Fourth delimitation in Manipur: An impact analysis

Prof RK Narendra Singh
Contd from previous issue
After 2002  census, the Central govt might expect that uniform population growth rate would be achieved throughout the country by the year 2026 and as such delimitation is deferred until 2026. Therefore, the fifth would be conducted after census 2031. In the meantime, in the forthcoming election for newly formed Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, a delimitation process is needed on one hand and on the other, delimitation may be conducted for  four North Eastern states i.e., Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh . However, the former would be conducted under the J& K Reorganization Act, base on Census 2011 and the latter under the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002 based on Census 2001 figure. 
The main objective of delimitation is to ensure proportionate political representation in policy making bodies in Parliament and in State Legislative Assembly. Whatsoever the reasons might be, it should not hamper representative democracy. If there is any discrepancy in the process, it violates the sanity of representative democracy.
There are two components to be taken care of in delimitation process. They are census data on which the entire process is based upon, and sincerity and honesty on the part of Commission while drawing or tracing  the boundaries of the constituencies. Indeed the delimitation exercise for Assam, Manipur, Arunachal and Nagaland would be based on Census 2001 data as it follows the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002.
 However, the census 2001 data of Manipur for some of the sub-divisions of the districts were quite distorted and the figures were finally adjusted in final report. Thus the proposed delimitation exercised based on Census 2001 for Manipur is unjustified and it is suggested that such exercise would be deferred till 2026 as 84th Amendment to Indian Constitution in 2002 states no to delimitation in the country after 2026. The Indian Parliament has two Houses viz., the Lower House known as Lok Sabha (House of the People) and Upper House, Rajya Sabha.  Lok Sabha has sanctioned member strength of 543 who are directly elected by citizens of India across the country. Since inception, two additional members of the  Anglo-Indian community were also nominated by the President of India on the advice of Govt of India, which was abolished in January 2020 by the 104th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019.
The maximum strength of the Lok Sabha  would be 552 members while the Raja Sabha can have a maximum of 250 members. At present Lok Sabha has a sanctioned strength of 245 members, of which 233 are elected from States and Union Territories and 12 are nominated by the President. The number of members from a state depends on its population. Presently Manipur has two members in the Lok Sabha  out of which one is reserved for ST (outer Parl Constituency) and another unreserved (inner Parl Constituency) and another lone member in Rajya Sabha.
Results and observations:
In order to study the pros and cons of the 4th Delimitation, Manipur needs a detailed appraisal on the population profile of the state. In this regard, a brief district-wise population profile of Manipur for the Census years 1991 and 2001 including adjusted population of Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul is set forth in table-1. * including controversial adjusted population of Mao-Maram, Paomata & Purul (127,108).
The decadal growth rate (%) of the Manipur state for 1991-2001 is 24.86% which is quite higher than the national figure of 21.54%.
The rate for valley districts is just 19.03 as against 35.47 of hill districts and the variation is quite significant. Thus, it could be concluded that the population growth of hill is much higher than that of valley. Within the valley districts there is significant variation observed with highest pertaining to Thoubal district (23.87%) and lowest to Bishnupur  district (15.27) while a significant increase is witnessed within the hill district as Chandel district retained the lowest (15.27%) and Senapati district, the highest (36.09%). There are 9 sub-divisions, four each in Senapati and Chandel districts and one in Ukhrul district of Manipur where the population in 2001 census were unacceptably high and therefore it became a matter of debate academically.
The overall decadal growth rate for those nine sub-divisions in 2001 based on census provisional figure found 103.29%, which is an absurd figure (abnormally high), out of which Purul had as high as 168.78% and Chandel HQ, as low as 40.89%. It is worthwhile to mention that no country in the world with decadal growth rate of above 100% and Syria is the exceptional lone country having a little above 70 % and all others below 40%.
However, the 4 sub-divisions – Purul, Mao-Maram, Paomata and Chakpikarong have higher than 100%, and even the lowest among them i.e., Chandel HQ has above 40%.
How these have had happen, no appropriate answer is pronounced by any authority till date. In fact, a high population growth of a society is linked to exceptional high fertility, low mortality, high influx, low educational level, low standard of living etc.
Without these, the population alone cannot go up on its own, and in other words, the population is the outcome of these components. However, in case of these subdivisions, nothing abnormal demographic components were noticed; and the patterns were more or less similar to other sub-divisions of the state then how did it happen ? Was it a natural growth or exaggerated one made with vested interest? It might be answered only through thorough technical analysis as it is an academic issue.
Finally, the Census Authority of India adjusted the figures of only 3 selective sub-divisions of Senapati district viz., Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul out of the 9 controversial sub-divisions without proper recounting in its final Census Report 2001.
Interestingly, a figure of 96,670 was subtracted from the total population of 223,778 (provisional) and making final population (127,108) of the three, which meant that the three sub-divisions have same decadal growth rate of 39.16% each.
It established the fact that the final Census report of the 3 sub-divisions of Senapati district is not the exact population figures, rather highly doubtful.     
The writer is a Demographer, and HOD of Biostatistics, RIMS, Imphal.(To be continued)