Yogendra Yadav’s Flawed Justification For Asymmetric Federalism Betrays His Intellectual Bias And Inconsistency

"Intellectuals are the people who can make you feel both enlightened and confused in the same sentence."

While the quote is applicable for so-called intellectuals across the society and spectrums, Yogendra Yadav’s views always seem to stand out from the rest of his counterparts.

The ongoing debate on delimitation has sparked significant national discourse where prominent voices have yet again jumped the bandwagon to put forward their opinions on the contagious topic. One such voice is that of the renowned polymath Yogendra Yadav that has been creating stir among the political community.

In one of his latest pieces in Indian Express, Yadav advocated for a permanent freeze on the reapportionment of seats based on population.

While he presented a number of qualitative arguments in favour of his original premise, what stood out intellectually was his opinion of generalising the exception of “asymmetrical federalism” over the fundamental electoral principle of “one person, one vote, one value” across the country.

Before assessing how Yogendra Yadav’s use of “asymmetrical federalism” broke every parameter of true brainpower, one needs to understand the basic motive of delimitation exercise.

The most important objective of delimiting the boundaries at regular intervals is to ensure the principle of “one person, one vote”, as uniformly as possible.

The idea can be better explained by an example: average population per constituency (as per 2014 Lok Sabha elections) in UP was approximately 17 lakh whereas the average population per constituency in Tamil Nadu was approximately 14 lakh. What it implies is that 14  lakh voters are represented by an MP in Tamil Nadu whereas 17 lakh voters are represented by an MP in UP, which is a gross disturbance to the idea of equal representation. Looking differently, an MP in UP caters to the needs of approximately 3 lakh additional people than what an MP does in TN, which by design is an administrative headache in itself and by no means justifiable.

Decadal census and successive delimitation aims to correct this anomaly time and again so that a region is not at a relative disadvantage with other regions, as far as possible.

In response to this question as to how a country can ensure upholding of the aforementioned principle while also putting a permanent freeze on such periodic redistribution of seats based on population, Yadav brings in the concept of “asymmetrical federalism” in his defence.

Asymmetrical Federalism can be described by unequal powers and relationships in political, administrative, and fiscal arrangements between the units constituting a federation, whereas under symmetrical federalism, all the units enjoy the equal powers and relationships. 

How does “Asymmetrical Federalism” come into the picture?

Yadav argues that it is the idea of upholding the idea of asymmetrical federalism that union territories like Ladakh having a tiny population of 3 lakh also get political representation in Parliament which otherwise would have been an impossible scenario given their uncompetitive population when compared with other states.

Therefore, according to Yogendra Yadav, the exception of “asymmetrical federalism” should be generalised across the country to protect the states currently enjoying higher degree of electoral representation, for e.g. Tamil Nadu, over states like Uttar Pradesh, without any rational basis. What he fails to explain is the fact that asymmetrical federalism is applied in the case of “special situations and considerations” in a particular state and not in a blatant, non-justifiable manner for petty political gains.

The reason Ladakh is given a seat despite their tiny population is because it is a union territory and constitutionally warrants a separate representation. Additionally, given the tough geographical landscape and economic constraints, providing a platform for political participation via democratic means gives the voters of Ladakh comparatively better visibility to put forth their unique problems with other leaders.

In contrast, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu are mainstream economies in themselves with established political legacy and no substantially difficult conditions which might warrant the implementation of “asymmetrical federalism”, a concept by design meant for “special situations”.

Yogendra Yadav, in his article, also talks about upholding the concept of “Just Republic” the underlying philosophy of which is “non-domination” of one state over another, which in itself is theoretically right. But what seems comical is Yadav’s use of this argument in defence of keeping the vote value difference between states like Tamil Nadu and UP intact.

For Yadav, it seems, giving fair representation to under-represented states like UP is unjust but continuing the political dominance of Kerala and Tamil Nadu with completely irrational means is “just”. Only those with a clear lack of objectivity or a politically driven agenda would resort to oxymoronical arguments as these, as true justice can only be achieved when under-represented states are accorded their fair and rightful share in the democratic process.

What Yadav repeatedly stresses on is to continue with the established inequities perpetuated by previous governments to avoid political upheaval. While it may seem wise to “live with the lesser problem rather than risk the bigger problem”, the biggest downside with the said objective is that the country would never be able to move forward with such a chaotic state of institutions and be stuck in a perpetual limbo.

In a democracy of 150 crore people, achieving unanimous consensus on even the most rational ideas is both theoretically and practically unattainable. One would always find at least a lakh who would be resentful of the most perfectly curated ideas and ready to come down on roads to protest. But that doesn’t mean the country should not move forward to eradicate the existing implementation of misconstrued ideas and bring justice to the ones affected.

A fitting analogy for such timidity is the Waqf Act, which exemplifies how systemic flaws are perpetuated under the guise of avoiding conflict.

Political pundits, either out of their sheer naivety or political propaganda, historically kept advocating against touching the malpractice of Waqf so as to avoid the potential ‘communal violence’.

An institution can randomly claim a property with baseless allegations and the burden of proof regarding the ownership of a land contended to be a property of Waqf falls on the person holding the possession of that land. The person would lodge a complaint with the relevant State Waqf Board and if not satisfied with the decision, would approach a Waqf Tribunal. The Waqf Tribunal Board consists of, among others, an expert in Muslim law and jurisprudence. If the incumbent fails to prove his title to the ‘satisfaction of the Board’ (which is a subjective notion), such land or property shall have to be vacated since the decision of the tribunal is final and binding on the parties.

Unsurprisingly, state Waqf Boards are infamous for a large number of unsubstantiated claims on random properties since the state facilitates such actions. Recently in 2022, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board claimed an entire village in Tamil Nadu including a 1,500-year old temple within the administrative area.

There was no evidence regarding Muslims residing in the area, and papers proved that resettlement took place in 1927-1928. Now, should this injustice be tolerated over the larger supposed ‘national interest’ of avoiding communal violence? This is what Yadav claims to favour.

The solution to such complex institutional and societal challenges lies not in evasion but in fostering mature, inclusive dialogue among all key stakeholders. This ensures that diverse concerns are addressed meaningfully and constructively.

It is imperative that voices like Yogendra Yadav engage in such discussions with objectivity and sincerity, free from hidden agendas, to contribute to effective solutions. Misleading arguments that exploit public trust only hinder progress, while honest, collaborative efforts can pave the way for genuine resolution.