The Infograph above is an eye-opener for me.
What is so striking to me about it is that Maharashtra’s number exceeds the numbers of TN + Gujarat combined and, yes, TN+ Karnataka too combined !
Also , the number for Greater Andhra (pre-partitioning) exceeds the number for Uttar Pradesh.
But what this info-graph does to my thinking process on Taxation and Representation is turn it upside down! I’m smitten and beset now by an element of radicalism of the Palanivel Thyagarajan kind. I fear I’m having an epiphany wherein I can see my thinking on fiscal justice and political governance veer somewhat towards the Dravidian Model!
What the above infographic map suggests to me is that it is tax-contribution and tax-representation which are true reflectors of the respective stake each State in India has in the larger national pie and so, by logical extension, in the voice for governing nation also.
I am beginning to think that instead of using census population statistics to determine Delimitation of electoral constituencies in the country and basing the allocation of the number of seats in Parliament on them, why would it not be more fair to base the allocation in proportion to the quantum of fiscal contribution each state makes to the national pool?
In a democracy those who are greater stakeholders must in all fairness hold more representation in the governing councils , wouldn’t you agree?
The allocation can be adjusted lower or higher after every decadal year in which the 20-z yearly moving-average of total tax-contribution made by each State to the Consolidated Fund of India will this re-determine the number of seats it is able to command in Parliament.
Radical idea? Or un-Constitutional idea ? You tell me. But why I’m supporting the idea of tax-contribution as basis for delimitation and allocation of seats to states in Parliament is here below:
- It is fair and just measure. It is also easily measurable . Look at it like democracy working on principle that he who has bigger stake must have bigger voice . In the corporate world , you know well that the bigger the shareholding the more number of seats in BoD .
- If tax contribution becomes the basis for extent of representation in Parliament — and not population size or geographical area — then it will encourage healthy competition amongst states to improve their economic performance, manage wisely their demographics, plan and utilise their natural and Human Resources better to realise improved productivity.
- The motivation to contribute more to the national exchequer will then mean not only higher national GDP growth , but also better devolution of tax revenues from Cetre to States. That will improve federal structure and relations.
- Once representation in Parliament is based on tax performance and contributions, then automatically , political processes within the State Assemblies will also get automatically better and more closely aligned with national priorities .
Sudarshan Madabushi