Happy Kitten
183.6K posts


The answer can be found in Europe, where the principle of degressive proportionality is applied to the composition of the European Parliament — since they have the same problem of small and big states coexisting in one Union. India also needs a compromise between strict democratic representation (one person, one vote) and the necessity of ensuring smaller political entities have a meaningful voice. It essentially means that while larger populations get more seats, the ratio of citizens to representatives increases as the population grows. In the European Parliament, the allocation must follow these constraints: *Minimum Threshold: No member state can have fewer than 6 seats. *Maximum Ceiling: No member state can have more than 96 seats. *Inverse Ratio: The "efficiency" of a vote must decrease as population increases. For example, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Malta might represent roughly 80,000 citizens, while an MEP from Germany represents roughly 850,000 citizens. The goal is to prevent the "Big Four" (Germany, France, Italy, and Spain) from holding a permanent absolute majority that could override the collective interests of the smaller nations, thereby maintaining the federalist spirit of the Union. Applying this to India is what we need to debate, not women’s representation which no one objects to. We need to address the North-South divide that has arisen over delimitation. A strict population-based reallocation (proportional representation) would drastically increase seats for northern Hindi-belt states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, while states that successfully implemented population control (like Kerala and Tamil Nadu) would see their relative political influence diminish. If India were to adopt a degressive model, the Parliament could be structured to balance population with federal equity. Similar to the EU, a "floor" could be set for smaller states (e.g., Goa, Sikkim, or the Northeast) to ensure they aren't reduced to insignificance. Instead of a fixed ratio of, say, 2 million citizens per MP, the ratio could scale. A state with 200 million people might have 2.5 million citizens per MP, while a state with 30 million might have 1 million per MP. This is to ensure no state feels disenfranchised. As @revanth_anumula suggests, another factor could be a state’s contribution to national GDP. It would be dangerous for our federalism if smaller states felt their prosperity & human development were being punished with relative disenfranchisement. One could argue that the Rajya Sabha already exists for federal representation. However, degressive proportionality in the Lok Sabha would provide a "weighted" democratic mandate that acknowledges population without penalizing states for their developmental successes. Finding a mathematical formula that satisfies both the high-growth and low-growth states, and both the large and small states, would require a level of bipartisan and interstate cooperation that it is in the interests of the central government to promote. I urge PM @narendramodi to initiate extensive consultations, with all parties and with all states, before rushing into a hasty delimitation process that leaves the core underlying issues unaddressed.

A few more pics of the inside of the first non-AC door closing train at Kurla carshed in Mumbai





"The economy was designed" That is leftist thinking perfectly distilled.







@iamsonaks @crypto_pinapple At least in some areas like MBBS reservation should be taken out. Else in the long run it will be bad for all..







