BJP MP Tejasvi Surya on Thursday defended the government’s delimitation push in the Lok Sabha, saying South India and smaller states "could not have got a better deal than this" under the proposed framework.
Participating in the discussion on the bills, Surya accused the opposition of carrying out "systematic propaganda" to mislead the people on the bills to tweak women's quota law and asserted that the Modi government does not believe in the politics of postponement.
The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill to tweak the women's quota law as well as two other bills have been introduced in Lok Sabha. The two other bills are the Delimitation Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill to implement the proposed amended women's quota law in Union territories of Delhi, Puducherry and Jammu and Kashmir.
Surya, who represents Bangalore South constituency, asserted that southern and smaller states that have controlled population growth would not get a better deal in seats than the current one proposed by the government. He mentioned that southern states would be getting more seats after delimitation.
BJP MP Tejasvi Surya said delimitation should not be seen as a disadvantage for southern states, asserting that “the south could not have got a better deal than this” under the proposed framework.
Listing out the Modi government's efforts in implementing the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme and scrapping of Article 370, Surya said the government does not believe in the politics of postponement but in solving the problems of the past.
The latest proposals would ensure one vote, one value principle, Surya said as he refuted Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi's remarks that the bills were aimed not at women's reservation but to get delimitation done through backdoor.
He also rejected Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s GSDP-linked delimitation model as "unconstitutiona", "ludicrous" and "laughable", arguing GDP cannot be the basis for seat allocation.
Surya also criticised DMK protests in Tamil Nadu as "drama" and accused the opposition of opposing the bills "for the sake of opposing."