Yoda-esque Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 So states with lesser GDP get more MPs?More GDP more MPs and it should be a increment or decrement ,not historical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkt.india Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 55 minutes ago, Yoda-esque said: 3 hours ago, rkt.india said: So states with lesser GDP get more MPs? More GDP more MPs and it should be a increment or decrement ,not historical Why states with more GDP would need more MPs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dial_100 Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 Govt is and should be of the people, by the people and for the people. Right ?? what the heck is GDP doing there in deciding how much it will represent? It will be then the "Govt of rich people, by rich people and for rich people". Why would a rich state with higher GDP care for poor states with lesser GDP. India is union of states. How can we be selfish that we have more money so we want more representation or we have less population because we are more educated and poor but populated states shouldnt have larger representation? To me democracy where people to MP ratio should decide the quality because we are represented in the house, not our area or money. In democracy all people are equal. Will it change politics, Yes. But is the right way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbestfriend Posted August 26, 2021 Share Posted August 26, 2021 On 8/23/2021 at 10:27 PM, Trichromatic said: That's an observation, not a judgement and observations will be made on historical events. Case which court is hearing is not about something which has passed 2 generations. It was current case seeking dereversation of Tenkasi parliamentary constituency. Tamil Nadu had 41 lok sabha seats and it was reduced to 39. That's why plea was filed to seek deservation. Judgement was that court the plea. Observation was that TN lost political representation due to better population control. It's notjust something which happened 54 years and no longer exists. Observation has to be based on true events. If this had happened in 1967, it would've been based on 1961 census. What family planning the judge is talking about? Family planning programme started during that period, but the effect of the programme and decline in population started much later, so this is merely a political observation by judges.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trichromatic Posted August 26, 2021 Author Share Posted August 26, 2021 13 minutes ago, urbestfriend said: Observation has to be based on true events. If this had happened in 1967, it would've been based on 1961 census. What family planning the judge is talking about? Family planning programme started during that period, but the effect of the programme and decline in population started much later, so this is merely a political observation by judges.. Tamil Nadu population share in India was 8.34 in 1951 and it decreased to 7.67 1961. It was 5.96% in 2011. Family planning is not only way to control population. Education, economic measures, healthcare etc all factors come into picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbestfriend Posted August 26, 2021 Share Posted August 26, 2021 2 hours ago, Trichromatic said: Tamil Nadu population share in India was 8.34 in 1951 and it decreased to 7.67 1961. It was 5.96% in 2011. Family planning is not only way to control population. Education, economic measures, healthcare etc all factors come into picture. Exactly, so if judge is making an observation retrospectively for something that happened in 1967 and applying todays logic. When judge says that family planning was successful hence reduced the seats is incorrect to begin with. When this policy of electoral seats based on population way back, it was not a flawed policy as MP is representative of people and there needs some sort of equality. Now that family planning has been successful, this policy has become flawed because it targets the states who have been succesful in controlling population by having an effective family planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trichromatic Posted August 26, 2021 Author Share Posted August 26, 2021 24 minutes ago, urbestfriend said: Exactly, so if judge is making an observation retrospectively for something that happened in 1967 and applying todays logic. When judge says that family planning was successful hence reduced the seats is incorrect to begin with. When this policy of electoral seats based on population way back, it was not a flawed policy as MP is representative of people and there needs some sort of equality. Now that family planning has been successful, this policy has become flawed because it targets the states who have been succesful in controlling population by having an effective family planning. What's today's logic? TN had 41 seats and it was reduced to 39 as TN share of population fell. That's why case was filed to remove reservation of the seat was filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbestfriend Posted August 26, 2021 Share Posted August 26, 2021 3 hours ago, Trichromatic said: What's today's logic? TN had 41 seats and it was reduced to 39 as TN share of population fell. That's why case was filed to remove reservation of the seat was filed. How difficult to understand that population share fell not due to family planning? And logic that time used was seats based on population, so judge's observation is faulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts