कथन

Sir, Tamil Nadu today has 39 seats. If delimitation were to be conducted purely on the basis of Census of 2011, it will be 49 seats. What Narendra Modi Government is giving to Tamil Nadu today is 59 seats, which is 10 seats more than what the opposition is arguing for. Kerala has 20 seats. If only by Census of 2011, if we had done the gerrymandering or the demarcation of the seats, Kerala will get only 3 seats more, that is 23 seats. Kerala today is getting 30 seats. Karnataka today has 28 seats. If only we were to do it according to the population of 2011, Karnataka will get 41. Karnataka is now getting 42 seats. Andhra Pradesh is 25 seats. If we were to do it according to 2011, it would be 33 seats. Today, Andhra Pradesh is getting 37. Whichever way you look at it, if you look at it from the way of 2027 Census, if you look at it from the way of 2011 Census, if you look at it by 543 seats as redistribution or by taking away all of these things and only basing it on population, none of these permutations and combinations is going to give the southern States as best a deal as what Narendra Modi Government has now given by this 50 per cent proportionate increase in the seats formula. Chairperson, Sir, this is a second question. Chidambaram Sir has put a long article in a tweet yesterday and said “the proportionate voice of the south Indian states will get diluted if there is a 50 per cent rise in the number of seats”. My question is: today, the share of the South Indian States in the overall scheme is 23.7 per cent. It will continue to be 23.7 per cent. How will 16.04.2026 107 the voice of the South get diluted? Secondly, the majority margin, the half way mark today is at 272 seats. If there is going to be a 50 per cent increase in the total number of seats, naturally the half way mark also will jump by 50 percent. 13.44 hrs (Hon. Speaker in the Chair) So, this whole argument that the southern States are going to lose because of the proportionate 50 per cent increase, I will say is not only a vacuous argument, it is an illogical argument. It is not only an unconstitutional argument, but most importantly Speaker, Sir, this is a mischievous argument that comes from creating anarchy in this country by misleading the people. Speaker Sir, now I would want to take a few minutes of the time allotted to me to examine the alternatives that the Congress Party and the Opposition have proposed. Now, there are broadly three alternatives that the Congress Party has proposed. The first alternative is: do not increase the 543 number of seats; let the delimitation exercise or the Nari Shakti Adhiniyam come into force. I have already explained that. First, it is constitutionally impermissible because Articles 81 and 82 demand the value of one vote, one value. Second, if we were to redistribute 543 seats based on the 2027 census or the 2011 census, the proportion of the seats that the southern States today have is going to further get reduced. Therefore, this first argument, the argument of postponing the delimitation exercise or the argument to freeze the number of seats as per 1971, absolutely holds no constitutional value and therefore must be rejected. Secondly, the argument that the Opposition is making, the Chief Minister 16.04.2026 108 of Telangana has made, is to propose a very interesting hybrid model of linking the population of the State along with the GSDP, the State’s per capita contribution, and the State’s gross development of the State. Now, Speaker Sir, who has advised the Chief Minister of Telangana to make this argument. I can only say that they do not wish him well, because this proposal is laughable at the best and impractical at the worst. Let me explain why. First, if you will say that the vote of a common citizen in Telangana has more value than the vote of a common voter in Bihar, then you are defeating the constitutional principle of ‘One Value, One Vote’. On what basis do you want to do this delimitation exercise in the country? Will the rich get more votes? Will the poor not get votes? Will they not get value for it? … (Interruptions) What kind of argument is this? If you will take this argument further, Mukesh Ambani will have one lakh votes and somebody like us will have only one vote. Is this the kind of logic that the Congress wants to build? This argument by this alternative by the Telangana Chief Minister of linking delimitation and number of seats to the GSDP of the State is the most foolish argument anybody can propose. This is unconstitutional. This defeats the value of ‘One Man, One Vote’ that the Constitution promises. … (Interruptions) Speaker Sir, there is another very important dimension to this. देश कì जीडीपी हो या ÿदेशŌ कì जीडीपी हो, वह 10-15 वषŎ तक Öटैगन¤ट नहé रहती है । It is not going to remain constant. Every six months, GDP can go up, GDP can go down. One year GDP will be high, another year GDP will be low. Now, suppose you are going to link delimitation and number of seats with the GSDP 16.04.2026 109 of a State, will Telangana’s and other States’ number of seats keep getting fluctuated? Today, this year was a good monsoon, GDP was good, so Telangana will have two extra seats. Next year, Tamil Nadu would have bad rainfall, therefore GDP fell down, so Tamil Nadu will lose two seats. Is this the argument? These are the kinds of laughable alternatives that the Congress Party is proposing, and on the basis of this they are misleading the people of this country. Now, I am coming to the third alternative. The first is not to do anything. The second is something which they are experts at ³यŌिक जब आप काँúेस पाटê कì पॉिलिट³स को देख¤, तो they are the practitioners of politics of postponement. हर चीज, जो देश के सामने बड़ा मुĥा आ जाता है, when they cannot address it, what do they do? उसे पोÖटपॉन कर दो, That is their first reaction. Their first proposal is, postpone it, do not do anything, freeze it, which is unconstitutional. Further, the Telangana Chief Minister’s proposal of linking GSDP to number of seats, which again, like I demonstrated to the Speaker, is the most ludicrous argument. The third argument that they have given, which I read, is one that my learned friend, hon. Member, Shashi Tharoor ji has made. He has said that there should be a digressive proportionality model as per the European Union Parliament. Now, while this, true to Shashi ji’s nature, sounds very sophisticated, it actually does not make sense in the Indian context. It is because the moment you introduce this principle of digressive proportionality, it once again violates 16.04.2026 110 the principle of ‘one man, one vote, one value’. Then, the larger States in the south of India, like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, which are today the 6th and 8th most populous States in the country, are going to get a raw deal because of this digressive proportionality argument. Therefore, my submission is that other than this 50 per cent equal proportionate increase to all States – an alternative that Narendra Modi ji has proposed – there is no other option that serves everybody, that is a gain for everybody and a loss for nobody. Therefore, the country as a whole, and especially the Opposition, must welcome this with all responsibility. Hon. Speaker Sir, the other argument that has come in criticism of this 800-plus seat increase is that if you increase the number of seats of the Lok Sabha to 800-plus, then it will become an unwieldy Lok Sabha. It is argued that the Lok Sabha will be so big that you will not have healthy debates and discussions, and it will become unwieldy. This is the argument that Manish Tewari ji has advanced. In my view, the productivity or the quality of the outcome of a Lok Sabha, or any such body, depends not just on the number of people, but on the quality of debates that take place and the number of sittings that we have. In 1952, when the first Parliament after the General Election convened, the Lok Sabha would sit on an average of 135 days in a year. In the last few years, the average sittings of the Lok Sabha have gradually come down, and in the last term it came down to only 55 days. Why is it so? It is because of the politics of disturbance and disruption that the Opposition is indulging in. Due to this, the productivity is decreasing. 16.04.2026 111 Hon. Speaker Sir, my request to you is this. This is something that you can do in your own remit as the hon. Speaker. When we have now increased the size of the Lok Sabha to 850, we should also proportionately increase the number of sittings of the Lok Sabha to be at least one and a half times more than what we are currently doing. You have started a great tradition by increasing the number of hours allocated to ‘Zero Hour’. Many first-time MPs, who till now had no chance to speak in Parliament, got an opportunity because more time was given. My request is that when Parliament becomes an 850- Member body, instead of around 55 sittings per year, if the Lok Sabha were to sit for 125 days, or like in the case of the Japanese Diet, if we were to sit for 150 days, then every single Member representing every constituency will get more than enough time to place the problems of their constituents on the floor of the House. This is something that needs to be done. Now I also want to explain why the opposition parties, and a few regional parties in the South led by the DMK, are doing so much noise, and why they are shedding tears, which are nothing but crocodile tears. I thank the heavens that in 2026, when the country is doing delimitation, Shri Narendra Modi ji is in power and the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Government will carry it out. If you remember, the way the Congress party-led UPA divided the undivided Andhra Pradesh into AP and Telangana, that partition was done in a worse fashion than the British did during the partition of India and Pakistan. This is the kind of legacy they have. I want to conclude by bringing to your notice only one important aspect. In 16.04.2026 112 the last 10 years of the Narendra Modi Government, the South of India has enjoyed great support and encouragement for the developmental ambitions of the South. On a conservative estimate, if you compare the devolution of funds from the Centre to the South Indian States in the last 10 years and contrast it with the 10 years of the UPA, on average, every single South Indian State has got not less than 250 per cent more funds from the Narendra Modi Government. The Narendra Modi Government has also increased the budget for railway lines. The extent of railway electrification that has taken place in the last 10 years under the Modi Government in the Southern States is unprecedented. …(Interruptions). Please look at the Railway Budget. …(Interruptions) In Andhra Pradesh, between 2009 and 2014, Rs.886 crore was what they got. The Narendra Modi Government has given Rs.10,000 crores. This is just one instance. …(Interruptions) The number of metros in the Southern States has increased. Electrification has increased. The number of railway lines has increased. The number of airports has increased. The total devolution of funds to the South Indian States has increased. Most importantly, we have not only given the Southern States more money, more rail, and more infrastructure, but, for the first time in the country’s history, more than 25 national institutions now allow regional language examinations. If I want to apply for the CRPF, I can write the examination in Kannada or in Telugu, which was not the case when the Congress party was 16.04.2026 113 ruling. We have respected language. We have provided more development, and today, Narendra Modi is also providing more seats and greater proportional allotment to the Southern States by protecting the South’s voice in Parliament, on the floor of the House. I want to conclude with one last point that needs to be addressed. The argument that has been repeatedly made is that the Narendra Modi Government is bringing in this proposal to somehow create a disadvantage for the Southern States. Nothing at all can be further from the truth than this particular assertion. I want to say that we come from the Bharatiya Janata Party. The Bharatiya Janata Party’s sanskar, our culture, is not to see this nation as tukde-tukde. The culture of this party is not to side with those who chant the slogan of “Bharat Tere Tukde Honge, Inshallah, Inshallah”. This is not the culture of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The culture of the Bharatiya Janata Party is: िहमालयात् समारËय यावत् इÆदु सरोवरम् । तं देविनिमªतं देशं िहÆदुÖथानं ÿच±ते॥ जो देश ऊपर िहमालय से नीचे भारत के इÆदू सरोवर तक है, वह पूरा देश जो अखंड है, अिविछÆन है- वह भारत है । This is the commitment of the Bharatiya Janata Party. चाहे वह कÆयाकुमारी हो, चाहे कÔमीर हो, चाहे वह क¸छ हो या कामा´या हो, we will stand for the integrity, sovereignty, and unity of this country, because that is not only a constitutional mandate, but most importantly, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s karyakarta believes that it is our civilisational duty to protect this country. …(Interruptions) This is what differentiates us from parties like the Congress, 16.04.2026 114 which side with tukde-tukde forces, and like the DMK, which speaks the language of separatism. …(Interruptions)We abhor your politics; we reject your politics. …(Interruptions) In conclusion, I want to say that if the UPA and the Opposition today are going to vote against this most practical, most constitutional, and most inclusive proposition, then for years to come the history of the country will remember the Opposition, and all of you sitting here, as not only opposing the women of this country but also opposing the interests of the Southern States. I want to emphatically say again, if you reject this, if you vote against this, the people of this country and the women of this country will never forgive you. The people in the South of India will never forgive you, because your politics is not a politics of inclusion, your politics is a politics of anarchy. I sincerely hope that you will honestly examine the merit of this proposition, and also honestly examine the hollowness of your own arguments, and finally vote in support of this historic Bill. I once again thank Prime Minister Narendra Modi for not only giving a voice finally after 40 years to the women of this country, but most importantly for protecting the interests of all Southern States and all important small States of the country. Thank you, Prime Minister, Sir, thank you for what you have offered to the South; this is the best deal ever possible. Thank you, Speaker, Sir. 14.00 hrs

वक्ता Tejasvi Surya

कब कहा 2026-04-16T00:00:00.000Z

किस वाद-विवाद में Obituary References