How will the BJP’s pursuit of a two-thirds majority reshape the political landscape?
The BJP’s push for delimitation before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections, in a manner that could disproportionately enhance the representation of its electoral strongholds—coupled with its persistent advocacy for ONOE—points to a deeper project: altering the representative character and federal balance of Indian democracy. The pursuit for a two-thirds majority is not merely about winning elections; it is about acquiring power to redesign the rules of the political game itself.
Will delimitation permanently alter the balance of political power among the states?
Yes. Under the proposed delimitation, states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar would see a significant rise in both absolute number of seats and their percentage share of representation in the Lok Sabha. In contrast, southern states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, despite gaining a few seats in absolute terms, would suffer a decline in their relative political weight, losing around 2-3 percentage points in representation in the Lok Sabha. This built-in asymmetry between the states is fundamentally at odds with India’s federal compact and must be firmly opposed.
Is there concern that delimitation and ONOE, when viewed together, could reshape electoral competition in ways that disproportionately benefits only the BJP?
Yes. Viewed together, delimitation and ONOE have the potential to distort the democratic competition in favour of the BJP. Through delimitation, the BJP seeks to increase the political weight of states and regions where it is electorally dominant while relatively diminishing the voice of others. The ONOE, meanwhile, inherently favours larger national parties and disadvantages regional parties. In an environment already marked by a severe asymmetry in political funding, the BJP stands to benefit disproportionately.
Additionally, ONOE would subsume state-specific issues within a national narrative. The distinct concerns of each region that come to the forefront during Assembly elections risk being overshadowed by national campaigns and personalities, further disadvantageous to regional parties and weakening India’s federal character.
Further, ONOE requires constitutional amendments, and the BJP currently lacks the numbers. If the government seeks to manufacture that majority through defections, inducements and by purchasing parliamentarians like peanuts, then not only is ONOE undemocratic, but the path to achieve it is equally unconstitutional and worthy of opposition.
Are Opposition parties preparing a common position on delimitation, or will each party negotiate separately?
The Opposition already works together through the INDIA bloc, and issues critical to our electoral democracy—such as vote chori, the special intensive revision and the role of the Election Commission of India—are regularly discussed among various party leaders. There is a broad consensus, not only among Opposition parties but also among the people of India, that any attempt to alter the basic representative character of our democracy must be firmly resisted.
Are there vulnerabilities in the BJP’s strategy that the Opposition plans to exploit?
The biggest weakness in the BJP’s strategy is that it functions against the constitutional and democratic ethos of India. Time and again, the people of India have demonstrated that any attempt to impose an authoritarian order will not only be resisted, but ultimately defeated.
Does the Congress see strong regional power centres as essential to prevent fragmentation?
The Congress party is the architect of India’s federal structure. It is this federal compact that has enabled people across our vast and diverse country to proudly embrace a common Indian identity while preserving their distinct linguistic, cultural and regional identities.
Strong regional centres are not a threat to national unity; they are one of its foundations. India’s strength lies in accommodating its immense diversity through a balanced federal arrangement that gives every region a meaningful voice in the national mainstream. Any attempt to weaken regional aspirations or centralise political power at the expense of the states risks undermining both our federal structure and the inclusive idea of India itself.
Will the Opposition fight these battles only in Parliament, in the courts or through public mobilisation?
The Opposition is already fighting these battles in Parliament, in the courts and on the streets, and it will continue to do so because this is not a partisan issue—it is a battle to protect the soul of India.
Whenever democratic institutions are weakened or when electoral rules are altered to favour one party, the federal balance is disturbed, therefore, every constitutional avenue of resistance must be utilised.
The media too has a constitutional responsibility in this regard. Instead of manufacturing consent for the government, it must educate the public, ask difficult questions and hold power to account. Democracies are protected not by the Opposition alone, but by all effective institutions and informed citizenry.
The BJP has framed these reforms as governance measures. So how will the Opposition challenge this narrative?
The BJP calls these proposals governance reforms, but genuine reforms make democracy more representative, accountable and inclusive, not less.
The question is simple: who benefits from these reforms—the Indian voter or the ruling party? If the answer is the latter, then these are not governance measures but partisan projects of political engineering masquerading as reforms.
These measures disproportionately benefit one party, weaken federalism, sideline regional voices and alter the representative character of our democracy. Our objective is to make this gap between rhetoric and reality increasingly clear and palpable to the people of India.
