BECOME A

SUBSCRIBE
SUPPORTER

POLITICS ECONOMY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SECURITY LAW SCIENCE SOCIETY CULTURE

OPINION VIDEOS HINDI MARATHI URDU

ANALYSIS GOVERNMENT

Why the Delimitation Exercise

in Jammu and Kashmir Calls for
Caution
From problems with the Census data to changes in the population,
there are various limitations that require broad consultation with the
people of the UT.
 Representative image. Photo: Reuters/Mukesh Gupta

Vikas Kumar
 Subscription One-Time

Support Investigative Journalism

₹ 499.00
Frequency: Monthly

Support In-Depth Reporting

₹ 399.00
Frequency: Monthly

Support Daily Reporting

₹ 199.00
Frequency: Monthly

Support The Wire

Powered by

GOVERNMENT RIGHTS 25/SEP/2020

The dramatic reorganisation of the state of Jammu and

Kashmir into two Union Territories after a change in its
constitutional status has reopened the delimitation question
that otherwise would have remained dormant until 2031. A
fresh delimitation is necessary due to the change in borders,
introduction of reservation for Scheduled Tribes in the
assembly, implicit extension of the right to vote in assembly
elections to West Pakistan refugees and increase in the
number of assembly constituencies. It is not, however,
necessary to conduct delimitation just before the next
census, that too in the middle of a pandemic when public
hearings are difficult to hold.

Even otherwise, the government should not rush, as the

erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir was a complex state.
Consider, for instance, “vacant” constituencies. The last
delimitation was carried out in 1995 ahead of the 1996
assembly elections. It changed the overall strength of the
legislative assembly from 100 to 111 adding five, four and
two seats to Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh regions,
respectively. However, 24 out of the 111 seats were left
vacant “until the area of the State under the occupation of
Pakistan ceases to be so occupied and the people residing in
that area elect their representatives”. The Jammu and
Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 misallocates the vacant
constituencies.

The revised Political Map of India and the map of the Union
Territory of Ladakh issued by the Survey of India assign
Gilgit and Baltistan (GB) to Ladakh. As per the earlier
distribution of constituencies, 24 seats were set aside for all
the territories under the occupation of Pakistan. The Jammu
and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (Sec 14(4)) assigns
all the 24 seats, including those of GB, to the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. So, GB is territorially
included in Ladakh that does not have a legislature, while it
falls in Jammu and Kashmir for legislative and electoral
purposes.
 New map of the UTs of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Source: GOI

Denying seats to GB could have been interpreted as

withdrawal of claim to the disputed territory. This perhaps
explains the awkward solution of mapping GB to two
different administrative units, but it means that the people of
Ladakh are denied a right that has been extended, even if
notionally, to the people of GB. (In passing note, that the
revised map betrays ignorance of the cultural and
administrative history of the erstwhile state.)

There are other difficulties, too, in conducting delimitation.

The 1991 Census could not be conducted in the state and the
2002 delimitation was deferred by the state government. So,
the existing distribution of seats is based on the 1981
Census, when Kashmiri Pundits were present in Kashmir in
large numbers, Scheduled Tribes were not yet recognised in
the state and West Pakistan refugees could vote only in
parliamentary elections but not in assembly elections as
they were not “permanent residents”.

The proposed exercise is, therefore, not a routine

delimitation in which seats are adjusted to account for the
natural growth of population. The next delimitation will
have to deal with entirely new categories of population
because of which the change in seat allocation will not be a
linear extrapolation of past allocations.

Also Read: Election Commission Raps J&K LG For

Remarks to Media Outlets on Timing of Election

What does the government intend to achieve?

Given these complexities, one wonders what the

government and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), intends to
achieve through the delimitation process. Ideally, the
government would, on the one hand, want the exercise to be
seen as fair in the demography-conscious Kashmir. On the
other, it should transparently address longstanding concerns
about underrepresentation in the Jammu region and ensure
adequate representation to Scheduled Castes (including
among the West Pakistan refugees) and Scheduled Tribes
(including the smaller tribes such as Gaddi, Sippi and
Shina). The decision to use the 2011 Census data for
delimitation will, however, compound the difficulty of
addressing the concerns of all sides.

The erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir comprised of three

regions – Kashmir (Muslim majority), Ladakh (Buddhist-
Shia) and Jammu (Hindu majority). Kashmir region (55% of
the population), Kashmiri-speakers (53%) and Muslims
(68%) accounted for the majority of the erstwhile state’s
population as per the 2011 Census. In the erstwhile state
meta-electoral conflict over delimitation was limited to
Jammu and Kashmir regions, which were locked in a zero-
sum competition that affected census operations too because
winning censuses was seen as key to winning the inter-
regional battle for the chief minister’s office. All the chief
ministers of the state were Kashmiri-speaking Muslims of
Kashmir, except for Ghulam Nabi Azad.

Jammu region complains that its seat share has almost

always been less than its share of population and electorate.
And, that the census is not reliable for the post-1991 period
as Jammu region’s reported population share has declined
despite heavy outmigration from Kashmir. There has been a
massive exodus of Hindus and, to a lesser extent, Sikhs out
of Kashmir Valley due to the insurgency. Muslims too have
migrated out of the Valley in large numbers in search of
employment and education. Many Muslims have also settled
in Jammu to escape the disturbed conditions in the Valley.
Moreover, Kashmir has suffered relatively higher conflict-
induced mortality.

Armed forces were relocated from other states to Kashmir

in the 1990s and thereafter only the levels were adjusted.
Moreover, there was a similar deployment in the hill
districts of Jammu too. So, the changes in the deployment of
armed forces cannot explain the unexpected spike in
Kashmir’s population share, particularly, during 2001-11.

An elderly couple show their inked fingers after casting their votes at a
polling station in Kupwara district in North Kashmir on April 11, 2019.
Credit: PTI/S. Irfan

Demographic changes

Jammu argues that all these should have tilted the

demographic balance in their favour, whereas their
population share has declined, which is counterintuitive.
Further, Gujjars and Bakerwals claim that their actual
population share is higher than suggested by the census
because their community was not recorded as belonging to
the Scheduled Tribes in many places where they were a
minority. Likewise, the Scheduled Castes doubt the census
as their population share should have grown owing to their
relatively poorer socioeconomic conditions. However, their
population share has been decreasing in Jammu and
Kashmir since 1981, contrary to the trend observed in the
rest of the country.

Most of these anomalies are explained by abnormal changes

in Kashmir’s population. For instance, during 2001-11
population share of Kashmir increased due to, among other
things, an unexpected increase in the child population
contrary to improvements in socioeconomic indicators such
as literacy that should lead to a fall in fertility.

Also Read: Ladakh LAC on the Boil, India Must Avoid

Stirring Gilgit Baltistan Cauldron With Pakistan

The government is aware that the use of the 2011 Census

will decrease the seat share of Jammu and Scheduled
Castes. The strength of the assembly seems to have been
increased from 107 to 114 to assuage concerns about the
decrease in seat share by increasing the absolute number of
seats. This will, however, not address the concerns of
Jammu that is complaining against the use of flawed census
data and the fact that delimitation based on population
overlooks the fact that constituencies in Jammu are larger in
size than in Kashmir and their terrain is also more difficult.

If Jammu region and Scheduled Castes, in whose name the

state was restructured, are going to lose in relative terms,
why is the government rushing? Is it to assuage Kashmir
and secure a toehold there through the reservation of seats
for Scheduled Tribes as Jammu alone cannot bring the BJP
to power? Or, is the government going ahead as it hopes that
the delimitation commission will relax the population
criterion in Jammu as happened in case of select districts of
Uttarakhand in the 2002 delimitation?

Kotak 811
Complete Your Credit Card Process In 4
Simple Steps. Get Your Kotak 811 Credit
Card Now.

Whatever may be the motives behind delimitation in Jammu

and Kashmir, a rushed exercise could instead of furthering
peace and reconciliation end up as another instance of top-
down imposition that deepens the communal and regional
divides. It is, therefore, advisable to postpone the exercise
and accommodate the views of all stakeholders through
dialogue and public hearings.

Vikas Kumar teaches at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru,

and is co-author of Numbers in India’s Periphery: The
Political Economy of Government Statistics, Cambridge
University Press (2020).

Support The Wire

₹200 ₹1000 ₹2400

T & C Privacy
 ALSO READ

48 MINUTES AGO

Backstory: How Can the Media Untwist These Contorted Narratives?

3 HOURS AGO

How the Story of the Greatest Rivalry of the Supreme Court Unfolded
5 HOURS AGO

Rakul Preet Singh Questioned by NCB in Drugs Case

6 HOURS AGO

Drugs Case: ED Gets 5 Days Custody of Kannada Actor Ragini

 MORE

TERMS & CONDITIONS PRIVACY POLICY REFUND POLICY