The original institutional system of India assumed the reworking of the Map of Lok Sabha’s seats after each census Photo Credit: Vishal Mathew 10099@Mumbai
The nation -state, like the family, is designed on the assumption that its resources and responsibilities are shared by its members in a fair way in which the community agreed. The stronger individuals and groups are expected to support weaker; Progressive tax policy is one of the manifestations of this approach.
If there is significant inequality across regions and social groups, this arrangement is under tension and requires innovation. India faces a challenge for management, which results from regional divergence in wealth and population.
This is the trigger of the ongoing debate between states and social groups on definition (associated with political representation) and tax decentralization (associated with creating and sharing wealth and resources).
The original institutional system of India assumed the reworking of the location of the Lok Sabha seats after each census, which represents changes in the population. When the population in some regions was not as fast as others, this decadal definition was frozen in 1976. It was postponed for 25 years, until 2001, and then again for another 25 years until 2026, through constitutional changes.
It is assumed that when postponing the definition, the development trajectory of most regions would be converged until then. This happened from 1976 to 2001, or even after 2001. In 2026, India would complete 50 years without interstate reworking of constituencies. As the People 2021 census is not done, we do not know what regional demographic trends are.
Population, composition and quality are associated with creating and sharing wealth. Graphs show divergence between different regions in terms of population size and economic performance. Composition and quality are not analyzed. To measure economic performance, we use a relative level of revenue per head-meter of the state per capita net state product to a cell-index net national product on the head, expressed as a percentage.
Graphs 1, 2 and 3 portray the relative levels of revenue per capita in 1961, 2001 and 2024. The vertical axis shows the relative levels of income, while the horizontal axis shows the share of each state in the Indian population. In 1961, the relative levels of income Keral, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka were comparable to the levels of UP, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.
Chart 1 describes the relative level of revenue per capita in 1961
In 2001, the relative levels of income in Maharashtra, Gujarat, West Bengal and all the southern states increased to match those of Panjab and Haryana – states that were ahead of the Green Revolution. On the other hand, UP, Bihar and MP levels dropped. The newly created countries carved from them also had a low level of income, along with Odisha and Rajasthan.
Graph 2 Graphs Relative Level of Revenue per capita in 2001
Until 2024, the abyss of income between economically advanced and lagging states has further expanded. Graph 3 PLOTS Relative Revenue per capita in 2024
Several exceptions have excelled: relative income in West Bengal and Pandjab was immersed while Uttarakhand has improved. Especially during this period, the proportion of the population of economically lagging Hindi states grew, while the proportion of many advanced countries – especially in Western and peninsula India – was stable or rejected.
If the current population was to be defined, states with better economic performance could face the slip of their political power to states with lower economic performance. You ripen this discussion as a north-south abyss is inaccurate. This debate concerns regional differences. Their solutions must be a national priority.
Source: Relative income per capita comes from Economic Advisory Council reports after PM. Population data is from the census. Voter data come from the election commission
vignesh.r@thehind.co.in
varghese.g@thehind.co.in
Published – April 4 2025 07:00
