CHENNAI: Are Tamils on the verge of losing much of their political influence and economic dividend in the Indian Union? The course taken by the Central government in a major recent policy decision has raised such fears. First, a few months ago the Central government took a policy drift in its Terms of Reference to the latest Finance Commission. The commission was told to consider only the 2011 population census in determining the share of tax revenue each State would get. This is a deviation from the earlier practice of devolving tax revenue among states on the basis of 1971 population data. The implication for Tamil Nadu, which has since the ’70s contained population growth, is a significant fall in its share of tax revenue.
Second, the freeze on delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies is coming to an end in 2026. If a similar stance is taken and the boundaries of Lok Sabha constituencies are redrawn based on the latest census, Tamil Nadu will see a sharp fall in its representation in Parliament. In other words, the influence of the people of the state on the Central government will see a significant decline. In contrast, the Hindi-speaking states in the north, which have failed in containing their population, will be getting a higher share of tax revenue. If the delimitation happens in 2026, their numbers in the Lok Sabha would rise further — almost making the preference of voters from other parts of the country insignificant.
When these prospects are considered together, it is feared that Tamil Nadu, along with most other southern states, will lose out on both political influence and economic dividend. What does this mean for the people of the state? After the initial furore over the Terms of Reference of the Financial Commission, there have not been much deliberations on issue. However, there are a few who say Tamil Nadu has nothing to worry about. “When a big policy decision is taken, we must accept it. The decision is taken not just for Tamil Nadu, but for the entire country,” says former IAS officer N Murugan. He reasoned that since Tamil Nadu has controlled it population growth, the need for funds from the Central government too is reduced.
“We can grow despite the reduced funds. Reducing the Lok Sabha MPs for the State will see much public opposition but even if we have the number of our MPs reduced, we should accept it,” he says.A few others say it should be a matter of pride that Tamil Nadu will be contributing to the development of other states while benefitting from cheap migrant labour it get from less developed states. It is not just Tamil Nadu, but other southern states, and even states such as Gujarat and Maharastra, that are in a similar situation, they argue.
Constitutional flaws
But many see it as a result of much deeper flaws in the Constitution. The underlying issue is that the country is on a path to where certain states in the north will have much greater political and financial influence in the Central government. The doubts are whether there are adequate safeguards to ensure federalist principles are upheld and avoid dominance of populous states over others.
Former IAS officer MG Devasagayam says, “In the present set up, only those states that fail to control population and remain backward will control the country.” He draws attention to the recent Lok Sabha elections in which victories in the northern region were enough to capture power at the Centre. Hence opinions of people from other parts of the country may not get enough attention. “Our federal structure is not fool-proof. It is more of a kind of ad hoc arrangement. Even the Constitution-makers opined that over a period of time the Central government will gain more and more control,” he points out. He says in recent years, the centralisation of power in the hands of Central government has gathered pace.
M Naganathan, economist and former vice-chairman of Tamil Nadu state planning commission, says the decision to refer to 2011 census data for the Finance Commission is not an isolated issue. “It is a political issue. Today nobody is discussing such serious issues. By making 2011 census data the reference point, the Centre has violated the assurance given by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that states implementing family planning programmes will not be adversely affected. In 1971, Tamil Nadu lost two MPs seats in Lok Sabha because it had controlled population. The assurance was given only after these concerns were raised,” he recalls.
Even in the earlier Finance Commissions, Tamil Nadu’s share of revenue has been steadily falling. From about 7 per cent of the share in the 7th Finance Commission, it came down to about 4 per cent in the 14th Finance Commission. Naganathan says this is because subsequent Finance Commissions included weightages to states based on their backwardness, indirectly affecting progressive states like Tamil Nadu.
R Mutharasan, state secretary of Communist Party of India, points to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s appeal to control population growth in his Independence day speech. “But if the number of seats in Parliament and share of tax revenue is reduced for Tamil Nadu, it would go against the word of the Prime Minister,” he says, wondering if states would not feel inclined to encourage childbirths.
His notion is not as out-of-the-box as it sounds. According to S Thirunavvukarasu, a historian of Dravidian politics, even at a time when Tamil Nadu was keenly implementing family planning programmes, there were some leaders who would distribute prizes for those in their communities who had more children. “They would say that from everything, including political power, depends on the size of our population,” he says.
The way forward
Devasagayam says the Finance Commission could instead give weightage to the prevalence of poverty in the states and make higher allocations targeting those areas. “Uttar Pradesh and Bihar cannot always remain backward. There have to be deliberations to improve governance there,” he said.
But the larger question is about how to safeguard the principles of federalism. Economist J Jeyaranjan says those with an interest in protecting federalism must come together. “There are no deliberations happening on how the states that have controlled population will be compensated. But the latest trends shows there is no scope for discussions on federalism,” he says. He suggests that one option would be for additional weightage to be given to level of urbanization in a state and size of migrant population when deciding a state’s share of tax revenue.
TKS Elangovan, Rajya Sabha MP and spokesperson of DMK, a party that has historically fought for federal rights of states, says the party’s position is that tax revenue share of each of the states must be based on the tax collected from the state, not its population. Union government statistics show that Tamil Nadu is one of the highest contributors of tax revenue because of its higher level of industrialisation. “If the tax share is reduced, then it would be considered as a punishment for states that obeyed the Central government’s decision to control population,” he says.
There are some who see it not just as issue of sharing revenue among states that are linguistically and culturally different but rather as a call for an overhaul of the Constitution to safeguard the multiple ethnic and linguistic groups in a diverse country. “We need a truly confederal Constitution. That is the ever-lasting solution for a multi-cultural and multi-ethinic country,” argues Naganathan. In a confederal setup, the States will have even higher rights and privileges than in a federal system and union government will be confined to a few essential domains such as foreign relations, national highways and communications.
His words are almost reminiscent of what the statesmen Congress leader C Rajagopalachari told B R Ambedkar, considered the father of the Indian Constitution, when the Constituent Assembly was discussing the nuances of the Constitution of Independent India. “You are committing a great mistake. One federation for the whole of India with equal representation for all areas will not work. In such a federation the Prime Minister and President of India will always be from the Hindi-speaking area. You should have two Federations, one Federation of the North and one Federation of the South and a Confederation of the North and the South with three subjects for the Confederation to legislate upon and equal representation for both the federations,” Rajaji had said.
Advantage to backward states
Former IAS officer MG Devasagayam says in the present set up, only those states that fail to control population and remain backward will control the country
‘Indira’s promise broken’
M Naganathan, former VC of TN state planning commission, says: “By making 2011 census data the reference point, the Centre has violated the assurance given by then, PM Indira Gandhi, that states implementing family planning will not be adversely affected (in revenue sharing)”
If the tax share is reduced, then it would be considered as a punishment for states that obeyed the Central government’s decision to control population Elangovan, Rajya Sabha MP and spokesperson of DMK