IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/indpol/v1y2013i2p213-229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Was the Delimitation Commission Unfair to Muslims?

Author

Listed:
  • Francesca Refsum Jensenius

    (Francesca Refsum Jensenius is a Senior Research Fellow, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI). E-mail: fj@nupi.no)

Abstract

In the Sachar Committee report, a report from 2006 about the socio-economic status of Muslims in India, it was stated that a number of constituencies (electoral districts) reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) have a high proportion of Muslims and a low proportion of SCs, while there are many general (unreserved) constituencies with fewer Muslims and more SCs. Some have interpreted this as an allegation that the Delimitation Commission in the 1970s willfully assigned constituencies reserved for SCs to areas with a high Muslim population. Since this delimitation was in force for more than 30 years (1974–2007), this could have seriously undermined the representation of Muslims in India. In this article I use archival evidence from the Election Commission records as well as unique statistical data of the Muslim population across Indian constituencies in the 1970s to show that there is no evidence that such a systematic discrimination took place. Looking at data from 14 Indian states, I show that the Muslim population is on average lower in reserved constituencies than in general ones. This is mainly due to the fact that reserved seats by construction have a high concentration of SCs, and therefore a lower concentration of other groups. On comparing reserved and general constituencies with similar proportions of SCs, I find that there is no statistically significant difference in the proportion of Muslims in reserved and general areas. These results do not suggest that Muslims have been adequately represented in Indian politics, but simply that it is unfounded allegation that Muslims have been over-represented in reserved constituencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesca Refsum Jensenius, 2013. "Was the Delimitation Commission Unfair to Muslims?," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 1(2), pages 213-229, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:indpol:v:1:y:2013:i:2:p:213-229
    DOI: 10.1177/2321023013511625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2321023013511625
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2321023013511625?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bhalotra, Sonia & Clots-Figueras, Irma & Iyer, Lakshmi, 2021. "Religion and abortion: The role of politician identity," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:indpol:v:1:y:2013:i:2:p:213-229. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.