This article discusses how delimitation has become important to maintain political equity in the nation, why it is being opposed by some states now, and what can be done to overcome this deadlock.

Delimitation: why and how?

The very foundation of a robust democracy rests on the principle of fair and equitable representation. In India, this principle is periodically reinforced through a process known as delimitation – the act of fixing the limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies for legislative bodies. This crucial exercise ensures that the voice of every citizen carries roughly the same weight in the electoral process. As the nation approaches 2026, the prospect of a new delimitation exercise, mandated by the Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act of 2002, has ignited discussions and debates across the political spectrum. Concerns have been particularly vocal from the southern states, highlighting the significant political ramifications this redrawing of electoral maps –merely or solely on the basis of population parameters–could entail. Punjab too has voiced its concerns over delimitation and the potential loss of its political power.

The genesis of delimitation in India lies in the fundamental need to uphold democratic ideals. The architects of the Indian Constitution envisioned this process to guarantee equal representation for all citizens. This means ensuring that the number of constituents represented by each Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) remains largely consistent across the country, in proportion to the population of the state. That means, the larger the state in terms of its population, the higher the number of people it can send to Lok Sabha. Over time, populations grow and migrate, leading to uneven demographic shifts across regions. Without periodic adjustments to constituency boundaries, some areas would become significantly overrepresented or underrepresented, thereby undermining the principle of “one person, one vote, and one value”. To address these dynamic demographic realities, Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution explicitly require the revision of parliamentary and state assembly seats following each census.

What does the Constitution say?

Article 82 mandates that, after each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People (Lok Sabha) to the states and the division of each state into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by an authority determined by Parliament through law. This readjustment does not affect the current Lok Sabha until it is dissolved. The changes take effect from a date specified by the President, and until then, elections can be held based on the existing constituencies. Until the census after 2026, the allocation based on the 1971 census and the constituencies based on the 2001 census remain unchanged.

Article 81 of the Constitution talks about the composition of House of People (Lok Sabha). Article 81(2) states that, the seats allotted to each state shall be commensurate to the ratio between the number of seats and population of the state and will be the same for all states, as far as practicable. To understand this, with a simplified example: if State A has 50 million people and gets 50 seats, then State B with 30 million should get 30 seats to maintain the same ratio. This has however been changed with the freeze on delimitation under Article 82.

Article 170 outlines the composition of the Legislative Assemblies of states. Each Legislative Assembly must have between 60 and 500 members, chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies. The constituencies are divided in such a way that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it is, as far as practicable, the same throughout the state. After each census, the total number of seats and the division into constituencies are readjusted by an authority and in a manner determined by Parliament through law. This readjustment does not affect the existing Assembly until its dissolution.

India has witnessed four delimitation exercises since its independence. The first was conducted in 1952 based on the 1951 census, followed by exercises in 1963 (based on the 1961 census), 1973 (based on the 1971 census), and most recently in 2002 (based on the 2001 census). These commissions were tasked with redrawing constituency boundaries to ensure a more equitable distribution of population across electoral units. Notably, the delimitation exercise of 2002, while adjusting constituency boundaries, maintained the total number of Lok Sabha seats at 543, a figure that has remained constant since the 1973 delimitation. The table below illustrates the history of delimitation commissions in India:

What lies at the core of the issue now?

The journey towards the upcoming delimitation in 2026 has been marked by significant political decisions, particularly the freezing of the process for several decades. In 1976, during the Emergency, the government enacted the 42nd Amendment Act, which froze the delimitation of Lok Sabha and state assembly constituencies until after the first census following the year 2000. A primary motivation behind this freeze was to encourage states to actively pursue population control measures without fearing a reduction in their political representation in the Lok Sabha. The logic was that states making progress in family planning should not be penalised by losing parliamentary seats to states with higher population growth rates. Subsequently, the 84th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 extended this freeze until the first census taken after 2026. This extension reflected the continued concerns about disparities in population growth across different regions of the country. Southern states, having achieved greater success in implementing population control measures, were particularly apprehensive about a delimitation exercise based on more recent census data, fearing a potential decrease in their representation compared to states with higher population growth.

Implications of delimitation on the Indian Polity: lessons from past projections

The impending delimitation exercise after 2026 carries profound implications for India’s democratic polity, potentially reshaping the political landscape of the nation. One of the most significant anticipated impacts is the shift in the allocation of Lok Sabha seats among states. Given the demographic trends, with northern states generally experiencing higher population growth compared to their southern counterparts, projections indicate a potential increase in the number of parliamentary seats for states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, while southern states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana might witness marginal gains or even a decrease in their representation. This demographic redistribution could lead to a significant shift in political power within the Lok Sabha, granting more influence to the more populous northern states. Adding to this possibility is the speculation about an overall increase in the total number of Lok Sabha seats, potentially linked to the enhanced capacity of the new parliament building. While an increase in the total number of seats might cushion the impact on southern states, the relative balance of power is still likely to tilt towards the north.

Beyond the allocation of general seats, the delimitation exercise will also impact the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The number of constituencies reserved for these communities is determined based on their proportion of the total population in each state. Consequently, the delimitation process will likely lead to adjustments in the geographical distribution of these reserved seats to align with the latest census data on the SC and ST populations.

Southern States and opposition to delimitation: key concerns and arguments

These anticipated shifts have understandably generated concerns among certain states, particularly in South India. The apprehension stems from the possibility of reduced parliamentary representation, which could impact their ability to effectively voice regional concerns and influence national policymaking. A key argument put forth by these states is that they have successfully implemented population control measures and have also made significant contributions to the national economy. They argue against a scenario where their progress in these areas could lead to a diminishment of their political clout, potentially disrupting the federal balance.

There is also a concern regarding the potential impact of delimitation on the representation of Muslim communities in certain constituencies. The redrawing of boundaries or the designation of constituencies as reserved could inadvertently affect the existing representation patterns of religious minorities in specific regions. In the recently concluded delimitation process of Assam—a state with 35% of Muslim population— the number of assembly constituencies in Muslim-majority districts has decreased while those in areas inhabited by communities considered indigenous to Assam has increased. The state also saw its hard-line Hindutva Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of the BJP call for a delimitation “that should be done in such a manner that the rights of indigenous people are protected.” If Assam’s recent delimitation—where Muslim-majority constituencies shrank while those in indigenous-dominated areas expanded—serves as a precedent for the rest of India, the process raises serious concerns. When paired with the ruling establishment’s open hostility toward minorities, exemplified by hate speeches from leaders including the Prime Minister during the 2024 General Elections, it becomes difficult to trust the government’s intentions or the impartiality of the institutions overseeing delimitation, especially vis-à-vis representation of minorities.

Furthermore, the upcoming delimitation is intrinsically linked to the implementation of the Women’s Reservation Act, which mandates 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha. This landmark legislation is expected to be implemented after the delimitation process is completed in 2026, as the finalisation of constituency boundaries is a prerequisite for reserving seats for women.

The WHYs on both sides

Those who call for delimitation wants it for simple purpose that it was the original design to preserve and further democratic functioning and legitimacy of the state. Delimitation would allow more people to be represented by their own representative as the population grows in each constituency.

For example, under 2011 census—Uttar Pradesh has 80 Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha) for 19.98 Crore people. Means, a Lok Sabha MP for almost 25 lakh people. Similarly, the combined Andhra Pradesh state had 42 Lok Sabha MPs for 8.46 Crore people, one Lok Sabha MP per 20 Lakh people. Similarly for Kerala, there is one Lok Sabha MP per 16 lakh people, according to the 2011 Census. This means that the political will of 16 lakh people in Kerala is equal to 25 lakh people in Uttar Pradesh despite the latter being significantly higher. Delimitation, if carried out, would ensure that those extra 10 lakh people are also represented better.

However, the postponement of delimitation was agreed to by all the parties since then and last time it was done so, was in 2001 via the 84^th Constitutional Amendment Act. Therefore, the question of its democratic legitimacy does not arise. A major concern surrounding delimitation is its potential to reshape political influence at the national level. Southern states, where population growth has slowed, fear that losing Lok Sabha seats would weaken their voice in Parliament.

In a country with strong fiscal centralisation—where the Union government controls revenue collection and redistribution—political power at the Centre translates directly into financial security. This concern is reflected in the recent budgetary allocations to Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, where the NDA’s survival in the Lok Sabha rests on the mercy of regional allies TDP and JDU—an arrangement that has conveniently translated into generous financial support from the Centre.

Therefore, fewer seats could mean less leverage in securing resources, leaving these states at a disadvantage. The possibility of political manipulation through the strategic redrawing of constituency boundaries, also known as gerrymandering, is another concern highlighted by experts.

This issue is compounded by the original intent behind the freeze on delimitation. It was designed to prevent states that successfully implemented family planning measures from being penalized with reduced representation. While the extended freeze has been widely accepted, the core principle remains sensitive—why should states that stabilised their populations now be at risk of losing political power? To them, this feels less like a neutral realignment and more like a penalty for progress.

What are the proposed solutions?

Various alternative solutions have been proposed to mitigate the potential negative consequences of a purely population-based delimitation. These include suggestions to increase the total number of Lok Sabha seats to accommodate the growing population without reducing representation for any state, reforming the Rajya Sabha to provide greater weightage to states and ensure a more balanced federal representation, decentralising more powers to the states to reduce their dependence on parliamentary representation, and even considering a permanent freeze on interstate redistribution of seats. In the midst of these debates, the ruling establishment has offered assurances that no southern state will experience a loss of seats in the upcoming delimitation exercise.

In particular, the increase of seats overall has been widely suggested since that would not decrease the existing seats for southern states and for states with higher populations, higher seats would secure equitable representation. Even in this case too, a study has revealed that there would be a stark divide between Northern and Southern states. In this paradigm, the five southern states would have 164 seats i.e., 35 more than their current total seats. In the same projection, only Uttar Pradesh would have 143 seats.

Is there a structural issue?

Beyond numbers, delimitation also shapes India’s federal structure. Lok Sabha seats are allocated by population to uphold political equality, but the Constitution does not guarantee fixed representation for states. With each delimitation exercise, the balance of power shifts. A rigid population-based approach, without reforms in fiscal and political decentralisation, risks further centralising authority in the Union government—potentially undermining the very spirit of federalism.

This problem is essentially a contest between the rights of states as federal units and rights of individuals as equal citizens in the political process. One cannot come at the cost of another. However, there is no balancing provision, as of now, which can uphold the rights of states as federal units, where their voices could be given political heft irrespective of their population. This lack of political weight for states solely based on their existence, rather than population, reflects a spill over of the Constitution’s unitary tendencies. If the issue of delimitation is to be solved, once and for all, there needs to be a structural solution which deems states as entities with considerable political power, unlike the current state of things where the Centre can constitutionally redraw state boundaries at will, with or without consultation with the state legislatures. Without addressing such structural problems for states in fiscal, administrative and political arenas, even if delimitation issue is somehow solved, many more stress points will present themselves in the near future from these arenas.

What could be done to solve the structural issue?

If political power in Lok Sabha is what states fear of losing because their interests will not be protected, then more avenues will have to be created to ensure that states secure political power. Lok Sabha cannot be the sole place where states feel secure with their power.

To enhance regional representation, the Rajya Sabha should have greater legislative authority, including higher oversight on national resource allocation. Membership per state should reflect human development, and linguistic diversity, not just population. Rajya Sabha should truly become a house of the states where their concerns are given the utmost importance.

Decentralisation must go beyond constitutional provisions by mandating states to transfer at least 50% of centrally sponsored funds to local governments with decision-making autonomy. A National Local Governance Commission—having effective representation from states, should oversee resource distribution and capacity building, ensuring inclusive and effective governance.

Conclusion

As the nation approaches 2026, the redrawing of electoral boundaries is not merely a technical adjustment but a transformative moment that could recalibrate political power, reshape fiscal priorities, and redefine the social contract between the Union and states. The debate transcends partisan politics, exposing deeper fissures in India’s federal architecture and challenging the delicate balance between individual rights and collective regional aspirations.

At this juncture, the delimitation exercise presents not just a challenge but an opportunity—to reimagine federalism as a dynamic, equitable partnership rather than a hierarchical contract. The path forward requires dialogue that transcends regionalism or majoritarianism, grounded in constitutional morality and a shared vision of inclusive nationhood. Only by harmonizing the democratic principle of equal vote-weight with the federal promise of diverse voices can India ensure that its electoral map reflects both its people and their pluralistic aspirations. In this balance lies the future of the world’s largest democracy.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

What the 2026 delimitation process has in store for Indian Muslims

Election Commission of India receives 467 suggestions and objections over the proposed delimitation exercise in Assam

Protests erupt over ECI’s new delimitation draft in Assam which is embroiled in controversy

Assam: Delimitation of Assembly, Parliamentary Seats, Merging of Districts Raise Apprehensions

The post India at the Crossroads: The delimitation exercise and its implications for democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Among the districts of Assam Kokrajhar has witnessed 12 suggestions and objections from the public. Dr. Dinanath Basumatary, the Working President of the All Bodo Senior Citizens Forum, and others have spoken of the importance of preserving the reservations for Scheduled Tribes in Hill Areas and Legislative Assembly Constituencies as per the existing constitutional provisions. Their plea is to maintain the status quo of Article 330(1) I and 332, which ensure ST reservations in these areas. Concerns were also raised about the adjustment of six Assembly Constituencies under the Bodoland Territorial Council area with the non-sixth Scheduled Hill Areas named Darrang. Furthermore, a demand was made to allocate two seats in the Hill Areas under the Bodoland and Territorial Council Area, specifically in Kokrajhar (ST) and Udalguri (ST).

In South Salmara District, Mostaq Mohammed Moksedur Hassan, the President of the Aam Admi Party, has requested a correction in the proposed 9-Mankachar constituency and 11-South Salmara constituency. The suggestion is to align the proposed constituencies within three already existing assembly constituencies, namely Mankachar with existing Mankachar Block and Fekamari Block (Part), South Salmara AC with existing South Salmara Block and Fekamari Block (Part), and Bahir Salmara AC with Bisring Jarua Block and Jamadarhat Block.

Goalpara District has witnessed 20 suggestions from the public. Representatives of the Kamarpota Rajah Gaon Unnyar Committee, including Sri Mahananda Dev Sarmah, have requested the retention of Kamarpota village in Dudhnoi AC (ST) instead of Goalpara East constituency. Their aim is to ensure better representation for the community. Dhubri District also received 17 suggestions and objections, with one key request being the retention of Hatipota-Pt.II village in the 27-East Bilasipara AC instead of Mankachar AC.

Apart from public engagement, several political parties have actively participated in the delimitation process. Notably, six political parties, including the Lok Janashakti Party, Assam TMC, and United Opposition Forum, have submitted their suggestions and objections. On the other hand, the Assam TMC has expressed concerns about the ground reality, people’s sentiment, historical background, and geographical compactness. They have urged the Election Commission to put the draft proposal on hold and conduct the exercise based on the 2026 census. The United Opposition Forum has sought clarification on the use of the 2001 census instead of the available 2011 census and has suggested more convenient geographical shapes for the proposed new constituencies. They have also requested that the exercise be deferred until the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in respect of Assam is finalised.

Bhupen Kumar Borah, President of the United Opposition Forum, which includes Assam TMC, has raised concerns regarding the delimitation process. He has argued that the Election Commission has overlooked the ground reality, emotions, sentiments of the people, historical background of certain constituencies, and geographical compactness of the Assembly Constituencies. The United Opposition Forum has called on the Election Commission to suspend the draft proposal of delimitation and conduct the exercise based on the 2026 census.

Earlier this month, the Congress had also voiced its concerns on the draft bill. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge stated at a press event on July 7, 2023, that “The delimitation exercise in Assam needs wider acceptance and consensus within the political spectrum.” The press event was organised to deliver the memorandum to the ECI.

Please embed tweet:

Leaders of 11 opposition parties along with AICC General Secretary, Shri @JitendraSAlwar, Congress Party’s Deputy Leader (Lok Sabha), Shri @GouravAssam, PCC President, Shri @BhupenKBorah, CLP Leader Shri @DsaikiaOfficial and other members of @INCAssam handed over a… pic.twitter.com/b4Q7PZYgOo

— Mallikarjun Kharge (@kharge) July 7, 2023

Related:

Assam: Delimitation of Assembly, Parliamentary Seats, Merging of Districts Raise Apprehensions

Protests erupt over ECI’s new delimitation draft in Assam which is embroiled in controversy

Assam CM Faces Backlash over Speech Targeting Bengali-Speaking Muslim Community

The laws against child marriage exist but are not enough

The post Election Commission of India receives 467 suggestions and objections over the proposed delimitation exercise in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Two issues have caused widespread apprehensions across Assam; the parties in opposition, critics and concerned people have raised their concerns after the declarations of the delimitation process in the state along with the decision to merge four districts with four others. These issues are woven together and can not be seen in isolation.

On the eve of the New Year, Assam’s chief minister (CM), Himanta Biswa Sarma, declared the merging of the four districts: Bajali, Biswanath, Hojai and Tamulpur, with Barpeta, Sonitpur, Nagaon, and Baksa. He, however, said that the decision is temporary. Sarma was in Delhi along with the cabinet ministers, and the press conference happened after the Assam cabinet meeting held in Delhi.

As told by Sarma, the reason for the decisions was to comply with the EC (Election Commission) notification that has banned creating new administrative units in the state until the delimitation exercise is completed. The EC ban has been effective from January 1, 2023. The question that emerges immediately is why the districts created earlier have to be merged. Even if the EC ban is effective, how do the existing districts violate the norms? They are anyways no new administrative units.

Notably, the CM declared that several villages had been separated from the districts they used to come under and included with other districts. For example, six villages in the Barpeta districts are now part of Bongaigaon.

The Assam government notification of December 31, 2022, suggests that almost 100 villages have been realigned with different districts from the existing ones. The local people have also registered protests in several districts after learning about the realignments. The other part of the issue is the delimitation itself. There are more questions than answers. Why the sudden haste of conducting delimitation at this point? Why had delimitation not happened in Assam since 1976?

The Background

Delimitation is a periodical process conducted throughout the country, where the Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies of the states are reframed. The last delimitation in India started in 2002, and the basis was the census report of 2001. Till 2008, most of the states witnessed the completion of the delimitation process, baring Assam and a few other states of the northeast.

Coming to the context of Assam, the delimitation of 2002 was opposed in unison by various regional organisations, civil societies and political parties. Protests on the street also reverberated inside the state Assembly, and a resolution was taken not to continue the exercise. Notably, the then speaker of the Assam Legislative Assembly, Tanka Bahadur Rai, sent a letter to the chairman of the delimitation commission on May 16, 2007. The letter, based on the all-party resolutions taken on May 11, 2007, urged the commission not to continue with the exercise.

The point of disagreement was that without upgrading the NRC (National Registry of Citizens), the delimitation of constituencies does not have any meaning. Speaking to NewsClick, Lurinjyoti Gogoi, the president of AJP (Asam Jatiya Parishad) and a former AASU (All Assam Students’ Union) general secretary, said, “On May 5, 2005, there was a meeting with the then PM Manmohan Singh. AASU was also a part of it, and the concerns of the people of Assam were raised there. Why the delimitation would be futile without the NRC being updated was clearly conveyed to the PM.”

Lurin also said that there had been pilot projects at Chaygaon and Barpeta.

“But as the NRC upgradation process also started at that time, a consensus was built up that first the NRC and then the delimitation. The foreign immigration issue has been at the centre stage of Assam’s politics since the 80s, yet it has not been resolved,” Lurin said.

Santanu Borthakur, a senior advocate at the Gauhati High Court, said, “The delimitation process started in 2005 was contested at every level in Assam. The primary concern was the NRC, which has not been resolved yet. There was also a case at the high court that later went to the supreme court and a stay order over the exercise was in place. The supreme court recently removed the stay order, and the process restarts. However, it will again be based on the 2001 census report. Stay order over delimitation was also in place in Nagaland.”

Foreigner issues and the NRC occupy much of Assam’s politics even now. However, there need to be visible signs of getting the issues resolved. Pertaining to these, the delimitation process was halted in Assam. The delimitation commission even produced a draft in 2007, and protests and bandhs intensified hereafter, and the Assembly also came out with a resolution to not continue with the exercise. Thus, Assam could not see the delimitation during 2007-08. Since then, the process has been stalled.

The Present Conundrum

With the declaration of the delimitation and merging of districts, debates have reemerged in Assam. However, few protests or movements could be seen this time, though citizens of the concerned districts and villages have organised demonstrations. The apprehensions revolve around certain points—first, the delimitation will be based on the 2001 census. Then how will it be different from the earlier one? Second, the NRC has not been finalised yet, so the basis of opposition to delimitation in 2005 has not been withered. Third, will the exercise safeguard the indigenous people, as CM Himanta Biswa Sarma said?

Yes, these points still hold. Notably, the AASU has not been so vocal this time. It was the main force of movements in 2007 after the draft was produced.

According to a report in the leading Assamese daily newspaper, Amar Asom, Himanta Biswa Sarma said that he informed AASU before the declaration of delimitation. However, Samujjal Bhattacharya, the chief adviser of AASU, declined this.

Nevertheless, there have not been any organised protests led by AASU this time. It is also worth mentioning that AASU was invited to a meeting with the CM and other ministers last year. Allegations are there that even the media was not informed about this meeting. And it is not quite known what was discussed.

Opposition parties feel something is fishy about the re-initiation of the delimitation process.

“This move is purely politically motivated,” said Suprakash Talukdar, the Assam general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)).

Talukdar further questioned the dubious stand of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), saying, “In 2005, BJP was also opposing the delimitation process. Their arguments also hovered around the NRC and the 2001 census. Have those changed? Won’t the delimitation this time be based on the 2001 census? The NRC is still in limbo. Then how come BJP supports this time? The BJP’s double standard has been exposed this time.”

“It is now well known that BJP has unprecedented control over the organs of the state machinery. The election commission is also in favour of them. Can we be sure that the process does not involve any vested political interest?”

Borthakur also said that the delimitation could be crafted so that the constituencies where the minority has a decisive role will be reframed. “The process may benefit the BJP in the short term,” Borthakur said.

On the other hand, before initiating the process, there was no referendum or process involving the people’s opinions. Assam’s case has been particular, and even after the exercise was pending for such a long time, taking people’s opinions was not even considered. “The entire process has undermined the democratic ethos,” Gogoi commented.

“It is being carried out hastily, only targeting the 2024 general election. The BJP will try to advance their political agenda through it. We reaffirm that if delimitation has to be carried out, then it should be for the benefit of Assam’s people, not for the benefit of BJP.”

“And see how hundreds of villages have been reassigned with different districts overnight. And why have they merged the districts? There are financial issues as well. The state’s economic condition is really poor, and running district administrations involve money, which the government may have tried to reduce,” Gogoi said.

The opposition leader of the Assam Assembly, Debabrat Saikia, also raised similar concerns. Apart from demanding a clean process, he reiterated the pain and agonies of people involved in movements for separate districts.

“Districts have complicated historical facts involved and long struggles of people. The Bajali district was announced during Sarbananda Sonowal’s regime. Before the anti-CAA movement, a young guy lost his life in a protest demanding a separate district. How can they forget that? The Bajali district and others were declared to please people during the CAA movement,” Saikia commented.

CM Himanta Biswa Sarma is trying to put forward the ‘protection of indigenous people’s sentiment. In his press address in Delhi on December 31, he said that the entire exercise of delimitation and merging of districts had been done with a heavy heart but for a larger cause.

On this point, Sushanta Talukdar, a prominent journalist of Assam, commented, “I think the ruling BJP wants to advance its electoral strategy of using the Delimitation exercise by trying to create a perception of protecting indigenous communities even though the exercise being just readjustment of constituency boundaries has a limited scope of redrawing boundaries on ethnic lines. Reservation of constituencies post Delimitation will create more complexities which will be difficult for the ruling coalition to ignore.”

“That is obvious given the oft-repeated statement by BJP to push the campaign that demographic threat to indigenous communities has come from erstwhile East Bengal origin Muslims. It remains to be seen what modalities the EC notifies for delimitation. Readjustment is not going to be permanent as a number of constituencies will go up after 2026,” Talukdar said.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Assam: Delimitation of Assembly, Parliamentary Seats, Merging of Districts Raise Apprehensions appeared first on SabrangIndia.