Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 12 January 2026
Content Delimitation, Finance Commission & Southern States Quad in 2025: A Year of Interregnum Delimitation, Finance Commission & Southern States Why in News? Renewed debate on post-2026 delimitation of Lok Sabha seats ahead of the 2029 General Elections. Finance Commission allocations to southern States declining as population carries ~50% weight in tax devolution. Concern that States which successfully reduced fertility will face loss of political and fiscal power. Delimitation Commission (DC) likely to be constituted after Census 2026 (expected results by Oct 2028). Relevance GS II – Polity & Governance Delimitation Commission: constitutional mandate, democratic representation. Federalism: Centre–State balance, political equity. Constitutional amendments: 42nd, 84th, 87th CAA. Role of constitutional bodies: Finance Commission vs Delimitation Commission. GS III – Economy Fiscal federalism and horizontal imbalances. Demographic transition and economic performance. Incentive structures in public policy. Practice Question “Post-2026 delimitation risks undermining the principle of cooperative federalism.” Examine in the context of demographic transition across Indian States.(250 Words) Core Issue Policy paradox: States investing in health, education, and family planning face: Reduced Union tax share. Potential relative loss of Lok Sabha seats. Population growth since 1991 concentrated in: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh. Southern States (TN, Kerala, Karnataka, AP, Telangana): Near-replacement or below-replacement TFR. Slower population growth → representation penalty. Constitutional & Legal Background 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001: Froze Lok Sabha seat allocation till Census after 2026. Explicit intent: incentivise population stabilisation. Census delay: 2021 Census postponed. Results now expected 2028, enabling DC before 2029. Implication: Seat proportions may change, widening absolute seat gap between North & South. Fiscal Federalism Link Finance Commission criteria (15th FC indicative): Income distance: ~50%. Population (2011): significant weight. Demographic performance. Tax effort. Southern States’ grievance: High contribution to GDP & taxes, declining relative transfers. Key contradiction: FC rewards population control. DC likely to penalise population control. Political Impact of Delimitation Even if seat proportion freezes, absolute numbers matter: Northern States gain more MPs. Southern States’ agenda-setting power weakens. Risk of permanent political dominance by high-population States. Proposed Solutions Increase Lok Sabha Seats (Status Quo Ratios) Basis: 2011 Census. Lok Sabha size: ~866 seats. Pros: No State loses seats. Least disruptive. Cons: Still rewards high population growth. Equal Representation in Rajya Sabha Fixed seats per State (e.g., 10 each). RS strength: ~290. Federal logic (US Senate model). Politically unlikely due to Lok Sabha dominance focus. Expand Vidhan Sabhas Equalise MLAs per 1,000 population. Improves State-level representation. Does not address Lok Sabha power imbalance. Digressive Proportionality (Most Viable) Lok Sabha seats: 60% population-based 40% demographic performance-based Rewards States with: Lower fertility. Better human development. Mirrors: EU Parliament’s digressive proportionality. Aligns with Finance Commission logic. Comparative & Conceptual Anchor Digressive Proportionality: Larger States: more seats, fewer per capita. Smaller States: fewer seats, higher vote weight. Balances: One person, one vote vs federal equality. Strategic Imperative for Southern States Build early political consensus before DC constitution. Demand: Explicit inclusion of demographic performance in delimitation. Frame issue as: Rewarding responsible governance, not regional favouritism. Takeaway Post-2026 delimitation risks penalising States that achieved demographic transition; adopting digressive proportionality offers a constitutionally consistent and federal solution to balance representation with responsibility. Delimitation – Static Notes What is Delimitation? Delimitation: Redrawing boundaries of Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly constituencies to reflect population changes. Objective: Equal representation → “one person, one vote, one value”. Constitutional Provisions Article 82: Parliament enacts a Delimitation Act after every Census. Article 170: Delimitation of State Legislative Assembly constituencies. Article 327: Parliament’s power over elections. Article 329: Bars judicial interference in delimitation orders. Delimitation Commission (DC) Nature: Independent, high-powered statutory body. Constitution: Chairperson: Retired Supreme Court judge. Members: Chief Election Commissioner / Election Commissioner. State Election Commissioners. Key Feature: DC orders have the force of law. Not challengeable in court. Historical Timeline Delimitation Commissions constituted in: 1952 1963 1973 2002 Last major delimitation: Based on 2001 Census (implemented in 2008). Freezing of Seats 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 Froze Lok Sabha and Assembly seats based on 1971 Census. Period: 1976–2000. Rationale: Encourage population control. 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001 Extended freeze till Census after 2026. Allowed: Readjustment of constituency boundaries, not seat numbers. Explicit intent: Reward States with successful family planning. 87th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 Permitted delimitation using 2001 Census data. Did not alter total number of seats. Quad in 2025: A Year of Interregnum Why in News? 2025 marked the first year since 2021 without a Quad leader-level summit, despite escalating Indo-Pacific tensions. Return of Donald Trump as U.S. President triggered uncertainty over U.S. multilateral commitments. India was scheduled to host the 2025 summit, but it did not materialise, raising questions about the Quad’s momentum. Despite this, Quad initiatives continued, signalling resilience rather than decline. Relevance GS II – International Relations Indo-Pacific strategy. Minilateralism vs multilateralism. India–US–Japan–Australia strategic convergence. Rules-based international order. GS III – Security Maritime security. Naval interoperability. Maritime domain awareness. Practice Question The absence of a Quad leaders’ summit in 2025 does not imply strategic irrelevance. Critically analyse. (15 marks) Strategic Context Indo-Pacific remains the most contested geopolitical theatre. Intensifying U.S.–China strategic competition. Quad positioned as a key instrument to: Uphold a rules-based order. Promote a Free, Open, and Inclusive Indo-Pacific (FOIP). Core members: India, U.S., Japan, Australia — all maritime democracies. Quad’s Evolution Formed: 2004 (Indian Ocean tsunami coordination). Dormancy: Post-2008 due to strategic hesitations. Revived: 2017, amid China’s growing regional assertiveness. Leader-level summits: 6 summits held (2021–2024). Latest: 2024, Wilmington (U.S.) — President Biden’s farewell summit. Trump Factor in 2025 Trump was a key architect of the 2017 revival of the Quad. Initial concerns: “America First” doctrine. Skepticism toward multilateral groupings. Reassurance signals: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted Quad Foreign Ministers: January 2025 July 2025 Quad featured as first major diplomatic engagement of Rubio. Why 2025 Is Called an “Interregnum” ? No leader-level summit for over a year. Political transitions: U.S.: Biden → Trump. Japan: New PM Sanae Takaichi (Oct 2025), yet to attend Quad summit. Quad lacks: Treaty status. Secretariat. Hence, leader-level summits are critical for strategic coherence. Continuity Through Operational Initiatives Quad-at-Sea: Ship Observer Mission Operationalised: June 2025 Enhances: Coast Guard cooperation. Maritime domain awareness. Ports of the Future Partnership First meet: October 2025, Mumbai Focus: Sustainable and resilient port infrastructure. Indo-Pacific connectivity. Malabar Naval Exercise Held in Guam (2025). Though not formally a Quad initiative: Involves all four Quad navies. Enhances interoperability and maritime signalling. Assessment of Quad’s Resilience No summit ≠ strategic drift. Continued programme delivery shows: Institutional learning. Operational depth beyond symbolism. Quad functioned as a “minilateral without paralysis”. Why Leader-Level Summit Matters ? Historically, major initiatives announced at: Vaccine partnership. Critical technologies. Maritime security. Diplomatic push underway: U.S. Ambassador to India Sergio Gor (Oct 2025): Confirmed efforts for early 2026 summit. Strategic Implications Quad remains: Central to U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy. Crucial balancing mechanism against unilateralism. 2025 tested Quad’s institutional elasticity. Outcome: Pause, not decay. Takeaway Despite leadership transitions and the absence of a summit, 2025 demonstrated the Quad’s operational resilience, underscoring its enduring relevance in sustaining a rules-based Indo-Pacific order. Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) – Notes What is QUAD? Informal strategic forum of four democracies: India, United States, Japan, Australia Objective: Promote a Free, Open, Inclusive, and Rules-Based Indo-Pacific. Nature: Minilateral, non-treaty, non-institutional grouping. No secretariat, charter, or mutual defence obligation. Origin & Evolution 2004: Emerged from coordination during the Indian Ocean Tsunami relief. 2007: First Quad meeting (Abe Shinzo’s “Confluence of the Two Seas” vision). 2008–2016: Dormancy due to strategic hesitations (esp. Australia). 2017 Revival: Restarted amid China’s assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. Core Strategic Objectives Uphold international law, especially UNCLOS. Counter: Coercive actions. Unilateral status-quo changes. Ensure: Maritime security. Freedom of navigation. Provide public goods in the Indo-Pacific.