कथन

At least, half a dozen times, the Bill was introduced and on one pretext or the other, especially the parties who are now in Opposition delayed it, disrupted it, and ensured that the Bill does not see the light of the day. We still remember when the Bill was introduced in an earlier Government’s tenure, the leaders from Samajwadi Party and the RJD tore up the Bill in this House and said that the Women’s Reservation Bill will pass only over their dead bodies. The country remembers this kind of emphatic opposition that they gave to the Women’s Reservation Bill at that time. यह अटका रहा था । 30 सालŌ तक अटका रहा था । आज ‘नारी शिĉ वंदन अिधिनयम’ 16.04.2026 95 िबल जो पाåरत हòआ है, वह िसफª और िसफª भारतीय जनता पाटê और माननीय ÿधान मंýी नरेÆþ मोदी जी के कारण हòआ है । Chairman, Sir, even today, the Opposition has now come up with a new argument, a new pretext to further stall and further disturb and oppose the application of the Women’s Reservation Bill. The new pretext that they have come up with is the vacuous and baseless opposition to the delimitation exercise. When the Nari Shakti Vandana Adhiniyam was passed in 2023, it was passed unanimously. All political parties agreed that the Nari Shakti Vandana Ahiniyam, the Women’s Reservation Bill, will be applicable after a Census and a delimitation is undertaken. This is the mandate of the Constitution that everybody voted for. Today, the Opposition has taken a u-turn. They are now opposing the fast-tracking of this Bill for the 2029 elections, and, are saying, “We want to oppose this because we do not want the delimitation exercise to take place.” Hon. Chairperson, Sir, I come from the South of the country, the Southern State of Karnataka, just like you who represents Kerala. Over the last three days, we have seen a systematic misleading propaganda by certain Members of the Opposition in the most irresponsible and anarchic fashion to mislead the people in the South of India. Let me make it very clear. If at all there was anything, even an ounce of injustice, in the proposals that the Government has made and has brought to the Parliament, even if there was an ounce of injustice to the South of India, I, as a proud Kannadiga, would have been the first to oppose such kind of a proposal. I have gone through the 16.04.2026 96 proposal that the Government of India has brought, the Modi Government has brought. I am saying this not as a Member of the BJP but I am saying this after thoroughly examining all the three proposals; that other than the practical proposal that the Modi Government has brought for delimitation of seats in the country, we – from the South of India and from the smaller States of India, that have controlled our population – could not have got a better deal than this. This is the best deal that the Narendra Modi Government has provided. Hon. Chairperson, Sir, through you, very briefly, I want to explain to the House and to the country the constitutional framework that governs the delimitation exercise. My learned friend Gaurav Gogoi ji was, in his speech, mentioning that we are bringing the delimitation exercise through the backdoor. I want to make it very clear to him that the delimitation exercise is not a backdoor exercise that the BJP is doing. This is a Constitutional mandate of Article 81 and Article 82. We are only purely following what the Constitution asks us to do. There are three primary Articles that govern the exercise that we are now conducting. Article 81, Article 82, and Article 330A of the Constitution provide for women’s reservation. Let us examine all the three Articles briefly and summarily to understand what the Articles essentially say. The first Article 81 determines the total number of seats. It also says that the total number of seats meant for the Lok Sabha, the House of the People, must be divided across the country in such a manner that the ratio between the number of total seats and the population of the State is so far as practicable the same for all States. This is the first requirement. The second requirement 16.04.2026 97 of Article 81 is that within the States, the territorial constituency shall be divided in such a manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted is as far as practicable same within the State. This is the mandate of Article 81. Now, as you are aware, hon. Chairperson, Sir, Article 81 and Article 82, by operation of the 42nd Amendment, which was carried forward again by the 2001 Amendment, froze the number of seats in the Lok Sabha to 543 with a leeway to expand it to 550 seats. Why was this done? In 1997, when this was first discussed, the population in the country had not stabilized. Therefore, a compromise formula was taken so as not to penalize the Southern States which have performed well in population control; let us freeze the number of seats. The same thing continued even in 2001. In 2001, while considering this Bill, the then Law Minister Arun Jaitley ji said on the floor of the House that the National Population Policy also envisages that the year 2026 shall be the year in which the population of the country would hopefully stabilize. Therefore, what was true till 2001, is sought to be frozen till the year 2026, that is, the year in which we anticipate hopefully that the population figure in the country would stabilize. This is the motive behind the freezing of the seats in 1971, which was carried forward for another 25 years in 2001. We are now in 2026. The first argument that the Opposition is making is that they do not want the delimitation exercise to take place. This is the most absurd argument. In 1971, the population of the country was 50 crore; the population of the 16.04.2026 98 country in 2026 is 140 crore. There are assembly constituencies and parliamentary constituencies. Again, I want to take the reference made by a learned colleague, Shri Gaurav Gogoi ji, in his speech. There are certain assembly constituencies in this country which have a population of 26 lakh. There are certain constituencies where a single MP is representing close to 38 lakh people in the country - the population of almost a small nation in Europe. How is this democratic? How is this accountable governance? How can the number of seats that was frozen in 1971 still cater to a population of 140 crore in 2026 for better governance, for better accountability, and accessibility of elected representatives? Hon. Chairperson Sir, delimitation is not a mere democratic imperative; it is also a constitutional duty that the Narendra Modi Government is finally performing today. I want to contrast this with the proposals that the Congress and the Opposition are creating. The Opposition says, why can you not implement women’s reservation as it is on the 543 seats? Why do you not freeze the number of seats? Now, were we to freeze the number of seats, it would defeat the principle in Article 81 of “One Person, One Vote and One Value.” This is a very important constitutional principle that the founding fathers of the Constitution have protected. You cannot have a seat where eight lakh or nine lakh people in one parliamentary constituency are compared to another constituency with around 30 lakh people, each represented by one MP; it defeats the very purpose. That is why the Constitution mandated that 2026 shall be the year when delimitation of the seats shall take place. All that the 16.04.2026 99 Government is trying to do is to fulfil this constitutional mandate. There is a difference between other governments and the Modi Government. Other governments, especially the governments of the Congress Party, have always believed in and practised the politics of postponement. It is the Narendra Modi Government that does not believe in the politics of postponement, but believes in solving the problems of the past. I would like to give an example. OROP was pending for 40 years; what did earlier Congress governments do? They postponed it. Article 370 was pending for 70 years; what did all these governments do? What was supposed to be a temporary provision, they converted into a permanent provision. What did they do? They postponed it. The Bangladesh and India border swapping deal was pending for almost 40–50 years; what did the earlier governments do? They postponed it. It is the Narendra Modi Government that solved the 70- year-old temporary provision of Article 370 by abrogating it because we do not believe in the politics of postponement. We finally solved the OROP after 40 years because we do not believe in the politics of postponement. If the Congress were in power today, they may have, as they did in 1971 and in 2001, wanted to take the safe route - the unconstitutional route, the undemocratic route of freezing the 1971 Census equation. Now, the Narendra Modi Government has decided to bring a new equation into the scheme which is going to give more seats to all States, more representation and while doing this, follow the constitutional mandate of delimitation based on the “One Vote, One Value” principle. This, according to me, is the most practical and genius 16.04.2026 100 solution that anybody could have come up with. I welcome this constitutional proposition that the Narendra Modi Government has brought. Hon. Chairperson Sir, now I want to take a couple of minutes to examine the arguments that the Opposition, and its leaders have made in opposition to these three Bills. Now, the first thing that they say is, do not do anything, do not bring in the delimitation. Why are you bringing delimitation and connecting it with the Women’s reservation? Now, let me for a minute assume what will happen if we do not do anything today. Article 81, Article 82 and the Nari Shakti Adhiniyam under Article 330A will trigger. Now, what will that do? In 2027, the moment the new census data is published, the delimitation exercise will get triggered and because as of today, Article 81 and Article 82 freezes the number of seats in the country at 553, all across the country, delimitation will have to take place to redistribute the 553 seats among the existing States of the country based on the 2027 population. Now, what is this scenario going to do? Chairman Sir, you come from Kerala. I want to draw the attention of the country with an instance and example of Kerala. Now, suppose the Government today does not go ahead with delimitation and Article 330A comes into play by force of law, 2027 Census gets published, what will happen then? Look at these numbers, Chairman Sir. Today, Kerala has 20 Parliamentary seats. If you divide based on 2027 16.04.2026 101 projected population, that is the population of the country and population of Kerala, and divide the 553 seats across the country from North to South, then Kerala will lose six seats. Kerala will have only 14 seats. Now, on these 14 seats, bring one-third representation for women under Article 330A. Now, what is going to happen? In that case, Venugopal Ji will not have a seat. In that case, all those people who are representing the Congress here and opposing this Bill will not have a seat. The present proposal of the Narendra Modi Government is to not only protect the existing seats from encroachment, it is also a proposition to ensure that Kerala does not lose out six seats. Now, for a minute, I want to assume another thing. Let us not take 2027 Census but let us divide the country’s Parliamentary seats on the basis of 2011 Census. Now, what will happen? Based on 2011 Census, if we divide the number of seats, again Kerala will lose five seats. If you take 2011 Census number, Kerala will lose five seats. If you take 2027 Census number, Kerala will lose six seats. What Narendra Modi Government is offering today is additional ten seats to Kerala. This is only gain and no loss. This is why, I say this is the best proposal that one can bring. Chairman Sir, let me take the example of Tamil Nadu. I am glad that Raja ji has come here.

वक्ता Tejasvi Surya

कब कहा 2026-04-16T00:00:00.000Z

किस वाद-विवाद में Obituary References