#Cockroaches Vs bandicoots

 

Can #Cockroaches beat bandicoots

 The present movement in the name of #Cockroaches was triggered by an observation of the Hon’ble CJI of India.

The movement has presently occupied the space pertaining to large scale irregularity seen and perceived in the field of education in India, particularly school education and the NEET examination.

 It is heartening to see various interviews of Master #SarthakSidhant the 17-year-old student who investigated CBSE's public procurement records and even deposed before a Parliamentary Committee.

While youngsters, educationists and parents alike are appalled about the exposures, there remains a fundamental issue which has not got public attention.

Article 21A was added to the Indian Constitution by the Eighty-Sixth Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002.

It reads as below:

“21A. Right to education :

The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.”

It officially came into force on December 12, 2002, establishing the Right to Education as a Fundamental Right for all children between the ages of 6 and 14. This provision was later operationalized with the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009

When parents of a particular private school in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, falling under the Matriculation Board, protested against steep hike in school fees in the year 2009-10 and escalated the matter by way of a Writ Petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on the grounds of the above Article 21 A, the State Government of Tamil Nadu gave an undertaking before the Hon’ble Court to regulate the fees in the private schools under an Act of the Legislature.

Accordingly the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 was enacted.  It laid down the method of determining the fees in Private Schools in the state, which had been considered out of bounds for the Legislature in view of a Supreme Court Judgement in the TMA Pai case where it had been held that due to the difference in infrastructure and salary structure differing between schools, it will not be proper for a uniform fee structure to be prescribed for private schools.

The Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 overcame the above issue by prescribing that fees for each school will be determined by the Fee Determination Committee based on the data pertaining to each school submitted by the schools and therefore will not be uniform but will be commensurate to the expenditure of each school.

This was a mile stone legislation in the entire country. 

Accordingly when the Committee was constituted under the Act and Schools were required to submit their expenditure data, the school management committee Association challenged the legislation in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and upon losing it there went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  By the time there also they lost, the last date for submission of their records before the Committee (then Justice Govindarajan Committee) was over and the Committee determined the fees based on the records produced before them.

The schools which had refused to produce their records found that the fees determined for them was far lesser than what they were already collecting and again went to the Hon’ble High Court where a stay was granted by a Single Judge to the fee determination by the Justice Govindarajan Committee.

When it was not found that the State Government was not immediately coming to the defence of the Committee, Justice Govindarajan resigned and there was a situation where there was no ‘determined fees’ and the Single Judge had left it to the ‘Conscience of the Schools’.

When the Parents representatives who had wanted to intervene in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Single Judge had not been allowed to do so approached the Division Bench and got an order in their favour, the State Government also filed an appeal against the Single Judge Order.

The Committee was reconstituted under Justice Singaravelan and schools which had not submitted their records were allowed to submit them within another fixed date and accordingly the determination was concluded.

But after these, most of the schools started going out of the Matriculation Board and getting enrolled under the CBSE, to avoid the fee determination by the above Committee under the Tamil Nadu Government.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also through their interim order in 2016 upheld that the fee determination by the Committee appointed under the Tamil Nadu Act will not be applicable to CBSE schools. Paper report

In this regard, the specific provisions of the Act of the Tamil Nadu Government are as below:

1. (1) This Act may be called the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009. (2) It extends to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu.

2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(j) “private school” means any pre-primary school, primary school, middle school, high school or higher secondary school, established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons and recognized or approved by the competent authority under any law or code of regulation for the time being in force, but does not include,—

(i) an aided school;

(ii) a school established and administered or maintained by the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority;

(iii) a school giving, providing or imparting religious instruction alone but not any other instructions;

 

7. (1) The powers and functions of the committee shall be,—

(a) to determine the fee to be collected by private schools;

(b) to hear complaints with regard to collection of fee in excess of the fee determined by it or fixed by the Government, as the case may be. If the committee, after obtaining the evidence and explanation from the management of the private school or aided school concerned or from the Government school, comes to the conclusion that the private school or the Government school or aided school has collected fee in excess of the fee determined by the committee or fixed by the Government, as the case may be, it shall recommend to the appropriate competent authority for the cancellation of the recognition or approval, as the case may be, of the private school or aided school or for any other course of action as it deems fit in respect of the private school or Government school or aided school.

(2) The committee shall have power to,—

(i) require each private school to place before the committee the proposed fee structure of such school with all relevant documents and books of accounts for scrutiny within such date as may be specified by the committee;

(ii) verify whether the fee proposed by the private school is justified and it does not amount to profiteering or charging of exorbitant fee;

(iii) approve the fee structure or determine some other fee which can be charged by the private school.

(3) The Committee shall have power to,—

(i) verify whether the fee collected by the School affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education commensurate with the facilities provided by the school;

(ii) to hear complaints with regard to collection of excess fee by a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education; and

(iii) to recommend to the Central Board of Secondary Education for disaffiliation of the school, if it comes to a conclusion that the school has collected excess fee.

 

It is also pertinent to see what the Rules pertaining to CBSE school fees says.

Specific provisions are as below:

7.3 Fees shall be charged under the heads prescribed by the Department of Education of the State/UTs.

7.6 The acts and regulations of the Central and State/UT Governments enacted/framed in connection with regulation of fee in respected of the various categories of the schools situated in the state will be applicable to the school affiliated with CBSE also.

However, till date the State Government has not been determining the fees for CBSE and other Boards other than Matriculation board and hence, by the schools succeeding in coming out of the Matriculation Board have succeeded in having their own fees.

When parents of these CBSE schools tried to take up the matter with the State Government, the State Government directed all schools including CBSE and other boards to display fees on the notice Board. Paper report.  

The above is only for display of the fees.  However, even that was objected to by the managements of the Private Schools and taken to the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.  The Hon’ble High Court however refused to stay the directions of the State Government in this regard. Paper report.

Yet, the question of fixing the fees in CBSE Schools in Tamil Nadu by the Government has not been achieved. 

This being the case in a state where there is a legislation for this purpose, in respect of other States and Union Territories, it is still a far cry.

In the absence of this fundamental legislation, the very purpose of Article 21 A of the Constitution continues to be a Mirage.

At the time of filing the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court by the Parents Association, I had asked the Sr. Advocate Shri. K.M. Vijayan as to whether the Constitutional provision will not apply only the Government run schools.

He said ‘the Constitution does not discriminate between Private and Public Schools’.

His vision had subsequently been proved to be right by the commitment of the Government to bring in a legislation.

But it has fallen short by not taking care of another segment of the Private Schools.

Thereafter, if the real spirit of the Article 21 A of free education is to be achieved, the State (whether Union or State of UT) should either take over all Schools for imparting education of children from the age of 6 to 14 OR reimburse to their parents, whatever fees is being paid for such students.

Only then the Right to Education as per the Constitution brought in by the amendment in 2002 will be fulfilled.

It is a moot question whether #Cockroaches can win a battle against bandicoots.

They require divine blessings.

 

 

Dignity over Success

We are in the midst of thirst for success.  At any cost.

In this context, there is a poem in the #Purananooru by #Vennikkuyathiyar

It goes like this:

நின்னினும் நல்லன்

வெண்ணிக் குயத்தியார்

நளியிரு முந்நீர் நாவாய் ஓட்டி,
வளிதொழில் ஆண்ட உரவோன் மருக!
களி இயல் யானைக் கரிகால் வளவ!
சென்று, அமர்க் கடந்த நின் ஆற்றல் தோன்ற
வென்றோய்! நின்னினும் நல்லன் அன்றே,

கலிகொள் யாணர் வெண்ணிப் பறந்தலை,
மிகப் புகழ் உலகம் எய்திப்
புறப்புண் நாணி, வடக் கிருந்தோனே!

Coming in the lineage of those who had mastered
the winds to sail their mighty ships on the great seas,
Oh, Karikalvalava, who, seated on charging elephants,
Showed your prowess and might for the world to see;
Having won the battle, you are great indeed!

But the one whom you defeated, let go of his life, facing North;
Gaining greater merit and attaining the greater world,
Feeling ashamed, that he was wounded on his back.

(Translation by R. Manimohan)

In the above poem, the poet says that the one who in spite of putting up a brave and valiant fight and lost, is ashamed at even a wound on his back, and lets go of his life itself, instead of living a baneful life, is far more greater than even the person who had won the war.  This shows to what extent, dignity was held over success.

Today, the one who is defeated (invariably due to back stabbing) waits to pay back his opponent in the same coin.

 

#Puranaanooru laying down the duty of the ruler to the Citizens

 

ஒரு #புறநானூற்றுப்பாடல் 

அருளும் அருமையும்!

-நரிவெரூஉத் தலையார்.

 

 

எருமை அன்ன கருங்கல் இடைதோறும்,
ஆனிற் பரக்கும் யானைய, முன்பின்,
கானக நாடனை நீயோ, பெரும!
நீயோர் ஆகலின், நின் ஒன்று மொழிவல்;
அருளும் அன்பும் நீக்கி நீங்கா       
நிரயம் கொள்பவரொடு ஒன்றாது காவல்,
குழவி கொள்பவரின் ஓம்புமதி!
அளிதோ தானே, அது பெறல் அருங் குரைத்தே!

 

O King, endowed with a kingdom, 

with thick forests where elephants roam around,

like cows among rocks, that are buffalo dark;

You are blessed; hence you may note;

Indulge not with those who have neither love nor grace

And are eternally immersed in sorrow;

Tender the citizens like a mother would her babes;

For, such an honour, is hard to gain.

 (Translation by R. Manimohan, Coimbatore)

 

In the above poem in Purananooru, the poet, Nariveruthalayar, says that the ordinary citizens are vulnerable among people without love or grace and as a result are always prone to suffering themselves and are therefore like the cows amidst hard rocks, where they have hardly nothing to grace and like elephants who have to live in risky forests.  Hence, the poet asks the King to keep away from the rotten folk and take protective care of his citizens like a mother lovingly takes care of her children, because such an opportunity is very hard to get.

Even in a democracy, where monarchy is no more in vogue, the responsibility of a Government remains the same.

#delimitation #Womensreservation and #Muslimpopulation - a study

 

There were comments by some friends that delimitation due to increase in population was primarily due to the increase in Muslim Population. They were suggesting that opposition to delimitation on the basis of population would go against the interests of the minorities (Muslims).  This was another spin like saying that opposition to delimitation was against women’s reservation.  Though those who propounded this theory were not those who were very friendly to Muslim cause, (as much as they were not really for the cause of women’s reservation) it becomes necessary to investigate into this propagation with the statistics available on population studies in India, because, this is one of the most often propagated factors against the Muslims of India. 

 

For the above study, I have taken the data from the following sources:

Census figures of 1971 and 2011

Population growth and religious composition

Hate Buster: Muslims and the Myth of Polygamy in India

The Law on Polygamy among religious groups in India

 

Based on the above data, the following 14 states and Union Territories in Chart 1, have a Muslim population of 10% or higher, as per the 2011 Census

Chart 1

 

 

Now, among the above 14 states and Union Territories, the following (refer Chart 2) recorded a population growth rate exceeding the national average of 19.22% in the 2011 Census.

Chart 2

Even among the six states/ UTs in Chart 2 (except for J&K) where the decadal population growth rate (2001-11) has been above the national growth rate, the Muslim population does not exceed 20%. The total rate of population increase being more than that means that the increase in population rate in these states cannot be attributed to the Muslim population alone.

In the case of Jammu & Kashmir, although the Muslim population constitutes about 68%—significantly higher than the national average of 14%—the population growth rate is 23.17%, which is only about four percentage points higher than the national average growth rate of 19.22%.

In respect of the following states (refer Chart 3), though they have a Muslim Population of 10% or more, their share in the national population has not increased, rather significantly decreased, between the 1971 Census and 2011 Census.  And, as per 2011 census it is not more than the national growth rate of 19.22%.

Chart 3

 

In Chart 3, it may be seen that Assam, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra and West Bengal are larger states. All the above states have 10% or more of Muslim population. In particular, the percentage of Muslim population in Kerala and West Bengal are 27% each. In spite of that, their rate of population increase is significantly lesser than the national rate. From the above statistics, it could be seen that the Muslim population has nothing to do with rate of increase in population of each state.

 

While the above three charts are clear indicators of the fact that more Muslim population is not directly proportional to the population growth rate, let us consider states and UTs which are home to less than 10% Muslim population. Chart 4 shows that in states and UTs where there is less than 10% of Muslim population, the population growth rate as per 2011 Census was more than the national growth rate of 19.22% or around the same rate.

Chart 4

It is to be noted that out of the above, Madhya Pradesh (7% Muslim population) and Rajasthan (9% Muslim Population) are bigger states.

 

Thus, what could be seen from the above discussed data is that some states have higher population increase rate, irrespective of whether their Muslim Population is more or not and essentially these are seen to be states which are backward in economic development when compared to the states where the population increase rate is lesser. 

 

Further, while the Hindu growth rate declined from 24% (1971–81) to 16.70% (2001–11), the Muslim growth rate during the same periods has been at 30.7% and 24.7%, respectively. Notably, there are certain states where the overall population growth rate has not decreased substantially across these periods and where a significant Muslim population is present. These include: Bihar with 17% Muslim population, Jammu & Kashmir with 69% Muslim population, Jharkhand with 15% Muslim population and Uttar Pradesh at 19% Muslim population.

Chart 5

The above Chart 5 suggests that the growth rate has not declined substantially in these states, and this trend appears to apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims (excluding J&K since the state (now 3) has a major Muslim population).

 

Now, coming to a comparison of the increase in the Muslim population in the entire country, vis-à-vis states, it is seen that the percentage was 11.21% in 1971 while it rose to 14% in 2011. The increase is by 2.79%. However, when this is examined state wise, for the same period, it is seen that in the following states, the percentage increase is more than the national percentage increase of 2.79%. 

 

The percentage increase in Muslim population between 1971 and 2011 is given within brackets: Assam (9.97), Bihar (3.52), Chandigarh (3.55), Delhi (6.53), Goa (4.24), Haryana (2.96) and West Bengal (6.54).

 

Yet, data shows that apart from Bihar (25.07%) and Delhi (20.96%), all the other states and UTs have had an overall growth rate lesser than the national average of 19.22%. Particularly, in Assam, where the percentage of Muslim population has increased by 9.97% (much higher than the states mentioned above), their growth rate for 2001-11 is only 16.93%, lesser than the national growth rate for the period.

 

These data further substantiate that the increase in population of a state is not directly a consequence of the increase in Muslim Population. So, linking the factor of population increase in different states to their Muslim population does not appear to have a proper basis.

 

As per the PEW research organization, based on study of the census figures from 1951 to 2011:

“Growth rates have declined for all of India’s major religious groups, but the slowdown has been more pronounced among religious minorities, who outpaced Hindus in earlier decades. Between 1951 and 1961, the Muslim population expanded by 32.7%, 11 percentage points more than India’s overall rate of 21.6%. But this gap has narrowed. From 2001 to 2011, the difference in growth between Muslims (24.7%) and Indians overall (17.7%) was 7 percentage points. India’s Christian population grew at the slowest pace of the three largest groups in the most recent census decade – gaining 15.7% between 2001 and 2011, a far lower growth rate than the one recorded in the decade following Partition (29.0%).”

 

The above analysis indicates that more than religion, it is literacy and economic factors that determine the population growth among various communities and the more literate states are seen to have lesser growth rates.

 

To verify the above, we go into the literacy levels of the states where the growth rate of population is more than the national growth rate.  We find that the following states (Chart 6) where the population growth rates are more than the national population growth rate of 19.92% are also below the national literacy rate of 74.04%. 

Chart 6

In the case of Delhi, although the literacy rate (86.21%) is higher than the national average, the population growth rate (20.96%) also exceeds the national growth rate. This may indicate substantial migration into the national capital from economically and socially weaker states.

In contrast, in Kerala and West Bengal where the Muslim population is approximately 27% in each state, the population growth rates are significantly lower than the national average. This is likely attributable to Kerala’s literacy rate, which is considerably higher than the national average and that of West Bengal which also has a higher literacy rate than the national average.

 

Thus, it can be clearly observed that literacy, rather than religion, is the primary factor influencing population growth at both the state and the national level.

 

Now, we come to the question of the polygamy among Muslims: Turning to the issue of polygamy among Muslims, available data suggests that the practice is not confined to any one community. Statistics indicate that polygamy exists across different religions and regions in India.

 

According to the National Family Health Survey-5 (2019–20), the prevalence of polygamy was 2.1% among Christians, 1.9% among Muslims, 1.3% among Hindus, and 1.6% among other groups. The data also shows that polygynous marriages are more common in certain Northeastern states, particularly in areas with significant tribal populations. In fact, 40 districts with the highest polygyny rates are those with a high population of tribal communities.

 

Seen in this light, the idea that polygamy among Muslims is a major driver of population growth in that community appears to be another exaggeration. The same study also points to instances of men converting to Islam in order to take advantage of Personal Law provisions that permit more than one marriage.

 

Only when the nation is out of such blinker like statements, even among learned people, that Muslim predominance in the country is one of the reasons for low performance on economic front, can we really make progress by addressing real issues. 

 

Hence, instead of wasting our resources and energy in increasing the number of seats in Parliament and Legislatures to represent the people, it will be more beneficial to invest in education, health care, etc., which will have a long-term benefit for the citizens of the country.

(Note: I should thank Ms. Dharani Thangavelu for helping me in preparing and presenting the graphs for ease of understanding the statistics)

 

 

 

 

 

What is in our hands?

 

A group of students were asked to write an essay on the incident of Jesus turning water into wine.

While all others were busy filling up their papers, one student was just enjoying himself without writing anything. Just as the invigilator was taking back the papers, he scribbled just one line and gave it to him. That paper was adjudged as the best.

He had written, “The water met its Master, and blushed”.

The student was Byron.

#SwamiRamaTirtha, cites the above instance, in a lecture delivered on 20th December 1902 at San Francisco.

 

I was instantaneously reminded about the following poem of #Tagore (in #Fruitgathering):

    “No: it is not yours to open buds into blossoms.
    Shake the bud, strike it; it is beyond your power to make it blossom.
    Your touch soils it, you tear its petals to pieces and strew them in the dust.
    But no colours appear, and no perfume.
    Ah! it is not for you to open the bud into a blossom.
    He who can open the bud does it so simply.
    He gives it a glance, and the life-sap stirs through its veins.
    At his breath the flower spreads its wings and flutters in the wind.
    Colours flush out like heart-longings, the perfume betrays a sweet secret.
    He who can open the bud does it so simply.”

 

#Jesus himself had said, “Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.” Matthew 5:36)

 

Dr. B.R. #Ambedkar, discusses the above problem with regard to Social requirements, in his lecture on #Ranade, #Gandhi and #Jinnah, delivered on 18th January 1943.

He says: 

    “There are those who assert that however great a man may be, he is a creature of Time-Time called him forth. Time did everything, he did nothing. Those who hold this view, in my judgment, wrongly interpret history. There have been three different views on the causes of historical changes. We have had the Augustinian theory of history, according to which history is only an unfolding of a divine plan in which mankind is to continue through war and suffering until that divine plan is completed at the day of judgment. There is the view of Buckle who held that history was made by Geography and Physics. Karl Marx propounded a third view. According to him history was the result of economic forces. None of these three would admit that history is the biography of great men. Indeed they deny man any place in the making of history. No one except theologians accepts the Augustinian theory of history. As to Buckle and Marx, while there is truth in what they say, their views do not represent the whole truth. They are quite wrong in holding that impersonal forces are everything and that man is no factor in the making of history. That impersonal forces are a determining factor cannot be denied. But that the effect of impersonal forces depends on man must also be admitted. Flint may not exist everywhere. But where it does exist, it needs man to strike flint against flint to make fire. Seeds may not be found everywhere. But where they do exist, it needs man to ground it to powder and make it a delectable and nutritious paste and thereby lay the foundation of agriculture. There are many areas devoid of metals. But where they do exist, it needs a man to make instruments and machines which are the basis of civilization and culture. 

    Take the case of social forces. Various tragic situations arise. One such situation is of the type described by Thayer in his biography of Theodore Roosevelt when he says : 

    “There comes a time in every sect, party or institution when it stops growing, its arteries harden, its         young men see no visions, its old men dream no dreams ; it lives on the past and desperately tries to       perpetuate the past. In politics when this process of petrifaction is reached we call it Bourbonism         and the sure sign of the Bourbon is that, being unconscious that he is the victim of sclerosis, he sees     no reason for seeking a cure. Unable to adjust himself to changed and new conditions he falls back i       into the past as an old man drops into his worm-out arm-chair.” 

    The other kind of situation is not one of decay but of destruction. The possibilities of it are always present whenever there is a crisis. The old ways, old habits and old thoughts fail to lift society and lead it on. Unless new ones are found there is no possibility of survival. No society has a smooth sailing. There are periods of decay and possibilities of destruction through which every society has to pass. Some survive, some are destroyed, and some undergo stagnation and decay. Why does this happen? What is the reason that some survive ? Carlyle has furnished an answer. He puts in his characteristic way: 

    “No time need have gone to ruin, could it have found a great enough, a man wise and good enough;     Wisdom to discern truly what the Time wanted, valour to lead it on to the right road thither, these are     the salvation of any Time.” 

    This seems to me to be quite a conclusive answer to those who deny man any place in the making of history. The crisis can be met by the discovery of a new way. Where there is no new way found, society goes under. Time may suggest possible new ways. But to step on the right one is not the work of Time. It is the work of man. Man therefore is a factor in the making of history and that environmental forces whether impersonal or social if they are the first are not the last things."


The question that arises is that, though it is essential that a seed that is sown has to be watered, which is it that decides which of the seeds would be watered and even if so watered, which of them would survive, how long and bear fruits.

The eternal question of challenge and response propounded by #ArnoldToynbee remains.  It is like Dr. Ambedkar said, for Man to respond.

 

#unconstitutionalpromises?

 

The proposed 131st amendment to the Constitution is given as image.

It could be seen that Article 81 (1) which fixes the maximum number of seats in the Lok Sabha is sought to be amended to increase it.  Irrespective of the monetary burden it is likely to put on the exchequer, it is after all a call to be taken by the Parliament in its competence. 

Now, how the total number to be increased is to be distributed among different States and UTs is the question.

Article 81 (2) reads as under:

"(2) For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (1),—

(a) there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States; and

(b) each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State:

Provided that the provisions of sub-clause (a)of this clause shall not be applicable for the purpose of allotment of seats in the House of the People to any State so long as the population of that State does not exceed six millions."

As per Article 81 (2) (a) "there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States", which means that there cannot be a differential yardstick in allotting seats for each state based on the population of each state. THIS IS NOT SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED.

It could be seen that Article 81 (3) reads as below as on date:

"(3) In this article, the expression ―population means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published:

Provided that the reference in this clause to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published, be construed,—

(i) for the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (2) and the proviso to that clause, as a reference to the 1971 census; and

(ii) for the purposes of sub-clause (b)of clause (2) as a reference to the 2001 census."

As per the above existing provision, 'for the purposes of sub- clause (a) of clause (2) and the proviso to that clause, as a reference to the 1971 census".

Now, in the present proposal, the above is sought to be amended by "'Population' means the population ascertained at such census, as Parliament may by law determine, of which the relevant figures have been published"

Thus, it could be seen that with the above proposal to amend Article 81 (3), the right to determine which census is to be used is taken away from the Constitutional ambit and given to the Parliament, which could be decided by a simple majority. This will nullify the subsequent provisio in the same Article regarding applicability of 1971 Census.  

Without applying the Census of 1971, it is not possible to allot the seats to all States in the present ratio, as per Article 81 (2).

Now, to make it unambiquous, Article 82 is sought to be amended.

Present Article 82 reads as "Readjustment after each census". Now this is sought to be amended as "Readjustment of Constituencies".

Next, the said Article which as on date reads as

"Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine"

is sought to be amended as :

"The allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted in such manner and on the basis of such Census by the Delimitation Commission and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine"

As per the above amendment, a Delimitation Commission is to be brought in. The nature of the Commission, its constitution, the terms of reference, the conditions of service of the members of the Commission, etc will be decided later by a simple majority because it will not be a Constitutional amendment. Thus, with this amendment, again the necessity of having 2/3 rd majority for such things is sought to be done away with.

Now we come to the next proposed amendment. 

The third provisio in Article 82 is sought to be omitted.

The said provisio as on date is as follows:
"Provided also that until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published, it shall not be necessary to readjust—

(i) the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States as readjusted on the basis of the 1971 census; and

(ii) the division of each State into territorial constituencies as may be readjusted on the basis of the 2001 census, under this article."

The year 2026 in the above provisio was inserted by the 84th amendment in 2002. Before that, the year was 2001. The reason was that the relevance of 1971 census was extended upto 2001 and then upto 2026. That is why the sub clause to the said Provisio that 'the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States as readjusted on the basis of the 1971 census' continued to be in vogue.

Now, with the proposal to delete the above Provisio, the basis of 1971 census is taken away and the last census for which figures are available are only 2011 (because due to COVID no Census could be conduced in 2021) and when the Article 81 (2) (a) stipulates that "there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States", it is clear that the promises made by the ruling party on the floor of the Parliament and outside that the number of seats for the states which have controlled their population in accordance with the Government (previous?) Policies will not stand to loose if delimitation is done on the basis of 2011 census, is TOTALLY UNCONSITUTIONAL, if these amendments are passed.

And a smoke screen is created for this by linking it to Womens Reservation, when that bill was separately passed in 2023 itself.

The problem is that this can be seen only with those with eyes and willingness to see.