What to Read in The Hindu Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: The issue with delimitation’s population-based process

Context

The emphasis should move towards understanding the true meaning of 'representation' in a constituency and implementing measures like empowering the third tier of elected governance.

Introduction

Delimitation, as mentioned in Articles 82 and 170 of the Indian Constitution, has sparked strong reactions—some thoughtful, others quite absurd. The serious concerns arise from what the Constitution says and what might happen if it's followed exactly as written. On the other hand, some absurd reactions include people urging others to have more children quickly out of fear of being outnumbered.

 

Delimitation Debate: Balancing Constitutional Mandates and Federal Concerns

• The delimitation issue needs a calm, objective view despite rising emotions.
• Some who once accused the government of ignoring the Constitution now want it to delay following it—an ironic reversal.
• The Constitution mandates seat and constituency readjustment after each census, for both Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
• This was postponed until 2026 through the 42nd Amendment and later changes; the next census will guide future delimitation.
• Southern States fear losing representation, though evidence is limited—their concerns still merit attention.
• A key debate centers on whether population-based seat allocation undermines federalism.
• A purely population-driven approach could favor States with faster growth.

 

Lok Sabha Seat Changes Over the Years

Election Year	Total Seats	Changes from Previous	States That Lost Seats	States/UTs That Gained Seats	Remarks
1951–52	489	—	—	—	First General Election
1957	494	+5	—	—	Based on delimitation
1967(based on 1961 Census)	520	+31, -5	Andhra Pradesh (43 → 41), Madras (41 → 39), Uttar Pradesh (86 → 85)	Assam, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, Mysore, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh	Included new States/UTs like Haryana, J&K, Nagaland, Pondicherry, etc.
1971	518	-2	Himachal Pradesh	—	Minor adjustment
1977	542	+24	—	Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, MP, Karnataka, Orissa, Rajasthan, WB, Haryana; Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram	Major expansion
2004	543	+1	—	Daman and Diu	Latest change; current strength

 

What needs to be considered

• Any meaningful debate on delimitation must address:
  1. Use of population as the basis for seat allocation
  2. Effect of public policy on population-based criteria
  3. The representative quality of elected officials

 

Trends in Representation (1951–2024)

Year	Lok Sabha Seats	Avg. Population per MP	Vidhan Sabha Seats	Avg. Population per MLA
1951	489	~7.32 lakh	3,283	—
1967	520	~8.70 lakh	—	—
1977	542	~10.10 lakh	—	—
2024	543	~27 lakh	4,123	~Tripled since 1951

• In 2024, with ~98 crore electors:
  1. Each MP represents ~18 lakh electors
  2. Range: Lakshadweep (~57,760 electors) vs Malkajgiri (~29.5 lakh electors)

 

Issues with Purely Population-Based Representation

• While population is the primary basis for delimitation, it’s not applied rigidly:
  1. Other factors like geography and political boundaries are also considered.
• Unlike earlier voting rights based on religion or education, population offers a neutral, inclusive basis.
• But is this principle so sacred that it can’t be adjusted to avoid:
  1. Regional discontent
  2. Imbalance in federal representation
  3. Distortion in parliamentary structure?
• The Finance Commission, unlike delimitation, updates its criteria regularly to:
  1. Reflect regional aspirations
  2. Address national priorities
  3. Adapt to changing realities

 

What Does It Mean to ‘Represent’ a Constituency?

• Representation is not solely defined by population size.
• Elected MPs/MLAs have the same powers, regardless of how many people they represent.
• Functions like law-making, asking questions, and committee participation are uniform.
• No evidence suggests smaller constituencies are better served than larger ones.
  1. Example: No proof that voters in Narnaul (1.6 lakh) are better served than those in Badshahpur (5.2 lakh).
• Instead of demanding more MPs based on population, focus should be on:
  1. Empowering local bodies (Panchayats, Municipalities)
  2. Devolving authority for better governance
• Third-tier representation may be more effective than inflating the size of national/state legislatures based on a population fetish.

 

A primary criterion that needs moderation

• Issue: Using population as the sole criterion needs moderation due to centrally driven population control policies.
• Fairness Concern: States successful in population control should not be penalized.
• Need: A deflator is required to offset population-based advantages.
• Analogy: Like real GDP is adjusted for inflation, a divisor should adjust for population growth.
• Illustration: Based on 1977 average (10.10 lakh/seat), the 2024 population implies ~1,440 Lok Sabha seats.
• Adjustment: Dividing by national Total Fertility Rate (TFR) reduces this to ~680 seats.
• Application: Use State-level TFR data to adjust each state's population impact.
• Recommendation: Experts can propose a more refined formula for equitable representation.

 

Conclusion

If Parliament can debate constitutional amendments solely intended to achieve managerial efficiency in conducting elections, it can certainly deliberate on addressing the structural political imbalance resulting from population-based delimitation of constituencies.

 

 

Editorial 2: Drop the piecemeal ways to social security for workers

Context

As India works to prepare its workforce for the future, it must build strong social protection systems that can handle changes in jobs and industries.

 

Introduction

India is moving ahead to bring online/app-based gig workers under the social security net. A central scheme is in progress and is currently awaiting Cabinet approval. This marks a significant shift toward recognizing and supporting the informal workforce.

 

Main Benefits Proposed Under the Scheme

Benefit	Description
Health Insurance	Coverage under Ayushman Bharat for gig workers
eShram Registration	Registration on eShram portal gives access to multiple welfare schemes
Pension Scheme	Transaction-based pension with platform-wise deductions and contributions
Universal Account Number	Each worker gets a UAN to track income across platforms for pension purposes

 

Why the Pension Plan Is Unique

• Recognizes that gig workers may work for multiple platforms at the same time
• Allows each platform to contribute proportionally to the worker’s welfare
• Moves beyond the traditional job structure of one employer–one employee
• Aims to include informal sector workers often left out of formal schemes

 

Challenges & Broader Insights

• Current systems are often reactive—responding only when new types of workers appear
• This model reveals gaps in India's existing social security structure
• There's an urgent need for a forward-looking, flexible, and inclusive framework
• Social protection must evolve proactively to match the changing nature of work

 

India and the ILO Social Security Convention

• India is a founding member of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
• However, India has not ratified the ILO Convention No. 102 (Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952).
• This Convention sets minimum standards for social security across nations.

 

India’s Domestic Framework: The Code on Social Security

Aspect	Details
Enacted	As part of India’s new labour law reforms (one of four new Labour Codes)
Goal	To offer a comprehensive legal framework for social protection
Criticism	– Vague definitions    – Reduced protection levels    – Poor implementation

 

 

Key Concern: Overreliance on Welfare Boards

• The Code depends heavily on Welfare Boards for delivering benefits.
• Welfare Boards have historically shown inefficiencies and underperformance.

 

Examples of Welfare Board Mismanagement

Issue	Details
Unutilised Funds	₹70,744.16 crore of collected cess (from employers) unused by State boards
Delayed Payments (Tamil Nadu)	₹221.8 crore not remitted by 99 local bodies to the TNCWWB
Kerala Case	Only 5 out of 16 boards functioned effectively (as per 2016–17 data)
Zero Beneficiaries	Some boards reported no beneficiaries at all

Call for Reform

• Activists and civil society groups are demanding:
  1. Stronger governance of welfare boards
  2. Better transparency
  3. Effective fund utilisation
  4. Real-time monitoring and accountability mechanisms

 

The problem with incremental approaches

• A key argument for India’s welfare board-driven system is its ability to deliver targeted relief to specific worker groups.
  1. For instance, beedi and cigarette workers in Karnataka have called for the revival of their discontinued welfare fund.
  2. Gig workers are the current focus, but with technology and market disruptions, new informal worker groups will continue to emerge.
• However, this piecemeal approach has significant downsides:
  1. It often fails to address the overall insecurity of informal work.
  2. It can create arbitrary distinctions between sectors like gig work and domestic work.
  3. These distinctions may lead to unfair eligibility thresholds, excluding many who also need protection.
• Moreover, the assumption that focusing on one worker segment, such as gig workers, will lead to the formalisation of the informal sector is unrealistic.
  1. Gig work may expand in the future, but relying on it alone to solve deeper labour issues is overly optimistic.
• Therefore, India needs to move beyond fragmented schemes and adopt a holistic strategy:
  1. Combine universal social protection with customised support for vulnerable groups.
  2. Ensure all types of informal work are included, avoiding narrow or exclusive policies.

 

Conclusion: Towards universal social protection systems

As India aims to build a future-ready workforce, it's crucial to create resilient social protection systems that can adapt to workforce and sectoral shifts. This raises a key question: what is the most practical way forward. Though the Social Security Code faces implementation challenges, it seems here to stay. It places central oversight while giving States some flexibility within its framework. A realistic approach would be to treat the Code as a baseline, and build a stronger, inclusive, and universal system that ensures no worker is left behind.