Content

1. A flame the state cannot guarantee
2. Ensuring federalism within delimitation

A flame the state cannot guarantee

 Why in News ?

• LPG supply disruption triggered by West Asia conflict affecting Strait of Hormuz, exposing fragility of India’s clean cooking ecosystem.
• Revealed structural gaps in Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana despite high coverage.

Relevance

GS II (Governance / Welfare)

• PMUY: flagship DBT-based welfare scheme.
• Gap between access provisioning and service delivery continuity.
• Crisis preparedness in welfare design.

GS III (Economy)

• Import dependence (~60% LPG) → external vulnerability.
• Inflationary impact of fuel price shocks.
• Energy–household expenditure link.

GS III (Environment)

• Clean cooking transition vs biomass reversion.
• Indoor air pollution (major public health issue).

Practice Question  

Q. “Access without assurance undermines welfare.” Critically examine this statement in the context of India’s clean cooking transition under PMUY, highlighting structural gaps exposed by recent LPG supply disruptions. Suggest reforms. (250 words)

Background

• PMUY (2016):
  • Provided 10.5 crore LPG connections to poor households.
  • Expanded LPG coverage to ~32.83 crore households.
• Objective:
  • Replace biomass cooking → improve health, gender equity, environment.
• Transition:
  • Shift from PDS kerosene (state-controlled) → market-based LPG system.

Nature of the Crisis

• India imports:
  • ~60% LPG, with ~90% via Strait of Hormuz
• Strategic reserves:
  • Crude reserves: ~9.5 days (64% filled)
  • No dedicated LPG buffer
• Result:
  • External disruption → domestic welfare failure

Key Structural Issues

1. Supply vs Welfare Disconnect

• Welfare scheme ensured access (connections) but not continuity (supply security).
• State withdrew from direct provisioning role after kerosene phase-out.

2. Import Dependence & Chokepoints

• Heavy reliance on Hormuz → single-point vulnerability.
• Lack of diversified import routes or domestic buffers.

3. Absence of Strategic LPG Storage

• No equivalent of petroleum reserves for LPG.
• Welfare system dependent on real-time global supply chains.

4. Affordability Constraints

• One-fourth PMUY households:
  • One or zero refill annually
• Price rise (₹60/cylinder) → immediate reversion to biomass.

5. Social Inequities

• SC/ST households:
  • 10–30% lower LPG access
• Distributor networks replicate:
  • Caste and spatial hierarchies in supply allocation

6. Gendered Burden

• Women are nominal beneficiaries but lack control over:
  • Pricing
  • Supply availability
• Crisis → reversal to biomass → increased drudgery

7. Administrative Design Gap

• Mandatory refill gaps:
  • 45 days (rural), 25 days (urban)
• No crisis protocols:
  • No prioritisation or emergency allocation mechanisms

Overview

• Access ≠ Energy Security:
  • Connection-based welfare ignores supply resilience.
• Marketisation without safeguards:
  • Transition replaced state-backed system with volatile global market dependence.
• Sovereign signalling vs capacity gap:
  • Branding and DBT imply state guarantee, but no physical backup exists.
• Equity distortion under stress:
  • Crisis amplifies existing caste, gender and income inequalities.

Implications

Economic

• Increased import bill volatility
• Inflationary pressure on household energy consumption

Social

• Reversion to biomass:
  • Health risks (indoor air pollution)
  • Loss of time savings (IISD: ~1 hour/day earlier saved)

Governance

• Weak crisis preparedness in welfare design
• Over-reliance on DBT without supply-side assurance

Energy Security

• Highlights gap between:
  • Energy transition goals vs infrastructure readiness

Way Forward

Supply Security

• Create strategic LPG reserves (minimum 2 months buffer)
• Diversify import routes beyond Strait of Hormuz

Welfare Redesign

• Shift from:
  • Connection-based metrics → continuity-based metrics
• Introduce:
  • Crisis allocation protocols
  • Priority supply for vulnerable households

Affordability Measures

• Targeted subsidy redesign for poorest quintiles
• Dynamic pricing buffer during global shocks

Decentralised Alternatives

• Scale up:
  • GOBARdhan Scheme (community biogas)
  • Piped Natural Gas in urban areas

Institutional Strengthening

• Integrate energy welfare with:
  • National energy security planning
• Real-time monitoring of:
  • Consumption, refill gaps, supply disruptions

Prelims Pointers

• PMUY launched in 2016
• LPG import dependence ~60%
• Hormuz route accounts for ~90% imports
• No strategic LPG reserve exists in India
• GOBARdhan promotes biogas-based rural energy

Ensuring federalism within delimitation

Why in News ?

• Impending delimitation exercise post-Census 2026 raises concerns over population-based seat redistribution vs federal fairness.
• Debate intensified due to divergent fertility trends across States.

Relevance

GS II (Polity / Constitution)

• Article 81: proportional representation.
• 84th Constitutional Amendment (freeze till post-2026).
• Role of Delimitation Commission.

GS II (Governance)

• Federal balance vs majoritarian representation.
• Incentive structures in public policy (population control).

Practice Questions

Q. Delimitation based solely on population may undermine cooperative federalism in India. Examine this statement and evaluate the feasibility of incorporating demographic performance as a criterion. (250 words)

Constitutional & Legal Basis

• Article 81 mandates Lok Sabha seat allocation proportional to population, ensuring uniform representation ratios across States as far as practicable.
• 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002:
  • Froze seat allocation till post-2026 Census.
  • Objective: Incentivise population stabilisation efforts by States.
• Delimitation conducted by Delimitation Commission:
  • Independent body; decisions have force of law and are non-justiciable.

Background: Demographic Divergence

• In 1951–1971:
  • Population growth relatively uniform → minimal inter-State imbalance.
• Current scenario:
  • Significant divergence in Total Fertility Rate (TFR).
• NFHS Trends:
  • 2005–06: Only 9 States achieved replacement TFR (≤2.1).
  • 2019–21: Most States achieved except:
    • Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Manipur.
• Gap persists:
  • Low-TFR States: ~1.64
  • High-TFR States: ~2.38 (~45% higher)

Core Issue

• Pure population-based delimitation:
  • Benefits high population growth States (mainly northern belt).
  • Penalises States with successful population control.
• Raises concern:
  • Violation of cooperative federalism and equity principles.

Proposed Solution: Demographic Performance (DemPer)

• Inspired by Finance Commission formula balancing equity and efficiency.
• Key Features:
  • Existing 543 seats remain unchanged.
  • DemPer applied only to additional seats after expansion.
• Weightage:
  • 10% → Early achievement of replacement TFR (before 2005).
  • 90% → Rate of decline in TFR (2005–2021).
• Outcome:
  • All States gain seats.
  • High population States gain more in absolute terms.
  • Better-performing States retain relative share stability.

Overview

Democratic Representation

• Population principle ensures “one person, one vote, one value”.
• However, strict adherence ignores policy effort and governance outcomes.

Federal Balance

• States are political units, not just demographic aggregates.
• Disproportionate seat shift risks:
  • Regional alienation
  • North-South political tensions

Incentive Structure

• Without DemPer:
  • States may be disincentivised from population control.
• With DemPer:
  • Rewards governance and long-term policy success.

Governance Quality

• Balanced representation improves:
  • Policy deliberation
  • Inclusive decision-making

Concerns & Challenges

• Constitutional validity of introducing non-population criteria in delimitation.
• Political resistance from high-population States.
• Complexity in designing objective DemPer indicators.
• Risk of:
  • Over-politicisation of delimitation process
  • Perception of bias or manipulation

Way Forward

• Maintain population as primary criterion, with calibrated DemPer adjustment for additional seats.
• Expand Lok Sabha size moderately:
  • Cap at ~700 seats to maintain deliberative efficiency.
• Institutionalise:
  • Transparent formula (like Finance Commission)
  • Data-based, non-political criteria
• Strengthen federal dialogue:
  • Inter-State Council consultations before delimitation
• Ensure:
  • Balanced representation without undermining democratic equality

Prelims Pointers

• Article 81→ Seat allocation based on population
• 84th Amendment (2002) → Freeze till post-2026 Census
• Delimitation Commission → Independent, decisions final
• Replacement TFR = 2.1