'This Is BJP's Insurance For Post-Modi Era'

'All this talk about women's reservation and Nari Shakti is a mirage.'
'It is a classic Trojan horse to bring about an alteration in the structure of political competition -- to the enduring advantage of the BJP.'

Few political scientists track India's electoral shifts as closely as Yogendra Yadav -- and fewer are as blunt when they sense structural change beneath political rhetoric.

With the proposed Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 set to be introduced in Parliament this week, the debate has largely centred on expanding Lok Sabha seats and the promise of women's reservation.

The Narendra Modi government has argued that delimitation after decades is both inevitable and necessary, especially with population changes and governance demands.

Yadav sees something else entirely. For him, the issue runs much deeper.

In this conversation with Prasanna D Zore/Rediff, he situates the Bill alongside proposals such as One Nation, One Election and electoral roll revisions, describing them as part of a larger attempt to reshape the 'rules of the game'.

For him, the core issue is not the number of seats but how representation between states could shift -- potentially privileging regions where the ruling party -- the Bharatiya Janata Party -- is stronger.

He also flags a deeper institutional concern: The emergence of gerrymandering practices in recent delimitation exercises, something India had largely avoided. More worryingly, he frames the moment as a stress test for India's federal structure -- an unwritten understanding that no region should permanently dominate another.

What is at stake, Yadav argues, is not just electoral arithmetic, but the balance that holds the Union together.

'This is to the long-term detriment of the Indian Union'

Who benefits the most from the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026? Why is the Modi government bringing it now?

There is no doubt that, in the short term and medium term, it works to the BJP's advantage. In fact, that is precisely the design. Everything else is subterfuge. All this talk about women's reservation and Nari Shakti is a mirage. It is a classic Trojan horse to bring about an alteration in the structure of political competition -- to the enduring advantage of the BJP.

This is not the only thing I have argued. The BJP is undertaking a series of measures -- SIR, One Nation, One Election, and delimitation. All these three, combined together, are attempts at distorting -- let us say tilting -- the electoral battleground to the permanent advantage of the BJP, so that it becomes a party of permanent majority.

I call it an attempt to reshape the desh, kaal, patra of elections. Desh refers to region and territoriality. Kaal is about the calendar. Patra is about the actors.

Delimitation is about changing the desh, which is to say reducing the weight of those regions of India which are less favourable to the BJP.

One Nation, One Election is about changing the electoral calendar -- ensuring that the business of facing the electorate every six or eight months is eliminated, and that the whole process is reduced to once-in-five-years.

And SIR is an attempt to ensure that segments of voters who are inconvenient to the present regime -- their numbers are reduced.

All these three things fit into one single pattern. The entire design is to work to the BJP's advantage. We should also ask: Who loses? I believe it is not merely the Opposition parties that lose. This is to the long-term detriment of the Indian Union.

But isn't this based on the assumption that Narendra Modi continues indefinitely? What happens after him?

No. As a matter of fact, I would turn it around and say this is precisely an attempt by the BJP to ensure the extension of its hegemony in the post-Modi era.

When they do not have this kind of charismatic leader with popular connect, they will need structures to work for them.

There is no doubt that Mr Modi is the BJP's strong point. Whether that strong point is sufficient is a different matter. Do they engage in these manipulations? Of course they do.

But the idea is to convert this into something structural -- something that works even when they do not have a leader who can swing things for them.

The whole idea is to tilt the battleground by a few degrees, so that the water flows in that direction anyway. It is not dependent on Mr Modi. In fact, it is insurance for bad times for the BJP.

So this is about securing the post-2024, even 2029 scenario?

You are speaking of post-Modi, but I would say it begins with 2029.

Many in the BJP were shocked by the results of 2024 and would want to ensure that they do not face such an unpleasant surprise again.

So this is an attempt to change the rules of the game in order to ensure that the next match -- and all subsequent matches -- begin with them in a position of advantage.

There is nothing uniquely Indian about this. If you look at (Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor) Orban (who, after four terms, lost power democratically -- showing even entrenched leaders can be voted out when public sentiment decisively shifts), he was doing something similar.

'If the proportion is maintained, numbers do not matter. But if the proportion changes, everything changes'

Isn't Viktor Orban's ouster by a democratic process proof that such manipulative strategies don't always work indefinitely, do they?

That is a different matter. They (the BJP) are trying their best (that they remain in power forever).

Whether these attempts are sufficient or not is a matter for analysis. But the first question we must ask is: Are these neutral political initiatives? Are these meant to do what the government claims -- women's empowerment, democratisation?

Or are these politically motivated attempts designed to produce a certain outcome?

For example, what the Election Commission is doing in West Bengal is designed to put Mamata Banerjee at a disadvantage. Whether that succeeds or not is secondary. It should not prevent us from assessing (the ECI's and this government's) intent.

If Lok Sabha seats rise sharply, who becomes dominant? Do southern states lose out?

The numbers are not the real issue. The ratio is.

You can raise seats from 543 to 850 -- or even to 3,000. I would not mind that. The real issue is whether the proportionate share of different states is protected.

If the proportion is maintained, numbers do not matter. But if the proportion changes, everything changes.

The government has been claiming that the increase will be proportionate. But please show me one line in the Bill that guarantees that.

The Bill is clear that delimitation will take place according to population proportions of the latest Census -- 2011. That means the freeze of the last 50 years will be broken. And tomorrow, it could be shifted to 2027.

If that happens, we know who gains and who loses.

Will this mainly hurt the southern states?

I would not limit it to the southern states. It includes Odisha, West Bengal and Punjab.

If you look closely, the pattern maps onto areas of the BJP's strength and weakness.

All the losers tend to be states where the BJP is weak or its dominance is fragile. The gainers are largely states where the BJP does well.

Will India's political centre of gravity shift to the Hindi heartland?

The Hindi heartland has always been central, but it has had to align with other regions because it is not a majority by itself.

This delimitation will not make it a majority on its own. But if you add Gujarat and Maharashtra, it comes close.

That is what worries many parts of India -- not just the South, but also the North East and Bengal.

This is not merely a north-south issue. It is about Hindi-speaking versus non-Hindi-speaking regions.

We already have three cleavages in India -- geographical, linguistic, and economic. They do not perfectly overlap yet. But if they begin to coincide, it creates serious risks.

History shows that when cleavages overlap, democracies face strain.

'You can call it a disaster management plan'

Does this threaten India's unity?

That is precisely my concern.

The question is not what it does to any one region or party. The question is what it does to India's unity and integrity.

There is an unwritten federal contract in India -- a contract of non-dominance. You will not dominate me; I will not dominate you.

This delimitation comes close to breaking that compact.

My proposal is simple: Freeze the current share of each state permanently. Increase seats if you want, but keep the ratios intact.

What safeguards exist against gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is a separate issue from seat apportionment. It relates to how boundaries are drawn.

India was fortunate that gerrymandering was not common. But that has changed.

If you look at Assam and Jammu and Kashmir, what has been done is worse than what happens in the United States.

They have used three techniques -- packing, cracking, and stacking.

• Packing means concentrating Opposition voters into one seat.
• Cracking means splitting them across multiple seats.
• Stacking means combining favourable segments.

Natural boundaries have been violated. Constituencies have been engineered.

The problem is that India has no strong legal framework against this. Delimitation decisions cannot be challenged in court. There are no clear norms.

That is a very dangerous combination.

Is this driven by political insecurity?

I do not know what is in their minds.

But if you fall short after projecting a sweeping victory (in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections when the Narendra Modi campaign expressed confidence of winning more than 400 seats but won only 240), there will be planning to avoid such a situation in the future.

You can call it a disaster management plan.

Do you believe this model is now ready for national rollout?

Yes, I have no doubt.

These techniques have been tested. Scaling them up is not difficult.

That, to me, is one of the principal worries of the coming days -- and one that is not being discussed enough.