The debate around the delimitation exercise is often limited to a zero-sum North versus South battle. The argument goes that the Southerns states as discussed in a previous article, would worry that their prolonged success in population control could cost them a fall in seats, while on the other hand the fast growing Hindi-heartland states would be poised to gain seats. Much of this is true. But this argument essentially ignores the layered diversity India is known for. First, in India there are multiple overlapping identities which when carried politically can cause serious cultural anxieties. Secondly, the sole argument of North versus South, ignores how India’s linguistic diversity and federal structure shape representation. And finally, historical data shows the North–South story is more complicated, and serious analysis must account for language and the evolving federal bargain, not just cardinal directions.We are faced with a rather simple but politically sensitive question. Who stands to gain and who stands to lose when parliamentary seats are redistributed after nearly five decades? India’s population has undergone significant changes since 1976, when the distribution of Lok Sabha seats was fixed. States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh have had more population growth than Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh. Now if seats are redistributed purely on the basis of population, by theory the northern states are expected to gain more MPs while the southern states could lose their relative share of representation.Table 1 demonstrates why it is now difficult to disregard delimitation. The population of different Indian states has not been uniform in its growth over the past 40 years. The core of Hindi heartland, like Bihar, where the population has increased from 5.6 crore to 10.4 crore; or Uttar Pradesh (increase from 8.8 crore in 1971 to around 20 crores in 2011), consolidates this fact.Southern states in comparison to the North reported less growth in population over the years. For example Kerala and Tamil Nadu, grew from 2.1 crore to 3.3 crore and 4.1 crore to 7.2 crore respectively, during the same time period.Table 1: The Demography Behind Delimitation (State-wise Population Trends, 1971–2011)StatesPopulation19711981199120012011Andhra Pradesh4,35,02,7085,35,51,0266,65,08,0087,62,10,0078,45,80,777Arunachal Pradesh4,67,5116,31,8398,64,55810,97,96813,83,727Assam1,46,25,1521,80,41,2482,24,14,3222,66,55,5283,12,05,576Bihar5,63,53,3696,99,14,7346,45,30,5548,29,98,50910,40,99,452Chhattisgarh——1,76,14,9282,08,33,8032,55,45,198Goa7,95,12010,07,74911,69,79313,47,66814,58,545Gujarat2,66,97,4753,40,85,7994,13,09,5825,06,71,0176,04,39,692Haryana1,00,36,8081,29,22,1191,64,63,6482,11,44,5642,53,51,462Himachal Pradesh34,60,43442,80,81851,70,87760,77,90068,64,602Jharkhand1,42,27,4331,76,20,2332,18,44,8602,69,45,8293,29,88,134Karnataka2,92,99,0143,71,35,7144,49,77,2015,28,50,5626,10,95,297Kerala2,13,47,3752,54,53,6802,90,98,5183,18,38,6193,34,06,061Madhya Pradesh3,00,16,6253,81,69,2334,85,66,2426,03,48,0237,26,26,809Maharashtra5,04,12,2356,27,84,1717,89,37,1879,68,78,62711,23,74,333Manipur10,72,75314,20,95318,37,14922,93,89628,55,794Meghalaya10,11,69913,35,81917,74,77823,18,82229,66,889Mizoram3,32,3904,93,7576,89,7568,88,57310,97,206Nagaland5,16,4497,74,93012,09,54619,90,03619,78,502Odisha2,19,44,6152,66,45,9463,16,59,7363,68,04,6604,19,74,218Punjab1,35,51,0601,67,88,9152,02,81,9692,43,58,9992,77,43,338Rajasthan2,57,65,8063,42,61,8624,40,05,9905,65,07,1886,85,48,437Sikkim2,09,8433,16,3854,06,4575,40,8516,10,577Tamil Nadu4,11,99,1684,84,08,0775,58,58,9466,24,05,6797,21,47,030Telangana2,05,08,6122,60,89,0743,09,87,2743,06,96,5203,51,93,978Tripura15,56,34220,53,05827,57,20531,99,20336,73,917Uttar Pradesh8,83,41,14411,08,62,01313,20,62,80016,61,97,92119,98,12,341Uttarakhand44,93,23957,26,39870,51,34484,89,3491,00,86,292West Bengal4,43,12,0115,48,68,6926,80,77,9658,02,21,1719,12,76,115Note: All figures are based on recast population data from the Census of India, which has been harmonised to the 2011 state boundaries. Before Andhra Pradesh was divided in 2014, Telangana was a part of it (2011). The 1981 figure is an official corrected estimate because the Assam Agitation prevented the census from being carried out. The populations of Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand have been updated to reflect their current borders. Odisha takes the position of Orissa, while Karnataka (previously Mysore) symbolises the post-1973 state boundaries. The decline in Nagaland between 2001 and 2011 is not the result of a decline in population, but rather of changes made to the census.Sources: Census of India, Recast Population (1951–2011), adjusted to 2011 jurisdiction. MOSPI, Statistical Abstract of India (cross-verification of historical state populations) Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, A-02: Decadal Variation in Population, 1901–2011(state-wise, adjusted to 2011 boundaries). Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, Recast Population (1971–2011), adjusted to 2011 jurisdiction. This is where the disagreement begins. Politics of the South argues that the states should not be disadvantaged for successfully implementing family planning, improving public health, education and slowing population growth, policies that the Union itself once encouraged. The question of whether parliament should continue to represent the frozen India of 1971 or the radically altered India that has developed subsequently is at the centre of today’s discussion, which revolves on these divergent demographic paths.On the other end of this debate, the North sides with the belief that the present arrangement is equally unfair because a huge number of their population is represented by fewer MPs than they would be under a population-based system. The debate is thus over geography and two competing ideas of fairness. One argues that representation should always follow the population. The other argues that India’s federal balance should not punish states for successfully achieving national development goals.Table 2: Allocation of Lok Sabha Seats by state (1971, before the freeze versus 2024, the current allocation)StatesNumber of Lok Sabha Seats19712024Change (%)Andhra Pradesh*4225-68%Arunachal Pradesh220%Assam14140%Bihar*5440-35%Chhattisgarh—11100%Goa220%Gujarat26260%Haryana10100%Himachal Pradesh440%Jharkhand—14100%Karnataka28280%Kerala20200%Madhya Pradesh*4029-37.9310344827586%Maharashtra48480%Manipur220%Meghalaya220%Mizoram—1100%Nagaland110%Odisha21210%Punjab13130%Rajasthan25250%Sikkim—1100%Tamil Nadu39390%Telangana—17100%Tripura220%Uttar Pradesh*8580-6.25%Uttarakhand—5100%West Bengal42420%Total5225240.381679389312977%Note: The 1971 column represents the allocation that formed the basis of the 1976 constitutional freeze under the 42nd Constitutional Amendment. With the exception of modifications required by the establishment of new states, the interstate distribution of Lok Sabha seats has essentially remained unchanged since then. In 2014, Andhra Pradesh was divided into Telangana (17 seats) and Andhra Pradesh (25 seats). In 2000, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh were reorganised into Jharkhand (14 seats), Chhattisgarh (11 seats), and Uttarakhand (5 seats). Mizoram has one Lok Sabha seat and was proclaimed a state in 1987. Sikkim has one Lok Sabha seat and was made a state in 1975.Sources: Election Commission of India, Electoral Statistics (Historical Number of Lok Sabha Seats by State). Election Commission of India, Constitutional Provisions (Composition of the House of the People).If we look at the data from 1951 to 1977 the data tells us a story (Table 2). Most states have the same number of Lok Sabha seats now as they had in 1971. The few changes that happened were mostly because new states were formed, not because the Lok Sabha seats were taken away from some states and given to others. For example, undivided Andhra Pradesh had 42 Lok Sabha seats which were divided between the state and Telangana; with Andhra Pradesh now having 25 seats and Telangana having 17 seats. Same happened when Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand were created from Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh; each new state got a share of the existing Lok Sabha seats of the states.Both the Hindi speaking areas and the South lost some representation before the number of seats was frozen. However the Hindi speaking areas lost more representation than the South – 3.1% of their representation versus 1.2%. But this did not happen because the South gained seats at the expense of the North. Instead the political map of India was changing. The Union Territories got representation, the Northeast had more people in parliament and the creation of new states based on language changed the balance of representation in the country. This change is not about the North and the South but the relationships between new states, Union Territories and areas where people speak different languages.Language and the Hindi beltTable 3: Major Language Groups in India (Census 2011)Language GroupPopulationShare of India’s Population (%)Hindi*52,83,47,19343.63Bengali9,72,37,6698.03Marathi8,30,26,6806.86Telugu8,11,27,7406.70Tamil6,90,26,8815.70Gujarati5,54,92,5544.58Urdu5,07,72,6314.19Kannada4,37,06,5123.61Odia3,75,21,3243.10Malayalam3,48,38,8192.88Punjabi3,31,24,7262.74Assamese1,53,11,3511.26Other languages**8,00,29,5676.61Total1,21,05,63,647100.00Note: According to the Census of India, Hindi and its legally classed mother tongues, Bhojpuri, Rajasthani, Chhattisgarhi, Magahi, Haryanvi, Bagheli, and others, make up the Hindi language group. All remaining scheduled and non-scheduled language groups, including Maithili, Santali, Kashmiri, Nepali, Sindhi, Konkani, Dogri, Manipuri (Meitei), Bodo, Sanskrit, and hundreds of smaller mother tongues included in the Census, are considered additional languages.Source: Census of India 2011, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, Table C-16: Population by Mother Tongue.India being part of the greatest diversity of South Asia has its linguistics varying by every turn, nook and cranny of the subcontinent (Table 3). Numbers often reveal what political slogans conceal. Nearly 44% of Indians identify Hindi as their mother tongue, while no other language accounts for more than 8% of the population. Once representation is tied more closely to population, language inevitably acquires political weight, making the delimitation debate as much about India’s federal compact as it is about numbers.Table 4: Hindi vs. non-Hindi speakers by state (Census 2011)StateHindi Speakers (%)Non-Hindi Speakers (%)Andhra Pradesh*6.693.4Arunachal Pradesh22.777.3Assam4.795.3Bihar80.719.3Chhattisgarh82.817.2Goa0.899.2Gujarat7.093.0Haryana85.114.9Himachal Pradesh88.911.1Jharkhand61.938.1Karnataka2.697.4Kerala0.699.4Madhya Pradesh89.610.4Maharashtra5.095.0Manipur0.299.8Meghalaya0.499.6Mizoram0.199.9Nagaland1.498.6Odisha1.398.7Punjab7.392.7Rajasthan90.79.3Sikkim7.792.3Tamil Nadu0.599.5Telangana*8.691.4Tripura5.894.2Uttar Pradesh94.45.6Uttarakhand89.210.8West Bengal0.699.4Note: Percentages are based on the Census of India 2011 and refer to mother tongue, not second or third language. Hindi includes the official Hindi language group used by the Census, which aggregates several mother tongues such as Bhojpuri, Chhattisgarhi, Bagheli, Haryanvi and Magahi under the Hindi category. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are shown according to the recast 2011 state boundaries used in Census language tables.Source: Census of India 2011, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India (ORGI), Table C-16: Population by Mother Tongue (State-wise). Percentages computed by the author from Census data.The extent of India’s linguistic split is only evident when we shift from national averages to individual states (Table 4). Hindi is the mother tongue of more than 90% of people in Uttar Pradesh and more than 8% of people in most of the Hindi heartland. However, only 2.6% of people in Karnataka speak Hindi, compared to less than 1% in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal. These figures show that India is separated by several language worlds rather than just state borders. A challenging point is also raised if delimitation is to follow population more closely: how can a multilingual republic maintain its federal balance when parliamentary representation starts to reflect the increasing influence of one language community?Table 5: Projected change in Lok Sabha representation under delimitationStateCurrent Seats (2024)Projected Seats (2011 Census)Gain/LossProjected Seats (2026 Population)Gain/LossUttar Pradesh808889111Bihar40466499Rajasthan25305316Madhya Pradesh29323334Chhattisgarh11110121Jharkhand14151151Haryana10111122Gujarat26271282Hindi Heartland Total2352602527136Tamil Nadu3932-729-10Kerala2015-514-6Andhra Pradesh2522-320-5Telangana1715-214-3Karnataka2827-126-2Southern States Total129111-18103-26Source: Milan Vaishnav, Louis Tillin & Andy Robaina, Delimitation After Defeat: India’s Unfinished Debate over Representation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2026), based on Census of India 2011 and National Commission on Population, Population Projections for India and States 2011–2036 (Government of India, 2020).Projections bear this out (Table 5). One recent analysis by Vaishnav, Tillin and Robaina, finds Hindi heartland states would gain about 36 seats while the four big South Indian states lose 26. In raw numbers, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan alone could see +26 seats, whereas Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh might lose 21. Even a baseline using only 2011 census numbers yields a similar trend: +25 in the north versus -18 in the south.In practical terms, this too raises an old constitutional question: can India’s federal balance survive if representation becomes continually more concentrated in one region of the nation? They refer to a parliament where political influence increasingly follows demographic weight.This isn’t just theory. It is to be noted which states “will gain”: and it’s “really the Hindi heartland states”, which are generally poorer, while West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh are “all losers in this bargain”. In other words, delimitation based purely on headcount would raise the political weight of Hindi-speaking states relative to non-Hindi regions. Notably, this shift would likely benefit the parties strong in those underrepresented states , the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance, at the expense of South-oriented parties.Federalism is under pressureYet India is not a simple majoritarian democracy; it is a federal union of diverse regions and languages. The Constitution’s federal design was heavily shaped by linguistic accommodation. The 1956 State Reorganisation Act, for instance, redrew boundaries along language lines precisely to balance regional identities. Over the decades, states with distinct languages, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, etc., have demanded and secured protections for local voices. In the current delimitation debate, federalism looms large. Southern leaders fear they would be penalised at the polls for implementing policies like family planning. Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which have Total Fertility Rates well below the national average, would see fewer MPs despite contributing more to the economy.In sum, the delimitation debate isn’t just about ‘North versus South’ in the map sense. It is about Hindi-speaking versus non-Hindi regions, and how India’s federal structure accommodates growth and diversity. Will we reset representation to match population, rewarding states with high fertility, or maintain safeguards for states that have stabilised their growth or have different languages and developmental roles?The larger question is how to preserve India’s federal compact. Delimitation has become a symbol of the deeper tension between “one person, one vote” and the pact that has kept India united. India must find “representation formulas that acknowledge population size while not penalising states for successful implementation of national population policies”. In other words, rather than treating delimitation as a simple north-south tug-of-war, we need to build a federal bargain: one that respects the Hindi heartland’s democratic weight and the non-Hindi regions’ language identities and achievements. Only then can the next round of boundary-drawing strengthen India’s democracy, instead of deepening old divides.Only a portion of India’s story is revealed by its population. The other is shaped by federalism, economics, and the covert agreements that have kept the Union united for many years. What should parliament reward if one group of states contributes more to the national economy while another grows more quickly? That question cannot be answered by demography alone.In the next piece, we engage with another question: should economic contribution be taken into consideration in addition to population when determining representation in a federal democracy?Nirmanyu Chouhan is a researcher of politics and society.