million in 2001 (or 1.8 times increase) and the population of Bangalore increased from 1.66 million in 1971 to 5.69 million in 2001 (or 3.4 times increase).

Due to migration and natural increase, the share of urban population in Karnataka has increased from less than 25% in 1971 to around 34% in 2001. During the same period the share of rural population in total population of Karnataka declined from 75.7% to 66%.

The increase in Karnataka’s urban population was the highest as compared to the increase in its rural population and total population between 1971 and 2001. The increase in the population of Bangalore was higher than the increase in the urban population of Karnataka during the same period as can be seen from Table 2.

The rapid increase in India’s urban population consists of two elements: natural growth and migration from rural areas, both being equally important. This can be substantiated from the fact that the share of rural population in total population of India is declining substantially, and the share of urban population in India’s total population is increasing significantly. Let us see how migration is an equally important element in the rapid increase in urban population.

Between 1971 and 2001 the total population of India increased from 548 million to 1025 million an increase of 87% over the 1971 population. If we assume that the natural increase of population in urban India during this period is also 87% (although the natural increase of population of rural areas is generally higher than the natural increase of total population and natural increase of urban population), the share of natural increase of urban population in total increase of urban population (178 million) between 1971 and 2001 would have been: 87 x 107 mn./100 = 93 million. In other words, of the 178 million increase in India’s urban population between 1971 and 2001, around 93 million was natural and another 85 million was due to migration from rural areas. This means the share of migration in total increase in India’s urban population between 1971 and 2001 was around 48% (85 x 100/178million = 47.8%). Table 3 shows the rural, urban and total population of India between 1971 and 2001.

The question now arises as to who were the migrants from rural to urban areas during the past three decades? Before exploring this issue it would be better to look at the economic classification of India’s total population. The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) report submitted to the Government of India in August 2007 shows that around 836 million Indians (77% of India’s total population) in year 2004-05 out of a total population of 1090 million, were living below Rs 20 per person per day. The commission has categorized this strata as ‘poor and vulnerable’.

 

The other two categories of Indians according to the commission were ‘middle income’ and ‘high income’ groups. The ‘middle income’ group with around Rs 37 per day per capita consumption accounted for around 210 million people (19% of India’s total population). The ‘high income’ population group with above Rs 93 per day per capita consumption accounted for around 44 million people (4% of India’s total population). Table 4 gives the economic classification of India’s total population for year 2004-05 on the basis of the NCEUS report.

Similarly, a look at the number and proportion of rural poor, urban poor and total poor in India in the past three decades can help us locate the migrants to urban India. According to official poverty figures, the number of total poor came down from 321 million in 1973-74 to 302 million in 2004-05 (a decline of 19 million). During the same period the number of rural poor came down from 261 million to 221 million (a decline of 40 million), but the number of urban poor increased from 60 million to 81 million (an increase of 21 million) during the same period. Table 5 shows the number and percentage of poor in India.

From Table 5, it is evident that the total number of rural poor has been declining continuously whereas the number of urban poor is increasing. Now, if we take the decline in the total number of poor (i.e. 19 millions) between 1973-74 and 2004-05, it would come to 5.92% (19 mn. x 100/321 mn = 5.92%). This can be said to be the average poverty reduction rate between 1973-74 and 2004-05.

Assuming the same percentage decline in the number of urban poor (although the decline in urban poor should be more than the decline in rural and total poor) during this period, the total decline in the number of urban poor should have been 3.5 million (5.92 x 60/100 = 3.5 million). This means the number of urban poor in year 2004-05 should have been 56.5 million (60 million –3.5 millions = 56.5 million). But actually the number of urban poor in year 2004-05 was 81 million. This means of the 81 million urban poor in 2004-05 at least 24.5 million poor (81 million – 56.5 millions = 24.5 million) might have migrated from rural areas between 1973-74 and 2004-05.

 

We have seen above that 836 million (or 77%) of India’s total population, termed as ‘poor and vulnerable’, was living on less than Rs 20 per day. A major proportion of the migrants to urban area are from this poor and vulnerable group of population. They are migrating to cities in search of a livelihood. A large number of dalits are also migrating to urban areas, especially to big cities, to escape caste based indignities, oppression, humiliation and atrocities in rural areas.

When a large proportion of poor migrate to urban areas, they ‘settle’ in those areas where the cheapest shelter can be found, which is normally the slum. But the old areas in a city like Chandani Chowk in Delhi and Shivaji Nagar in Bangalore, which are in the middle of the city, are both congested and costly, with no open public place for a new slum, and cannot give shelter to the new migrants. Even the existing slums in these areas have been relocated to other part of the city. The precondition of a new slum is the availability of open space, preferably belonging to some government agency, which is not adequately guarded and has been vacant for a some time. But the chances of this are very low in the heart of any big city.

The second ‘choice’ of the poor and vulnerable migrants are areas or locations on the periphery of the city where large tracks are still vacant for ‘development’. It is for of these reasons that the city outskirts become the ‘preferred’ choice for settlement/shelter of the poor and vulnerable migrants. This is why the voter population of outer-Delhi parliamentary constituency is around eight times more than that of Chandani Chowk parliamentary constituency. Similar reasons also apply to the Uttrahalli assembly constituency in Bangalore whose voter population is 17 times more than the voter population of Shivaji Nagar assembly constituency.

 

From the above analysis it is clear that the voter population increases at a much faster rate in those city constituencies where there is a scope for the poor and vulnerable migrants to acquire shelter. If the constituencies are not delimited at regular intervals (after every census), it is likely that the voter population in constituencies which provide shelter to the poor and vulnerable groups, may further outstrip those constituencies which deny shelter to the poor and vulnerable groups, thus entrenching the problem of over- and under-enfranchisement.