In the first three parts of this series, it was observed that there is no anomaly in the allocation of assembly seats in J&K. More specifically, contrary to the perception, Jammu has not been discriminated against. Even on the “one person one vote” principle, it is as good as it can get with 1,49,749 voters per constituency in Kashmir and 1,45,366 people per constituency in Jammu. In fact, distribution across the two divisions, no matter how hard one looks at the data, is surprisingly fair and egalitarian.
In the last legislative assembly, Kashmir Valley which had 55 per cent of the population, had 53 per cent of the seats. Jammu with a share of 43 per cent in the population, got 42.5 per cent of the seats in the legislative assembly.
Post the downgrade and dismemberment of August 5th, the new factual position is that Kashmir division has a 56 per cent share in population, while Jammu has a 44 per cent share. The area of Jammu division is now 62 per cent, while that of Kashmir is 38 per cent. Hence the clamour from Jammu-centric political parties and civil society for using area as a criterion for delimitation.
However, the universally accepted and nationally followed rule for delimitation for constituencies is size of the population. Approximately half of the countries use the population for delimiting, while another one third use registered voters, a subset of population. The remaining countries use citizen population, again a variant of population. Nowhere is it based on area.
Indeed, the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 stipulates that delimitation be done on the population census of 2011. It also specifies in Section 60 (2) (b) that “all constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them, regard shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units.” The operative part is “physical features” which include natural boundaries created by dominant topographical features such as mountain ranges, or rivers.
It is this guidance provided by the Act that forms the basis of our suggested approach to delimitation. In laying out “compact, contiguous” constituencies, the common physical features of the regions along with their common ethnicity, religion, and language, i.e., “communities of interest”, have to be the cardinal principles of demarcation. It has been well established all over the world that if constituencies are not composed of “communities of interest”, however defined, it is difficult for representatives to serve the constituency well.
Typically, there are three steps in the delimitation exercise; first is deciding on the total number of seats in the legislative assembly of J&K. This has already been done based on an executive fiat in Section 60 (1) of the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019. Second, the apportionment of these constituencies within the state based on population. Third, the cartography job to demarcate or redraw constituency boundaries to accommodate the increased number of seven constituencies.
Given this understanding, how should the delimitation commission approach the redrawing of constituencies? The starting point for the delimitation commission should not, indeed cannot, be the seat distribution between the Jammu division and Kashmir division. That has to be the end result of the exercise. The two are neither the reason nor the rationale for the delimitation of the assembly constituencies. Both, Jammu Province and Kashmir Division, are administrative divisions, not electoral constituencies. This binary, which has now become a bipolarity, may be relevant for administrative decisions, policy making, but not for representational purposes.
Following a grounds-up approach, the delimitation commission will do well to recognise that J&K is diverse in every possible way: geographically, topographically, climatically, culturally, ethnically, religion-wise and linguistically. In line with this, following the universal “communities of interest” principle, the J&K of today, comprises four distinct regions: Jehlum Valley (South Kashmir, Central Kashmir and North Kashmir), Chenab Valley (Kisthwar, Doda, Ramban and Reasi), Pir Panchal (Rajouri and Poonch), and the Tawi basin or the plains (Jammu, Kathua and Udhampur).
To distribute seats across these four regions, two criteria have been used here. First, the basic one, is the share of population of each region. Second is a composite criteria which combines population and area in a meaningful and practical manner. Giving population a 67 percent weightage, we have combined it with population density which has been assigned a weight of 33 per cent. Using population density ensures that people in spatially dispersed areas are better represented. The accompanying Table shows how the chips fall.
Table: Constituency Distribution across Regions
Note: In Model I, constituencies have been apportioned on the basis of population shares and in Model II, on a weighted index of population and density of population.
In Model 1, compared to the previous distribution of seats, Central and North Kashmir gains 2 seats, South Kashmir, Jammu Plains, and Pir Panchal get one more seat each. In Model II, the Chenab Valley which accounts for one-third of the Union Territory density benefits as it gets two additional seats. So does North Kashmir and Pir Panchal. Consequently, the low area and high population regions, Central Kashmir and Jammu Plains don’t gain. Nor do they lose.
The key difference between the two models proposed here is that Model II, uses inverse of population density to address the uneven spatial distribution across regions. The density factor works as a relevant surrogate for area as low density gets a higher weightage.
With Kashmir valley, Pir Panchal region, and the Jammu plains having one overwhelming majority, the core contentious area will be the Chenab Valley. The dangers of partisan redrawing in this region are high with its three districts – Reasi, Doda and Kishtwar — having a mixed population in the ratio of 50:50, 54:46 and 58:42 respectively. This makes it amenable to political adventurism through gerrymandering. Delimiting this region will require the intellectual integrity of an academic and the professional skills of a surgeon!
In these three districts it is possible to drawn boundaries in such a way that the minorities are concentrated in relatively few constituencies, and spreading majorities over constituencies so as to reduce their electoral dominance.
There are three other key issues that this delimitation commission should look at. First, is to restore the integrity of the electoral rolls data base; be it total population, electors, or voters. The delimitation commission should have a firm intensive electoral roll for it to map out the electoral demography. In J&K the electoral rolls data has always thrown up lots of inconsistencies. The percentage share of the electorate at the regional level keeps on changing during each election. Sometimes Jammu region registers more electorate than Kashmir region and at others Kashmir region outnumbers Jammu region and so keeps fluctuating the population size.
As per the 2002 electoral statistics of the state, Jammu region had two lakh registered electors more than the Kashmir region. But as per the election commission of India data, the Kashmir region had nearly 2.50 lakh more electors than the Jammu region in 2014 assembly elections.
Second, aligning all assembly constituencies whose land area falls under two or more districts. This has happened because after the creation of eight new districts in the state in 2006 there has been no delimitation.
And, the third important issue that should engage the delimitation commission is the reservation of seats (and its rotation) for the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) population. It is mandated by the Article 334 of the Constitution of India.
While seven assembly seats are reserved for the SC population of the state, though not rotated since 1996, there is no seat reserved for the 12 per cent ST population in the state. The majority of the ST population is concentrated in the Pir Panchal region. Hence there is a strong likelihood of an ST reserved seat in Rajouri or Pooch. More likely the former.
In this context, it is quite possible that the delimitation commission might revive the old project of delimiting a reserved constituency in the Kashmir division. In UP, Bihar and West Bengal, there is a history of delimitation commissions, as pointed out by Sachar Committee, of using constituency reservation in Muslim concentration assembly constituencies to reduce their representation. In the case of Kashmir, the consideration could be more ethnic and cultural, rather than religious. Of late, efforts have been made to establish that Kashmiris are not one homogenous entity; they are fragmented with different, if not conflicting interests and affiliations. This could now come into play in the politics of representation.
(This is the fourth and concluding part of the series on Delimitation in J&K. The first three parts were published earlier.
Part I: Delimitation: The Context, July 2, 2020
Part 2: Of Hindus and Muslims, July 6, 2020,
Part 3: The Area Angle, July 9, 2020