CTIA N GING POLTTICAL REPRESENTATION IN INDIA
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CTIA N GING POLTTICAL REPRESENTATIONIN INDIA
]1
II
I
l
CHANGN*C 'POLTNCAL
REPRESENTATION IN INDfA
V. A. Pri PananitikerArun Sud
Under the Auspices ofCENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH
UPPAL PUBI.,;ISHINC HOUSENew Delhi
UPPAL,PUBt,ISHIN.G HOUSE3, Ansari. Ro4d, Daryaganj, New D:lhi--:1100028, Yashwant Placo; Chasakyepuri, Nsw Delhi"- 110021
.O CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH
NEW DELHI1983
&
PRINTED IN INDIAPublisbed by B.S. Uppal; Uppal Publishing House'
New Delhi.l10002 aud'SriuFd by Kamla Printers'
397'D, Bhajan Pura, Delbi-ll0l53'
FOREWORD
'The political institutions in the country have cvoked a great
,,ileal of interest in recent years because of their cruciality to the
"success of the Iodian democratic proccsses' It is of equal impor-
"tance to understand about the sociological and other dimensions
'of these institutions. In particular whom do the kcy political ins''titutions represent? Wbat kind of changes are taking place tn
thc configuiation of political powcr in India? The quest is enor-
mous but would undoubtedly be vcry rewarding even if partially
.answered.
The prcscnt study is a focus on the vital political institution'
''viz., the Lok Sabha. No single formal institution is, as crucial
'for the evolution of the Indian polity as the Lok Sabha' Many
important changes have taken placc in the composition and
.character of the Lok Sabha over the sevcn elcctions to it since
Independencc. A study of thesc developments and their inter-
pr.o,ioo would be oi irntnroru value to the understanding of'thc changing sociology of Indian politics'
The study of the Changing Political Representation io
Jndia is an effort in that direction.
V.A. Pai PanandikerDirector
Centre for Policy Rcsearch
New DelhiDecember, 1982.
I
': "..,";,1;. I;'r . i
' i,l;_
: ,i,j' r; .r :1.11i;1 ,,,. ': ,,1,,'ll!' ' j! i
, :', g,11, 1.;,,t1, t
.:.i:
,)
..,1:,, i t:, i 1r.I!ii 'J , r:,,.1
',; l
.ir ijr"., !.ri ..i I :,
.. .. J ,,: . ii.,::' .r I ', t
t1,).:t, I ..
' f. t.\'.PREFACE
:
In undertaking the prcsent study, our attempt was to*€xamine the broad direction of changes taking place in the..composition of the Lok Sabba, the directly clected LowerHouse of the Indian Parliament. Perhaps no other institution{epresents the changcs taking place io the Indian body polity
-as much as tDe Lok Sabha does.
For pursuing our study, we had to rcly entirely on thc data
, released by the Lok Sabha Secretariat. We haYe not bcen able
,{o recheck the data for a variety of reasong. We do believe thatthe data is reasonably reliable and adequate for the limited
. purposes of thc present studY.
While we have broadly interpreted the emerging changes inrepresentation according to our own assessment of them, we
,.realize that the significance of the changes taking place may be. enormously greater. The relationship between the emerging
pattern ol representation and the political direction of thecountry perhaps deserve a closer look and certainly greater
analysis. Hopefully more researcb studies in the area will. emerge in the near future.
We are greatly indcbted to Sbri P.K. Saini for putting to-gether the initial data for the study. At the Centre for policyResearch, Shri Y.L. Nangia, Chief, Administrative Services, Shri'Trimbak Rao are amongst the several persons who helped a
(ii)
grcat deal iu seeing thc publication througb, We acknorlcdgaour gratcful thanks to thcm.
Tbc findings and thc conclusions arc catircly of thc eulhorsand they do not Daccsrarily rcprcsetrt tbc viewr of tbe Ccntrcfor Policy Rcscarch.
; - , :t,i V.A. Pai PalaodikcrArun Sud
New Delhi,Deceober, 1982.
LIsr oh''iii'A€ilrvrs
in tbe first,
't'
24
),
4T'
,5E
8L
r:: :.n. fr9$$T€NTS
Pages
(v)
(vtt)
,,(rr)
I
4
2l
JJ
53
/o
92
l0l139tBibliogrlpby.. i ,...,.:l
dndex ' i :
.,!r,'9,tt", r :i, .;.:
". i:1*'t ,l,r I '
The qucction of parliamentary representation an-d conposi'
ttu ia a fudamontal and perennial problem of political isport'
Srdcalty political tePresentstion detcrmincs the firnetional
J"r".*t of tUe potity- and in that sense becotles one of ttie
cctrtftl irso6$ of tbc political ptocesses in tbo eountry'
CHAPTER I
INTNODUCTION
dtreldb"ststto arai&l&lc todaY.
1. Scc Pittin; Iiesn$ Feniclcl, The Coneept of $9pres.fitati'.tr fl{.f'dtCalif., Uliversity of Cilifornia pr€ss, 196?' p. tL
:
In &cccpf€d psflance, reprcsentation meatrs lolpltrrrcpresentation'and hirtorically speaking the gntire
^theory of re-
prteltar;on has besir li*ed with tbe basic idea of self'govern'
L*,* of evety ,man's right to bave a say in what bappons
to him. The grdyfth of the reptessntative system of gov€rsnegt
testides to an txtent this will towards self-governance althouSh
many parts qf the lYortd havc political systcms not bascd on
repres(ntatife institutiors as we understand tb€m'
Thcre de, ho*crer, many crilics of the representativg tfteo-ry
arquins tbat' no governrncat really refeescats; that q' t6u!!
rei.r"-/*d"e go\Fnment si*ply does not eristl' Even se' it ha$
#o urosCly aeeprcd thal despite all its inadeqqecie* the
i&md'"l*n is ths bcst iatitptiooal mo& of a
\\
Central to the political svstem in India is the parliamentespecially the Lok Sabha nhich heralds tbe real political powerconfiguration of the country. Siqce the first elections to the LokSabha in l95I-52, the Indian parliament bas become thecorne{stone of the political processes reflecting both the conti-nuance and change taking place in the Indian body polity.Nothing is more symptomatic of tlis process than the LokSabha elections of 1977 and 1980. Ttiese elections testiry to thevibrancy of the Parliamentary insritutions and rhe politicatprocesses in the country. They also raise a whole hoet of
CHANGINC POI,ITICAL REPRESENTATION IN TNDIA
questronS.
What pattern of leadersbip and rcpresenlatjon is emergingout of this coalescence of tradition and change in such a fluidsituation ? Who dre rhe people being elected by the Indienelectorate to preside.,orer, tbeif destinies ? Hsve suqcesriveelectlon3. over the past thirty yer.rs brought about any significantchangc iqr the representatjon pattern, or are thc same.class Efpeople bcing thrown up
^
after, evcry election f Wf,at sociaj
:::ir_:::-1::.t!.r come. f*T r1,0 more imporranr, wbat arerne groups they ar€ associated with'and lrhose interests do fheyarliculare ?,.Hale.th.irty yeqrs of modernisation brcgght: aboutany chn$ge iu the socro.ecoxorDjc base gf the new teadcrs.hip?
Y_hT yqluop and ideologie.s does it proplgare anO aUevpdl,.bo: well,,is it eguipped to fulfil tho..- challenging - tasksset befote .it ?r ..
:.. \ ,r
.- ,]l.if Dot tbe intention of this sludy to attempt to arower alllT:"^ L::!:l'l I" ll. foilowing p,g., un uri,,ip,"i, no*.uor,Delng made to trace the socio.economic backgrourfs of the rul_inqlartymembers,in the First, riftfr, Sixtl'aiJ levenb rok11j:1r,* at{ompt to detineate broaAfv ,f,. p",t.Jr- of partia.-l:lluty leadership emerging in India. ff,ls ni, U.eo d"": ;;;lrererencc to the age, occupation, sex, educatiq.n and past legisflative. expqrieqcp of .rhe mesbeis
"l;;;#;;;sabhasirquestion. Our criteria for tho selectiqn of only four.r,i rtre sevraLok Sabhas so far, has locn.1hat .u.f oi ttr".ei preceoed qrfolloweiJ, thodgh not in a very stlict seqs.e, an a brupi'or.,.sudddndisconrinuance,' in the biief f a rlii inelr,,*1, : i;i;,:i ;i .ro.t.
r,
{STRODUCTION
qrew ,incariatioo got back into power.rri
,
{ndia. The First Lok Sabha has been selected because it was
constituted -after
the first general elections in the country ;
the Ffth, br""rrt" it followed a major realignment of political
forces in the:forho of tbe Congress split in" 1969; the Sixth' be'
cairse, for thc frst tiind in the parliamentary hirtory of India' a
{lon-Consfess goverment was yoted to power and securely
lodged atthi Centre; and finally.thg Seventh br,the current
!.oi Sabba.wh*c. the Congress Party of Mrs' Gandhi in ite
i.
e
.ttF
lt)
| .(,i>o
'2I
o
F
oo\
oO.
>.
B
c,.
o\
6(;:cl
q/ c+*
| .:ieIxltI tula'rloEls=|€Hl5EI or-l5o1.9r,t€tr| >.=| -P
I !crt€rt-ls;lY)t)
i:6ragoir-ootrrg3qox
xge{23!F i.-xor- l:SUjj9trg(tt .i'(l .gH :
F l'.{ |tr
It-lr-loll8t9l|r
.ei8!s.!{t4
iFt
t.:.g;o,'EQ.9o
'€!o,.:€s;rog
i:6ragoir-ootr!t<!'6B3qox
n.EN2FFF i.-xor- li!qu59=g!.i
!E
6g
r*r+
a
f5Ao
€c\t*
v
A
\oa4
lr.
't.
Ft\O./r$ |.t rat <ld+H;$
RSgE
pspadid=
O.\F6l(n*=6,.)
{\caF\oait.ilfE{J
c'{hO!i
F€{:t\$Fr\'
cooo\o€r.r$Odl
()
grr.€33d:>,h>,.8r.rO O 6oooS
ct ."1 i|'t r,o'
fr.t * +
ilEil{
I.,\,iE'lE,s
il-q,'l*,l bI^O
Rtltl| $llr, l
l^Fll-lIIIblItlslelr-ltl
lslIq)Ilr-lItilI\IIIIrlI'O I
tsl'el
al.\.oi*i
I
'!.tl
.t.sqj
,]e r
{.el.Olal
lftstl
lu
{1;rrqa
:
s'.:,'
*ao\]
.s.a*riF
\,ra
F.l
s
qroo\
.r*
oaraIv)rloi.l-l.F€)
c/v)EII
xae
^o1!, A?aiiE.E ,t,l!O!a'<€r.oa€
=>r*
l9
q,,
q)
Elo
ahl
9
'tq'F
top
€ra
Zr( aVFIi
c=V)P#. P EF'F.&4.='1|*H .itr\J=\,, .=rd (A
rh iv-<.=
:*tl
iJ,c(|<
q
.)6a
.)tlEF
AcE CO!,f FOSrrroN
An analysis of the age composition of the'tuling elite in the
'four Lok Sabhrs revells that the age-gcoups 36-50 and 5l'60have, by and large, remained dominant and succeeded. in main-daining their share in all the four Lok Sabhas under study.
However, it i$ an important finding that the percentage of the
younger age-group (25-35) has been gradualty displaced by the
older age-group (61 and above) between the First and SeveDtb
l-ok Sabha. The percentage share of membetship of the formerdeoreased from 17.26 per cent in the First to 6.73 per cent il4he Sixth Lok Slbha, and 8.47 per ceot in the Seventb LoESabha.
The oscillating shares of the two groupr arc showo in
Diagram I. The salience of the trends portrayed in this diagrao
can hardly be overlooked by any serious observer oflndian poli-
tics. As regards the older age politicians, it may be partly a bis-.torica'l process especially as the persons entering the First Lok
Sabha were a product of the struggle for independence. Evea eo,
the question which inevitably arises is whether the political
pro."*r., are moving away from the young or whetber the
'young are less involved in these processcs.
Nothing rnuch ctn as yet b: said about the evsr dwindling
fortunes of the youngest (25-35) age group' but thc first evEr
increase in the repersentation of this group in tbc Seveqtb LokSabha over its preiecessor just might be the avant'garde of a-oew age compositiotr patteln in Indian politics.
.Age Composition of thE Ruling Party in tbe First Lot Srbhr
A review of the age compositioa of the Indiar Nrtioaal€cngrets which en:rged as thl ruling p:trty after the gonerat
cleotions of 1952 shows thlt out of a total of 336 perty meqberc
in the Lok Sabha, 58 b:longed to the 25'35 group; 148 to tbe
36-50 group; 105 to th3 5l'60 gro'rp; anl 24 to ths'61 aod
_ above'group (sel Table 2).
Thus, it can b: se:n thrt a mrjrrity of the m:mbers (appro'
.ximrtely 76 prr cent) b:longed to thc two midJle'age groutt,
6- CHANCING POLITTCAL NTIITSTTTATICN tN INDIA"
;-- - - 25-15 YEA|E
-6rY!lRS
At{o AtsoVE
. FrI}sT ^ RFlt{' gXTD SEVt|rTrr
' to( s AEttA
Rtpffs€t{?A?tolv oF ?9-39 YEARS AGE GROUP ArO T.hE.".ir0 l*th rat 6n0up oF r$ tur-irtc pAnry t{ T}tr
tnlr AI0 tHE stytilTit. I or seaxrst.
' Di4ron Nr. t
t.car,E<fzE'c
6t YE.AnS t"
FnsI , flFn+.
AFP coMPoslrloN
Table 2
.9r.No, Age GrouP ^*rt
,",;Io*;#otrs in the First
58
148
l.t,
25 to 35 years
36 to 50 years
5l to 60 years
6'i years and above
Nunber
106
24
Percentuge
17.26
44.0s
31.54
7.15
Tota! r 336 100.00
3G50 end tt{0 rsc troupr, *ith their precentage shares of 44 05
and 31.54 ru*o.cliuoty. Oqt ofa total 336 seats' the younger
izi-lsi ""oit urO"tior and above) groups had between them
;; rn;" theq. ?t mei* or jW 2a per cen!' -!,etween
these two
groups the sharp of thE yourgpr gipup (25'35) was more than
Ioubl. thut of thp older (6 t lsl gbovp) group'
The general impreseion ar rcgardt agc'vf €ooposition of
trr, ,otio'g pu.tv il the Fir;; mf saltta-it thlt tbe. people of
y;;t;;;;". constitutec the bulkof the ruling elitc ia the
country. The older group (61 and abow) was not so well re'
p,"s"ntedinthehouseeitherbecausefewerseniorpeoplewereensased in oolitics at that time or they did not:Sod favotu *ithil;i;;;,ui. io,l*ttu,.u.' reasons' bven the vodnger group
iis-ls) .uooot be safelv counted as a well reeresetrled..gr::l-{:
itt "uirr
it had 58 legislators from amongst its numb-ers'rvhich ls ., ' ,.
i.r.- iU^^ l? per cent of the total grsmbership of the rulruq" .r i':,party in the First Lok Sabha. 1,,'
Age Composltion of the Roling Party in tle Fifth Lok Sabha
In the Mid'Term polls of l9?l also the Indian National
congr"ss: Pa*y cnerged victorious and returned as m8 y &9
E cgANGrNc por.trtcAt. RBpRE:BNraNtoN N INDIA
340 oembers to tbe Lok Sabta. Age Composirion of tho.f,€tnters of th€ ruling party in tha Fifih fot Sapla can b€ seetfro m Trble 3.
Trble 3
Sr.No.
Age Gloap Ruling porty hlembers in thc FifthLok Sabha
Number Perceatcge
I.2.
3.
25 to 35 pcars
36 to 50 years
5l to 60 years
6l yearr and ab ove
27
r58
10t
54
7.94
46.47
29.71
' 15.88
Total
Aa o*lysis of the age group composition of the IndianNatipr*l Cogress pany in rhe Fifrb Lok Sebha, once again6hows ! similar trend as in the First Lok $*bha, More lhan76 per cent of the totsl ruling party mcmbers were from thetwo middle age groups (36-50 and jl-60) with 46.47 and29.71 pr cent as th€ir reipective shsrcs.
The combined share of the youngcr (25-35) and the olderql and above) groups, once again, *as less than 24 per cent of
" 1te toral Congress alembers in the Lok Sabha. Bui this time,'' there ,ryas a marled diference as regards their relative shates.Thc,ruder of the youiiger age gr0up had corne down to one-balf of that of the older group. Interestingly, thc older agegroup ltom a positidn of being one-tbird of the younger groupin tbs Firet Lok SaUha, had becomc cxaclly its aouble in tnlFifth l"o* Sabha. lt is thus significent to note lhal the ex-pansion of tbia age-lroup had been efeeted purety at the cost
3f :h.*ryetr aF-gloup. In coqtro$t, tle niAAlc' "g"
greup,bad sucoeadcd in mlintaining tbcif iharc. Thits, if is clcar thatdutiag r gnn of neatly two dccadas bctwcen the Fir*t GcoercalHllcf,il |&d thc MiC-Tcnn poll of l9?l no considcrable changcliad *cn lacc in th6 Agc composition of tbe ruling elite in the
10u.00
**Acl col,t PsrTIol{
.Lok $abta, cxeept tbat t!€ strcagth oftbc se8ior nad dldcrpoliticians had swelled mainly at the cost of the youngpr ooes.
3ge ComporitloB of the Rutiq Plrty in the Sixth Lok Sabh:.
The Sixth Lok Sabha elections are by far thc most impor-'tant eveot in the hisiory of independent Itidia for they also
marked the cnd of an era of Congress Party's dominaince at'thc'Centre as well as in most of the States. For thc frrst time a non-Congress goveranent was formcd by the Janata Party which
was itself constiiuted by tbe merger of. four parties* -the Con-grcss (0), Jan Sangh, Bhartiya Lok Dal and tbe Socialist Party,just a few weeks before the commeuccment of the Lok Sabha
elections.
The composition of the Sixth Lok Sabha according to ag€
:is shown in Table 4' Tabre : 4
^Sr.No. .,Age GroupRuling PartY Membets in the Sixth
Lok Sabha
'7
J.
25 to 35 Years
36 to 50 ycars
51 to 60 years
6l years and Above
l9
tt792
51
6.75
4r.63
32.75
18.87
Total 281 100.00
Since for rha 6rst time a non-Congress Party came to power
at tbe Centre which was itself formed at a very shoit notice' it-was erpected that the respective shares of the four age'groups
might change consideiably. However, as Table 4 indioates, the
€rrliet trcnd, both in tesplct of tha combiited share of the
* Tht Congress for Democracy (CFD) joined th€ Janata amdlgam
late in February, 197?. Since formal merger of thesc parti€s could not be
efrectod bbfore 1n'fay l, tyn, they contest&l the March 1977 elections on
BLD chctton symbol. : .
"trt
io t cttlwclxc pot ITICAL RBPsE$EtltATIoN IN INDIAtaaiddle age grE.ups (36'50 ad 5l'60);.snd'the.decline in the
percentag€ sha{e of tbe: younger Sreup : contlnqed in the-
Srrth Lok Sabba. Once asain the 36'50 and 5l-60 age groups-
between themr'accounted fir nearly 2,3 pet -ctnt of tbs total
Jbnata Party . members, .while the combihed shsres of thc
!ounger (25-35) and the older (61 and above) $roups corilinue
lo be the same what it was in the First Lok Sabha. As regards
the proportionate shares of these two groops, the sharc of^
the younger group from being exactly 50 per cent of that of thcolJer group in the Fifth Lok Sabha has further slumped to'nearly one-third of tbat of the older group,
It is thus clear that the change bf the party ruling at thc'national level after tlrirty years has not necessarily broughtabout aay change in the age composition of. the rlling elite inthe country. The middle age groups (36-50 and 5l'6C) stilL
dominate the scene with nearly ?5 per cent of the memberpshiPbetween tbem and continue to be the most favoured age'groups'
rhite the younger rnembers (25-35) are still gtadualtry being.
replaced by the older (61 and above) ones.
Age Codpositirn of the rnlin3 Prrty ln the Seventh Lok Sabhrr
' The January 1980 Mid-Term Polls to the Lok Sabha once
again brought the Congress Party as the majority party in the
Lok Sabha in the lorm of Congress (l). From a purely research
point of view it would be interesting to. probe whether theCongrese Party High Command did feel the oeqessity of fielding
a younger set of candidates after its 6rst..ev€r experience of-occupying the back benches in the House duting the Janata
regime. The distribution of the members of tlie ruling party inthe Severlth Lok Sabha by their age-groups is shown in table 5-
Table 5 thus indicates that thc combined sbare of the young*cst (25 to 35 years) and tbQ. oldest (61 years and above) regis*
t:red an increase to becom€ aearly 28 per cent compared lo 2tper cent or less in all thc other Lok Sabhas under examination.A comparative apalysis shgws that from the Fifth to the-SixthLok Sabbs. the share-of thcsc groups incicascd by lbou! 7.5 pcrc€ot ; aod from tbc Sixth to thc Scveath by neatly 10 p€r cFnt.
ACD CoMPOSITION ll
Table 5
Sr.No. Age-Group
Ruling Porty Members in the Sevcnth" 'Lok Sabha
Number Percentagt ' .
I.2."
J.
4.
25 to 35 years
36 to 50 years
5l to 60 years
6l years and Above
29
143
105
67
8.47
41.54
30.56
19.43
Total : 344 100.00
It is interesting to note that in the Seventh Lok Sabha' the
rclalive share of thc youngest group (25 to 35 years) lookedup foJ thc first time since the inceplion of this House, register-
ing an increase of nearly 26 per ccnt over its predecessor. On
the other hand, while the combined share of thc middle age
groups (36 to 50 years, and 5l to 60 years) did decrease margi'nally, that of the oldest group continued the upward ascent aa'
in all the previous Lok Sabhas. The signi6cance of tbis pheno*
menon needs to be undcrlitled in thc scn$e that no matter
what happcns to thc relativc sbares of the other age'groups'.
the oldest group (61 years qn4 above) continues to grow witheach succcssive election to the Lok Sabha.
Fluctuations in tbe relativo sh*res of tbe four age'groups'
are shown in Diagram IL
As shown in Diagram II, the representation of the youtrgas!
age-group had bcel on the downbilt ever sinpe'the First Lok .
Sabha. It is only in the Seventh Lok Sabha that it has slightlymoved upwards. The share of the 36 to 50 ycars gro-up'
dcclined sbosiderably ffpsr the Fifth to the $ixth lok Sebha'and has rernained at about the samc level in thc Sownth. Itmay bs intcresting to note that there was app(oxigratGly an
cqual grin of rcpresantation from the Fifth to the $it(th Lok.
Sabbrbythe 5t-60 y€ar group' as thc loss suffercd by the
36-5Q year group ovcr tbc same period of time. In the
CHANCING POLTTICAL RSPRESBNTATION IN INDIA
?5'$ rt'rn:r-'10 wansit-co velrs
--r-.-'-61 YTARS ANO ABOvt
t---g- -'& -- -o,v!
{,zI,4 ,+-___-.-a
\. p"'-XO
d' 'L-o.--a{I
iffi..tg
A6t C0t{PostTt0N
ftFlH stxTH (AN0
ilRS1 rlrtn stxlll sEvtilTtf
L0x sA&rA
OF IH€' RUIING PARTY
IHE SEVENTH LOK
Dltrrm Nc. II'
IN IHE
SAEHAS
-FtRg.T'
AGg C8trtldlt?l0tl
Sevcnth Lok Sabba honlcwr thc sbfc of this group declioed. to-appflorima*cly th .sarle le$61 s* iu thc Fiftb Lok Sabha.
As rogards the oldeCl (61 ycare aad above) group, tbc diagrem,rpeakr forritsclf.
Reprorcrtrtiot of &e Strtes by Agr-Group in the First, Fifih"Sixth, lnd Seventh Lok Srbha.
As rcgards tho break-up of ruliog party mc'mbers from differ*cnt statcar by agc.gtoup, in tbc four Lok Srbhas urtdcr consi-dcration {ree Appcndiccs I (r), I (rl), I (iii), and I (ir,)l thcstatcs o{rn bo groupod in three distinct categories, viz:
(c) those which fotlow the overall national pattern with.65 to 75 per cont of the seats among the 36-50 and5l-60 age grorps;
(b) thosc rdrich have shown a clear prefercnce for the.'61 and abovc' group; and
13.'
(c) thosc which have 90 per cent or more of tbeir member-ship from the middle age groups (36-50 and 5l-60) atthe cost eithcr of thc younger (25-35) orofthe older'(61 and above) age group.
The states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar" Madhya Pradesh, WestBengal and Haryatra may be said to be falling in tbe first,category. Thc represeatation of vdiious age groups ffom thdstates metrtioned abovo is shown in Tables 6(D, (t;), (ft]), (iy),and (r) below.
Trble 6(i)-Uttrr PtlH
, *, Lok sabhq
7.
,3.
4,"
First
Flfrh
Rirth
lr(r5.5) 2(3E.0) 23{32.4) 1004.1)' 4{ s.7} 29(41.4) 2?(38.6) 10(14.3)r|i,
?( 9.0) 27(34.6) 28(35.e) 16(20.5)
14': CHANCING POLITICAL REPRESEI'ITATTON TN IHPIA
Table 6(ii)-Bibrr
IpkSabha
Sr..No,
l. First
2. Fiflh
12(21.3) 19(43.2)'10(2:.7) . 3('6.E). : ,.,
4(10.2) l8(46.2) e(23.1) 8(20.5)
3. Sixth 3( 6.0) 2l(42.0) 10(32"0) 10(20.0) .i
4.' " $eventh. l( 3.7) i0(37.1) ll(40.?) i;1t4.5; '' i r | . t ' t ''!! i ! ::
.i 'i 'l : I : ,' l; ; Trbls 6(iii)r-=Madha FnGe.sh l.' , r ,
n=rr##f,trffi1. first
2: Fifth
3. . $ixth,^
,
4. Seventh.
8(30,8)
l( 4.5)
6(r 6.2)
7(20.0)
,:. r'r2\46.2)
9(40.e).a
4(10.8),1,.. . ,',8(22.E)
' r (. r.s)
s(22.7)
aie.z).
7(20.0)
s(1e,?)
7(31.e)
2 r (56.8)
t'i]'t)"
Table 6(iv)aYur1 ""*",
Sr. InkNo. SaMa
f,PE COMPOSITION ':i I "
:
Table 6(v)-Haryana -:
l5
'sl.No.
'""'' "'.-'' Age", .":Gy4_Lok Sabha 25-35 36-50 5r-60 6l and above
1. Fifih l(14.3)2. Sixth :--3. Sbventh --3(42.8) 1(14.3)4(44.4) 2(22,.4*"'4(80.0)
2(28.6)3(33.3)l(20.0)
FimtFifth -Sixth.Six[h.' sgybpth
t6
Sr.Alo,
Loktubhd
CHANGING POLITICAL REPRESEiOI*IiiN{ ;f{ itSI,L
T*ue ?(r'-O.qFrrt
25-35
l.'2.
3.
Fifttr
Sitsit
Seventh
2(20 0)
r( 4.0)
2(?o.0)
4i49.2)
l0(40.0)
3{30.O}
s(35,4)
l(4o.0)
{s-0){35"*)41r6.0)
t.
3.
FifthSixth
Seventh
{a3,t) ?dJ3.e) 2(15J) l(?.?)
(53.8) 3(?3.1) 3(23.1)
l(5.2) S(41.2) 9{4?.4) I( J'2)
Note: Figlrer in paronthoree &r percubgcs'
Tbus it can be spen io all tbe three cases of Assam, !1jara!qnd Orisss that thc percestagc share of tbe older group (61 and
&ve) haf beea co*staatly increasingfroa *t *Y Sebha t1
ttB aex*. tra the case sf ,A.ssanr it incropsed frcm 1l'l p€r ceot
in &c First Lok $abha to 23'l per qent iE' thc-Second and to56.6,per cent in the Sirth' ln tho Scwnth Lok Sabha' hosever''
out oi thc two seats for which elections cot*d be hell both went
to the 36-50 year age group. A similar tecd can be seen as"
. regards the representatioo of this group in thc Fifth, Sixth and
thi Sevcnth Lok Sabhas in the casc'of Gujarat and Orissa' Here
aggin, as ia the c.ase of the gfoup bf states discussed carlier'
ili'c niildle a8€ grttups (36'50 and (51-60) htvc tot *rcdany loos.dsc to tlib expanlior-of the oldet tgc group'
In fact, thc siddlc q$e Sroups (3650) aud-(51'60) rcorr
ls'#li#;rn;irudci#; -*uti t"* of tbe su$natiosr'io
l7
Table 8(i)-Himachal Pradesh
Table 8(il)-Delhi
t. First l(33.3) 2(66.6)
2. Fifth 4(66.6) 2(33.3)
3. Sixth 3(42.8) 4(s7.2) -4. Seventh 2(50.0) t(25.0) I(?5.gI
Teble 8(iii)-Rajastban
tbe fortruncs of bott 'the 'youiger' (25"35) as well as the 'older'{61 aOd abQve) age groups. Some of tbe states show cent
_ per aent representation of the former groups as can be seen- from the Tablcs 8(t), (r'i), (rii), and (ir) below.
f,. Lok sabha -l-.sr*#stPof-n *aa;l. First l(11.1) 7(77.7) t(11.1)
2. Fifrh 10(76.9) 3(23.1)
3. Sixth 2( 8.?) ll(47.e) e(3e.1) l{1.3),
*. Lok Sobha Age Grouptto' 25-35 36-50 51-60 6l and abote
l. Fifth 3( 75.0) l(2s.0)
2. Sixth 2( 50.0) 2(s0.0).l3. Seventh 3(100.0)
l8 CHANGING POLTTICAL REPRESTNTATIoN IN TNDIA.
Table 8(lv)-Mahara$trt
Sr.No.
Lok Sabha -A-'s Age Grurp
l.,,.
L
Note : Figures in prrentheses show percentages'
Tables 8 (t, (ti), (itt) and (ir) show age'wise distribution ofthe ruling paiiy iegislators in the First, Fifth Sixth and Sevcnth
Lok Sabhas of such states which have returned 90 per cent or
more of their members from amongst the middle age groups
(SO-jO aoa 5l-60). Legislative representrtion of Himachal
Pradesh and Delhi for instance, is conspicuous by the absence
of both the 25:45 as also the '61 and above' agp groups in the
fittn. Si*tir as well as the Seventh Lok Sabhas' Delhi. however'
returned one representative from ths old:st group in-the
Seventh Lok Sabha '
trn fact. Himachal and Delbi always had their mcmbers frorn
amg{gst the two middle age groups in all thc,four Lok Sabhas
under consideration, cxcept in the First Lok Sabha in the cdse
of Oetni when nearly one-thiid of its mem.bershifi fuas diawn
from the 25-35 age group. Maharashtra likewise had never had
anyof its members from the 25'35 age group except in the
. Seventh Lok Sabha. Rajasthan has also shown a similar tendenqy -
as fat as the representa tion.of various age groups is cortcerned' In
the fust Lok Sabha it had only one member from the 25'35 age
groug and in the Second, none, both from the jounger as well '
is thi older group. In the Sixth Lok Sabha, howevet' it had two
members.from tire former and one from the latter group' *hile
nearly.87 per cent of its membership was drawn from the middle
ug. (:e-S': and 5l-60) groups. In fact, a distinct change seems to
hive' taken.place.in the age r€presentation pattern of Rajasthaq
since the Sixtn mt Sabha. As in thE Sixth so in the Seventb
FifthSixth
Seventh
t4(41.7) 1s(l9.4) ?(38.9)
e62.e) 7(4r.2) l( s.e)
3(8.r) 13(35.1) l5(40.6) 6(t6'2)
AGE COMPOSITION
{-ok Sabha, the stste.r€turned no tess thentotal. mernbers from amongrt the oldest6.25 per cent from thc youngxt lgroup.
25 psr cent of itsgroup, and at least
_ Thc genqral pett€rn of the. brcak-up of the ruling partylegislbtors in the four Lok Sabhas under scrutiny, in teras ofage-grouos, app:ars to b3 that olr an averag:,. threc.fourths
^ of
them are drawn from t[e age groups 36-50 and 5l-60, whilc theremaining one-fourth is shared between the younger (25-35) andthe older (61 and above) age groups in uorying prop )rtiongfrom one Lok Sabha to the other. The stiltes of Him rchalPradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra anC Delhi are molt noticeablein respect of returning more than three-fourths of their mem-bers from amongst the middle-age groups. The states of UttafPradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, on the other hand,account for most of the 25.35 age group m:mbers in the LokSabha with their respective prrcentage shrres varying between15 to 35 per cert.
As regards the representatio n of the older (61 and above)age group, Assam shows a pronounced bias in favour of theolder group in all the Lok Sabhas excepf the Seventh. In theSixth Lok Sabha in parricular, it returned as many as 67 percent of its legislators from amongst this group. Gujarat, like-wrse, on an average, returned more than 30 percent ofitsmembers from the'61 and above'group,
A review of the age structures of the ruling party legislatorsin the Lok Sabha from different states thus does not allow anyspecific conclusions except that nearly three-fourths or more ofthe members are drawn from the middle age groups. ThefbrtuneJ of the younger and the older groups vary from onestate to thq other aud keep fluctuating from one Lok Sabha tothe other. As a general concJusion, it can however be safelystated that with the passage of years the younger (25.35) group,is gradually yielCing place to the olJer (61 and above) group..The
fact that the share of the younger group from a positionof being two-and.a-half times more than that of the older groupin the first Lok Sabha came down to just one-half of that of theIatter in the Fifth and to nearly one-third in the Sixth Lok
l;
20 CHANGING POLITICAL RIPRESENTATION IN IT\D''"
WOMEN IN LOK SABHA
Women in politics are statistical rarities, which can in onepart be explained in terms of the specialisation that assignghousehold chorcs to the ibmale, and in the other because of tbe
'hazard* of politics, Even - so, a smalt number of'women of '€xceptiotral ability do find their way ioto active politics, thoughtheir entfy in this neld is a fairly reoent phenomenon. In India,'evcr since the first General Elections women have taken activeintoiest,in politics aod a good number of them bave succeedcdin finding their way 1o high party omces, legislaturel and -ministerial positions. Table 9 shows the positioa of rvomeomembers elected in all the seven Lok Sabhas so far.
Tablc 9
sr{;. rot, sabha :f!,X{*, *,iti:;d ,;,:";:::,",Members
.
l. First 499 22 4.42, Second 500 27 5.43. Third 503 34 6.74. Fourtb 523 31 5.95. Fifrh 521 22 4.26. Sixth 544 19 3.47. Seventh 524 28 5.3
22 CHANGING POLITICAL REPRESEN'ATTON IN INTiTA
A review of Table 9 shows tbat, on. an average, womcnmembers have succecded in getting only about fivc per cent of'the total number of seats in all the seven Lok Sabhis. As canbe seen from Table 9, numerically as well as proportionatelyminimum women membcrs were returned to the Sixth LokSabha as compared to the previous five, and also its successor.
The representation of women in the ruling party in theSixth Lok Sabha was the lowest. OnIl eight women legislators,of the ruling party were elected to the Sixth Lok Sabha com-parcd to fifteen each in the First and the Fifth, and nineteenin the Seventh Lo&. Sabba. Table l0 gives separatc-g lhe numberof women Members of rhe ruling party as well as bf the other
. parties and their perc€ntage representation in each of the fourLok Sabhas under scrutiny.
Table l0 i, : ..Number of \[smen Members Elected in the tr'irst
Fifth. Sixth and the Seventh Lok Sabhas
First LokSabha
Fifth Lok Sixth Lak Seventh LokSabha Sabha Sabhq.
Num-ber
Percen- Num-tage ber
Percen-Mge
Num- Percen-ber tage
Num- Pereen--ber tage
Males 479 96.00 499 95.7d 525 96.50 498 94.65
Femalesof theRulingParty 15 3.00 15 2.88 8 1.48 19 3.63
Femaleso[OtherthanRutingPatty 5 1.00 7 1.34 ll 2.02 I t.72
Total 499 100.00 521 100.00 544 100.00 r,524 100.00
* Of the total 544 seats, electionson January 3-6, 1980.
took place for 524
.J 1VOM€N IN LOK $ABIiA 23
As would bc seen from Table 10, the representation of the
women Members from the ruling party was the lowest during
thc Janata regime and the highest in the Seventh Lok Sabha'
Therc were merely 1.48 per cent ruling party women legislators
in tbe Sixth Lok Sabha compared to 3'00 p:r cent in the First"
and 2.88 per cent in the Fifth, and 3.63 per cent in the Seventb'
Lok Sabha. Another characteristic feature of the Sixth Lok
Sabha was that for the first time percentage representation of,
women Metnbers of other parties was greater than that of the
ruling partv.. The non-Janata parties returned -2'02
per cent
womlniegisFators crbmpared to 1'4E per cent of the Janata
Party, wbile in the First and the Fifth Lok Sabhas a mere
1.00 per cent and 1.34 per cent non-Congress women legislatore
were elected compared to 3.00 per cent and 2'88 per cetrt
returncd by the Congress PartY.
The Seventh Lok Sabha has by far the highest number ofwomen l:gislators-nearly 53 per cent more than the Sixth
Lok Sabh-a. As regards the increase in the percentage shdre ofwomen Members belonging to the ruling party' their share is
higher by no less than 146 per cent in the S:venth Lok Sabha
ov-er itr- predecessor. It appears that the Congress Parti ismore supportive of the representation of women as compared
to any oiher national politicat party (sec Diagram ItI)'
No speciflc reasons can be assigred for the lcwer representa-
tion of women from non-Congress parties in Lok Sabha except
perhaps that fewer women are involved in the non-Congress
;, parties. It alor appears to be a continuation of the earlier trend
which shows that the Congress Party which even when it was
in Opposition, returned more female members than ttre rulingparty as in the Sixth Lok Sabha'
State-wise Distribution of the Female Members in the First'Fifth, Sixth and the Seventh Lok Sabhas
Our examination of tbe State-wise break'up (see Appendices
II(i), II(rr), It(iif) and ll(irr) of the female members returned tothe four Lok Sabhas under scrutiny, facilitates the placement ofdifferent slates of the Indian Union in five broad categories, viz :
24
- RUUIG P{ftrY
. - - OTHfR T}iAX RI'TDIC PABff ;
r nFlH'glX
I'TIANCtr}IO TIOI.ITICAL RBP*ESBNTATION IN I$IDII.
i'l
wT9
zCT
., aLo
a.
j"!;
FtPRf S$tranoillXg gf,gtrrlTH
J. LOT SABHA
0F t4r0l'lf N lN THF
t0,( SASHAS
Dinglam Ne, Jlt
FTRST, FtF rl{ SlXr$
riiolreN rN LoK sArHA 2t
(a) those which refurn'ed femlle representativcs in all the
foltt Lok Sabhas ; *,(b) those which returned femalc representatives in the
First and. Fifth but not in tbe Sixth Lok Sabha, orboth in the Sixth as well as thc Sevcnth ;
'(c) those which refurned female reploscntatives only ic. tbe Fiftb, $ixth, and Seventh Lok Sabhas ;
.(d) those which returned female representatives only inone Lok Sabha ; and
(e) those which returned female representatives onty in thcSixth Lok Sabha.
Uttar Pradesh is the only state in the country which has
returncd-female rrcmbers'in all the four Lok $abhas undsr 'scrutiny. Uttar Pradesh bas always accounted for the maximum
numbejr of female members returned from d singie state. Of thc
tatal female memblrship in thc First, Fifth' Sixth and ths
Severth Lok Sabhas, the perceritagC sharc of Uttar Pradesh.alone was 20;0, 33.33, 37.50, and 21.05 pdr ceDt respectively
{seeTable ll(i)], Assam, on the other hand, had invariablyrcturned at le-ast one member in each Lok Sabha but failed todo so in the Sevelth [see Table 1l(fi)]'
Teble ll(i)-Uttar Pradcsb
LokSabha
. Total gumber of Number ofW-omen Mem- Women Mem'hers of the bers fromRuling Party Uttar Pradesh
Percent-age
-.9r.
.No.
1. First 15
2. Fifth 15
3. Sixth 8
4. Seventh lg
3 20.00
5 33.33
3 37.5A
4 2t.O5
CHANGINC POLITICAL REPRESENTATION tN. INDI.A,
, Table ll(ii)"--Ass?m
Total number of Number ofWomen lV em- llomen Mem- percentage
Sr. Lok Sabha bers of the bers fromNo. Ruling Party Assam
26
I. First 15 1 6.66
?. Fifth 15 | 6.66
3. Sixth 8 I 12.50
4. Sevcnth 19 0.00
Three states and one Union Territorv, namely Bihar,Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu. and Delhi fall under the sceond.category. They had returned at least one or two members in.each of the carlier Lok Sdbhas but in the Sixth Lok Sabha nota sinqle woman reoresentative was returned. [See Tablcs t2(i),..(it), (i,1), and (ir)1.
Table l2(i)-Bihar
Total Nnmbii Numbir of Perceit-of Women Mem- Women Mem- age
Sr. Lok Sabha bers of the bers fromNo. Ruling Party Bihar
* 1. First t5 2 I3.33i
2. Fifth 15 | 6.66,
3. Sixth I -4. Seventh 19 3 15.78 ;
WOMSN IN.I"0K SABTTA 2T-
:: Table 12(ti)-MadlYa Pradesh
?iotal Number Ntmber'of lVo- Percentage
, af Women wen Members
,5r. Lok Sabha Members of from Madhya
No. the Ruling kadeshPartY
2. Filth 15
I . First 15 I 6.66
2 13.33
3. Sixth 8
4. ,sevcirth 19
Table I 2(ilD-Mrdras/Tamil Nailu
of llomen llomen Membets
Sr. Lok Sabha Members of the from Tamil
No. Ruling PartY Nadu
l. First 15 2 13'33
-4. .Fifth 1.5 I 6,66
3. Sixtb 8 -4, Seventh 19
Toble 12(iv)-Delhi
" Total Number Nurhber of Wo- Peraentage
of Wamen Mem- men Members
Sr. Lok Sabha bers of the ftom Delhi
No. Ruling PartY
1. First 15 I 6.66
2. Fifth 15 2 13'33
3. Sixth 8 -4. Seventh 19
28 CHANGINC POLIIICAL REPRI$ENTATION TN INDIA
Table l3(l)-ps5156
. The tables 12(i) ta l2(t1,) cleady sho* that thcse statessbich had persistently been returniog fcnale mcmbers to ,the .,"carlier Lok Sabhas failcd to, returtr ovea a $ilgle woman memberin the Sixth Lok Sabha, In the case of Tanil Nadu and Delbi,in particular, even in the Seventh Lok Sabha no womeaMember belonging to the ruling party could be elected. Thetrend of decline in the number of womin . members had how.ever started even earlier in the case of some states like punjab, ,Himachal Pradesh and Bombay/Maharashtra till the January1980 Mid-Term Polls. In these states no woman member waselected to the Lok Sabha after thc first General Eleetioas.Maharashtra, however, succeeded in returning at least orrcwoiban Meinber in the Sixth and two in th€ S€v;th Lok -ffita:;" .
Punjab also succeeded in returning two women Members inthe Seventh Lok $abha. 'Himachal
Fradesh, .however. standsout ar an exception in the sense that after the first GgneralPlections not even once a. woman Member gould be electedfrom this sratc. [See Tables l3(D, (ii), and (iti)].
Sr.No.
Total Number ofLok Women MembersSabha of the Ruling
Party
Nunber of Wo. Percentdgeman Members
from Panjah
t. 15
I5,
First
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
6.66
I0.521, l9
.2y
Tsbl+ l{ii) --Hlmlcbal hadcsh
, Total Numbdr of Number of Wo' Percent
,Sr. Lok Wdtnen Members man Membets age
No. Sabha of the Raling from HimachalPdttY Pradash
l.
)
4.
15
15
8
t9
First
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
I 6.66
Tabl€ t3(iii)-Bombry/Mahrrashtra
Total Number of Number of Wo' Percent'
Sr. Lok lVomen Met4be$ men Members age
.iVo. Sabha of t$e Ruling from Bombay
PartY
l.,J,
4.
First
Sixlh
Seventh
Fifrh
l5l58
19
I
2
20.00
12.50
10.s2
In the fourth category fall thosc statcs which bave rcturneda *ooan member:only once until the Seventh Lok Sabha.
Karnataka, for instance, had women representation only in the"
Fifth Lok Sabha viitb iis percentage share being 6.66 per cent"
As against tbis, Andhra Pradesh returned 13,33 per cent of the
women Membersin the Fifth.Lok Sabha, and was responsiblc'
for returning no less than 15.78 per cent of the total rulingparty wom€n legislators in thc Seventb Lok Sabba. [See Tabled
14(t), and la(tr).
30 CHANGING POLITICAL RBPRESENTATION IN INDIA
Tabto lr(l)-Aadln lhdest
,Sr.
No. Lok SabhaTotal Number of Number of Wo- percen-Women.Mem- men Mcnbcrs tagebers of the from AndhraRukng Party Pradesh
2
5
l5
l5
8
t9
l.2.
J.
4.
First
Fifrh
- Sixth
Seventh
13.33
15.78
Tabte l4 (ii)-Mysore/Krrnaleka
,Sr.
No.Total Number
Lok Sabha of lltomen Mem-. bers of the
Ruling Party
Number. of Wo- percen-men Members tagefrom MysorelKarnataka
l.
2.
4.
I
t5
l5
8
,. 19
First
Fifth 6.66
Sixth
Sevcnth
Finally, we bave those .three stltes which had no femalerepresentation both in the First and the Fifth as also theSeventh Lok Satrha, but returned at least one member each tothe Sixth Lok Sabha. The states of Haryana, Gujarai and WestBengal, each of whom individually accounted f"r fi.SO per cent .
of the total female m:mbership of the ruling pariy iq thcqir.th.Lok Sabha, fall in rhis caiegrry. [See rahes'lS (r), (,i),and (tit)l.
1VO},IEN IN'LOK SABIIA 3t
Tablc l5(t) -Haryana
Sr.No, Lok Sabha
Total Number Number of Wo- Percen-of l4lomen men Mernberg tateMembers of the from HaryanaRuling PartY
t.n
FifthSixth
Seventb
15
8
19
t 12.50
Table 15(ii)- Gujarat
Sr. Lok Total Numbet o-f
No, Sabha Wotmen Membersof the .RtlingPortY
Number of Wo- Percen'men Members tage
from Guiarat
l. First2. Fifth3" Sixth
4. Seventh
l5l5
8
l9
1 12.50
Tabh f S(iii)-West Bengal
Sr.No, Lok Sabha
Total Number Number of Wo' Percen'
of Women men Members tdge
lv[embers of the from West
Ruling Party Bengal
I . First2. Fifrh3. Sixth
4. Scventh
l515
8
l9I 12.50
An examination of the female representation in the rulingparty in the Lok Sabha thus does not indicate any positive
trend. Contrary to all expectations, despite thirty years of
:??
modemisation, universal adult franchise, thc rigbt to equalityof sexes, and spread of education among the female population
'.of tbc country, fenoale representation among the ruling elite ofthe courtry, is on a continuous dcciine. Co*pared both to theFirst and the Fifth Lok Sabhas, tbe number of female membersin the Sixth Lok Sabha came down by aliriost 50 per cent. Anunprecedented_ increase in the representation.of this group.by.more than 145 per cent in the Seventh Lok Sabha ovei
'iis"
predecessor is a welcome sign.
The behaviour pattern of different states of the Indiaa.Union, as regards returning female mcmbers to the IndianParliament does not, howevsr, permit even broad generalisation.Most of the states have, by'and large, retuined female membergto the Lok Sabha, at one tim€ or tha other. But, of all of them,Uttar Pradesh and Assam are the only two ststes in the coun-try which have had thcir female reprcsintativer among thc rulingclite of India in all the four Lok Sabhas undcr study.
CHAPTER IV
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
Thc Constitution of India does not lay down any educational
qtralifications for contesting a seat to eitber llousp of the ludian
Parliamcnt. But it has to be conceded that the educetional
accomplishments, \ryithout being equated with political perspica'
city, have a great bcaring on lhe manner in which a person coa*
dutts himsclf in a public office. Even allowing for the rigid Partv
discipline, which to a great cxtent wrcst$ the initiatiraE from
individuat members and precludes thc possibility of a truly
frca expression of one's opionion thc n€cessity- of a certain'
minimum level of educational training for the legislators cannot
be uaderstimated. More importantly, educatiqn profoundly
affects the behaviour pattern of a person as well as-the under-
standing and knowledge he brings to beat upon public affairs'
Educational tevels of the members of the Lok Sabha in the
Indian Parliarnent, despite absence of a constitutional pre'scrip'
tion in this regard, have remained reasonatly high throughthe ]€ats. The co:lparative figures of educational standards
, :.of the Medrbers of the ruling party in the First, Fifth, Sixthand the Seventh Lok Sabhas are shown iq Table 16.
, In all the four Lok Sabhas utrder study, at least 60 per cetrt
membcrs of the ruling party had done graduation and above
rA
o
3(lbo
'E]
I
vc.r
r-a{
CHANGING POLITTCAL REPRBSENIATION tN INDIA
qlrav)tvl-V
x 38F3 H 3..r + .d e.i ..i A 6ia.t c{
S3floo.+He
Xctxnrq;c.":fYconrrd\o co :? oi ,-i _; -jco
Vqo9\es..r\o-:(".lToai..i6le.r!?ecnr-;ad
ao c\
eEgh
c:>,oe Eg :6'- 'tl <t :.t -.oi s ;g 53!:.1 I 3.E eErl() {
= :5!<6 ?, : !.r 1'A >,b:>! E E .,'v.=O *!.: (| rrt k l!|^ ?-
3*sEx#s;€-:c.i.d+d\oF
la)l()tq)
st bs14-al-t S
h,*llRt:t:rl{
\ .l
iErAd s
leI
t:rlt'<ll
FFI:\'4iE
lE.ll*IF
-Ia t.{ ol{,E EIT\ ald
IEI
I
o
d::.et
-\ >,(r.l \
34
tri€-rH.taL/-
€.Ect6
E€lLrol 9
\e.lFt 3 >ro C4F=raF s€
E q.)
ttt 4q):
gE2eEfiE:
.: E: lll
E€kx.2o
35{VOMEN.IN LOK SABT{4
gEisg$Es'v 'i c'E'c E E
": >r J4 c cB€sd.;3'.E.-E g;fr"q g sSs,ig..:lei+n'+'E E. - F
:- "s E? a#i"uEr..A;;-Eqr jj .d - r-.1 o
o.rEqEE9.-*sn'e€;€;E*E::Ee 'YS* $3s =€;>,.: cs E ,.E . :3:fscQE.^-r'-E<1;5 E q''"'€ 5.! =oJ Fk '- 3; t-'' r-r g 3Ebi*E;eEE'I:F3$€d
4=':-aJ.-P i:5!ti< zr"Jcd.qq<O'tJ 3 ..C Ct rn .d .-'=
4 95.3*c*orFE s?: ier; F 6E B: E E: E.g': EE *F i:J*;'.*€E E 5 i ji;;:o:!!h{ E9< k ! i- .o 5 zr: 'i'.:;i65 Ft.aoo o.5 cd qc * t"'.9o.E ' F E s Es.g !E
c Ef ;E€rF!?@t
36 crrANcrNc pouflcAI, REp*i{t}rrrtrca tlrffglA(Table 16). Of the remaining zl0 pcr ccot, betwcen lO to 20 pcrcont had attcndcd College or University withsut obtatnin! adegrce, and nearly l0 p€r cent bad'itone. othcr rpecialircdcourses. The percentage of under-Matriculitc ligislators haselso remained relatively low considcring thc geDer*l lcrel ofcducation in tbe country at large.
rrVhat is striking is tbat contrary to all cxpectations gen3fatedin sequel to thirty years of all round progress in, thr. coustry,tbcre has not been a corresponding iucrease ia tbqeducational levcls of the Indian legisletors. If anything, therehas only been a slight decline in the eduqatiocal standbrds of'thc ruling party members especially in the Sirth Lok Sabha.For instance, the percentage of Graduatcs fell dosrn from 39.42.pcr cent in the Fifth Lok Sabha to 34.02 psr cent in the SixthLok Sabha; that of Postgraduates from 26.04 por cent in thc,Fifth Lok Sabba to 25.00 per cent in thc Sixth Lok Sabha; andthat of Doctorates from 2.85 pcr cent to 2.77 per cetrt. Fromtbc Sixth to Sevcoth Lok Sabha, thcugh the p€rcentag€ share of*the Graduates increased from 34.02 to 41.2j (an all time re-cord in tbe Lok Sabha), that of Graduatcs fell from 25 per cenlto 21,30 per cetrt, and that of Doctorates from 2,7g per cent.to 1.45 per cent. The percentage of under-Matriculates in*creased from 6.34 in rhe Fifrh to 13.54 in the Sixth Lok Ssbha,and to 18.89 in the Seventh Lok Sabha. This is indced intri-gurng !
It may be of interest to note that of the four Lok Sabhasunder examination, educational level of thc ruling party legis-lators was the lowest in the Sixth Lok Sabha. Such a phcno-m€non may in part be ascribed to thc cxtraordinary circum-rtances at the time of the formation of Janata Party and alsoduring tbe Sixth Lok Sabha elections.
As can be seen from curve in Diagram IV, the nurnber ofunder-Matriculates increased by more than 110 per cent in theSixth Lok Sabha, and by nearly 40 per cent in the Seventh LokSabha as compared to their respective predecessors, with theresult the percentage shares ol graduate, post-graduatc,doctorate, college educated, and university educatcd legisfatorr
a9PCAlIoNAf r"BvEL
t# i; 'tlF[lnrlFE.ftnA0Utl€5
...- '. FO5T6RAOUATE5
IX'CIORATIS
UNIYiRSIIY €OUIATIONJ*-r- PlngP5
cottE 6t
t
,\'
5,t
I€F-
RSt0J
-1>',
I SXIft'r0 x 5A8lrA --
I Cstrlrtoxlr ttvtls u{ ii.{ FrRSr FfTH sJxlx Ato lflE1 ;tol SAblt AS
Diagrasl No. lY
, S cHANcrtic poI,trlcAt. REpnEsENTAiIoN rN rNDla
felt by ll per cent,4 per cent, ll per centand 7g per centr€spectively in rhe Sixrh Lok Sabha. Similarly, from the Sixthlo the Seventh Lok Sabha the percentage representation of theruling party Post Graduates and Doctorates fell by l5 per cengand nearly 92 per cent respectively There was, however, anincrease of slightly more than 9 per cent in the.share of legis-lators holding professional and other miscellaneous qualifica-lions in the Sixth Lok Sibha, but once again it took a down"hill plunge by nearly 38.0 per cent in the Seventh Lok Sabha.
We shall dwell upon the factors responsible for these pheno-mena in the subsequent pages, but the point utorth noticing:at this stage is rhat the cducational level of the Indian parlid.mcnt took a steep plunge in the Sixth Lok Sabha, and thsSevcnth Lok Sabha saw lhe highcst percentage of under.matri-
culates.
Strte-nisc Brtal-up of the Ruling party Legislaiors in theFirst, Fifth, Sixth end lhe Serenth Lok Sabhas by ThcirEducational Standards
In a country of ncar continental dimensions such as Indiarhere by virtue of diversity of cultures, languages, and historicalcircumstances, the different units have utt"in"d varying:degrces of_ development, it is natural to expect by and large a,corresponding variance in the educational levels of their res*pective leadersbip. An analysis of the data relating to the edu-cational lev,els of thc ruling party legislators returnJd from vari.ous stat€s to the four Lok Sabhas under examination, does notT::.""r_ l:r9 itsetf to any righr ctassjficarion. [See Appendicesilt(t), III(,,), Ill(iri), ard III(ir)1. Even so, an artempt has beenmade to analyse the fiuctuating trends in the educational levehof tbe members of lhe rulir:g party by grouping the various.states in the following broad categories:_
(a) States lrhich tave consistenlly returred :0 Fer ccnt ormore of itt representatiles from amongst graduatcs;
(D) States wbicb have been relu,nirg at leasr 25 per c€!tof tbeir representatives witb post-graduate and higherqualifications;
FDUCATTOI'L\L LEVEL 39
(c) States which have 25 per cent or morc of their repre'
sentatives to the four Lok Sabhas from amongst such
* persons uho havc attended -a colJege o!.-unive'rsity
without obitaining anY degree; and
(d) Such states uhich have invariably returned a !a199
perceniage of their legislators from amongst unoer-
Matriculate/Matriculate/Higher Secondary category'
and from amongst professionals and holtliis of various
diplomas/cert ifiCatei in humanities and other miscella-
nJous subjects (as listed in the footnole of Table 16)'
The slates of Assam, Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh
have all invariably returned 30 per cent or more of their rcpre'
seiitativestothefourLokSabhaswithgraduatequalifications.Of the total I 19 graduaies belonging to the ruling party io the
frfin Lot< Sabhaithese four states together accounted for more
irt"" ri fer cent of thcm with their respcctive shares as 4'13 Per
cent,4.li per cent, 3.30 per cent and 5'?i3 per cent respectively
ISee ApPendix III (iD].
. Similarly, of the total 98 graduates of the ruling partyjn
the Sixth Lok Sabha, 24, i.e.' nearly 25 p-'r cent were from
these states with lheir percentage sbare being 1'02 per cent'
6.12 per cent, 4.08 per cint, 13'26 per cent respecdvely' In the
...Eeventh Lok Sabha also,of the total 142 graduates in tbe
House, the combined share of these four states was lmorc"than 21 p:r cent' Representation o[ the graduate legislators. of
'the rulingparty in the four Lok Sabhas under- examinatiol
is being shcwn separately for each of the four states in
Tables l7 (,), (tt), (ttt). and (ir)'
Sr. Lok'No. Sabha
Table 17(i)-AssamEducational l.eYel
Gradu- Post Docto-ates Gradu' rates
ates
U nderMstric IMatriclIligher
1.a
4.
rrstFifthSixth
5(38.4r(33.31(50.0
38.4
Univer'sity Edu-caIiOn
2(r 5.s) 1( 7.7)l(33.3)
50.0
40 cHANcrNc pot,trrcAL REpRBsENTATToN IN rNDrA
Tablo 17({i)*Gujarat
Sr. Lok Educotional Level--.-----.----...
No. Sabha Under- Gradu- post Docto- Collegel OthersMatfiil ates Grailu- rates (InivJ-Matric 1 atcs sity Edu-Higher- cationSecon-dary
1. First -:
2. Fifrh 5(s0.00) l(10.00) l(10.00) 2(20.00) l(10.0)
3, Sixth 3(2t. 4\ 6(42. s, 2(t4. 3) 3(21.4)
4. Seventh s(32.00) 14(56.00) 2( s.00) l(4.m)
Table l?(ill)-H*yena
Sr.':Lok Educational Level
No. Ssbhq Under- Gradu- Past Doctot- Callcge I Othets. .Matricl ares Gradutes ates University
Matricl Education'I{igherSecondary
l. First
2. Fifrh 4( 57.1) 2(28.6) l(14.3)
3. Sixth 4( 44.4) 5(s5.6)
i*. $eventh 5(100.0)
,Eo6ntrONAL; LTVEL '{t
Tabb 1?(iv)-MadhYa Pradesh
SL Lok Educational Level
No. Sabha UnderMatrlclMatriclHigh€.r
Secgn-
dary
Gruduates Posl Eoctor'Gradu'atesates
College I AthersUniversitlEdacation
2f Fifth
3. Sixth
l. First
4. Svcnth
4(20.0) 8(40.0) 2(10.0) l(5.0) 3(15.0) 2(10'0)
3(16.7) ?(39.0) 2(ll.l) l(s.5) l( 5's) 4(22'2'
8(2r.6) 13(35.1) e(24.4) tQ'I\ 3( 8.1) 3(8'l)
8(22.8) 1q28.6) ?(20.1) 1(2'8) e(2s.7)
Xote: Figures in parentheses show percentagc rcpresent'-
rion of the given cducational level from the concere
ed statc.
It can be seen from the tablcs abovc that these arc also thc
:itritec tf,hich havo i,.eturned minimum number of legirlatorn
belonging to thc undc r-Metric category. Thc only exception to
tkis,p-"t6tn is thg state of Madhya Pfedcsb which has invarF
ably returned nearly 20 per cent of its legislators from this
€at€gory. No othcr commonality in the reprcsentatioo patterf,
of various cducational levels in these four states can be dis'
celncd except thlt along with 30 per ceut or more graduate
bgislatore, ihat" *t"t"t also return at least l0 per ceot of their
represeritatives *ifh ?ost'Graduate qualifications'
In thc second category' viz., those Statcs/Union Territories
which have feturned to the four Lok . Sabhhs under cxemi-
aation, no less than 25 per ccnt of their legislators with Post-
€.raduate or highcr qualifications, we have Assam' Bibar'
Itar*ana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi' The
bre4*'up oJ the ruling lparty legislators by 'tbeir .educationallcvJs ilthc four Lok-Sa-bhat it b.ing shown in Tables 18(i)' (ii)(iir), ard (r'r,) separately for each stote'
rttt
trtl
t' ,.,ttr I
A:;,-- a.)K*I r vi,
aqa,ta$' Ex.v.
q"l| | h.aI I e{ .n-
,&'+,..6 5 F
itiiaS
CHANGING POLTTTCAL RBPnESENTATIO!-{: M. I{*DIA.
',|
oo
(u
t'r
\O-aO$-i 6i 'd r-t?^t q AO C'l
\O c'l oO t/-l
-jd.aod;iX FX
q "'?
\';, XY
\C 'an \o O\,.i -; d ,.;
=Y;(F
9cr9a9Sre9{3v qc c\.t o\
\O a.t t-- -
ra) v-l O aa
.--c4F'g,=; I,\ tL o r/)
tI
- c'l .n r+
:12
I.i'- . | ..
,
sl
.:' s:a .:
'-- v.\ .sr-) r)i
3{\cl
*r,'i
.s
r-ri's'--F9r-Y<d
t.F
t:l{I\
",e
d"5e io{
FE
.{AE
qt.EE
Ia€{)ia6tf
41
.r; \d' I .ri(\-r(tt
ro a?r\o$ I
'O c.l \O O,r; o oo v;
':
{
b , -93 I HRvv
C..t r(r i=.-
llll
c)
o90
(,.)
;l.Q
J. oi r.l sf
.::
€..{\l)
i.-,
l t- '-<
l<lsf h.l it{:9Ir q
^':l->dIII
3l
I
€lt)
.
'.:
.1 \vl Fra) \O i.) ,r;
YY;<V.:
-.\+l6i
.:f-
c.l
ii'Gr 6'6'c,iO*.aXF.5:<
..i er .ria.r V) t-
.AAAf;X;c;sea ..r ai_ i{.EXF=t,
^^-G',d tc; o..=cv;5x
t4'rl,6l
;JII
-14 CHANCING POLITICAL RSPRESENTATION TN INDA'
It mty be of interest to notc frorF Tables l8(i) and,(rrr) rhatthe States. of Bihar and Uttar pradejh, otr arr average, ,eturnmore then 30 pcr cent of their legislatms havilg iost-CraCurntsand bigher qualifications. Being the largest- Stat€s in thecountry, together the two of thcm accounted for 46.26 oer'cent, 4A.23 per cent, 51.3g and 32 pcr ccnt of the total oo.L,of Post-Graduates in thc First, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh tok:Sabhas respectively. Similrrly, thcsc two crates account€d for60 per gent, 50.per cent and 40 per cent of the totAl humberof doctorates in the First,, Sixth and the Seventh Lok Sabhasrcspecti\rcIy. [See Appendix III(t), (t,), (fi). and (iu)]. Howevcr,no
.candidate bclonging to thc ruling party with doctofate'qualifications was returned from eithcr of tb.r. two,tates tothc Fifth Lok Sabha. As regards Assam; Haryaoa, Himacbal,Pradesh, and Delhi, at least 25 per cent of the total number.of legislators of the ruling party from these states have in-variably been holding post-graduat€ of highef qualifications.
A rather large numbcr of Lok Sabha Members of the rulingparty in all the four Lok Sabhas uader cxrmination, claim. tohave attcnded a Collegc or a Uniwrsity but with'no proof'to support this. In almost alt of thosc cases, the most commonlymsigned reason for having left the CollGge/univorsity withoutobtaining a dcgrce is given as, joining a political movemcnt orimprisonment as a consequence theriof.
__ With tbc exception of just two states, viz., Haryana andHimachal Pradesh, a large aumber of legislators of the rulingparty from all the states in all thc four Lok Sabhas undcr stuily,claim to have left their studies due to one reason or the oflrcr,Maximum number of such cases arc to be found from Orisra,W.est Bengal aod Assarn, followed by Uttar pradesh andBihar. The perccntage reprcsentation of such legislators fromi:ach of thcrc states in the First, Fifth, Sixth and the Seventh
lgt.salt-r1 \ing 30.8 per ccnt in thc Fifth. CO p".."ni;o ii"Sirth and 15.78 per cent in the Seventh Lof Sabh; in the case oflOrissa; 38.1 per cent in the Fiist,23.l per ccnt in the Fifth. 3J.3per,c€nt in thc Sixth, end 20 pcr ccnt in the Scventh Lok Sabtrain thc case of'Wcst Bengal ; li.2.pcr, ccfit i! the First aud 15.5
4',i
b&
t.}
r@
o
r3
o
bI!
I
t"t(Dt6lE
l^-.I'EE r
| | F-
a,a z-. Ae.l-O\YgRXE-\ivv-6(r.rtq-
rlorilll\-/l
6:qq?999
6'- 6'qpgg9
"1 rllcr\ |
c.l
;i :; !?i: r.- x :ighoa
s.s.rli
:€:J
.:y >.Eh':t'iFS*
"s
IF
IlltiII
II
t..-,la
l=.t:-: r
Il!al$tr-lo
I
rlit{l
I.Lt^-t\I
:tttrl€::tr-ilsDI
I
t()tr-
l:ts
lDI
il
.:
€&t
(!'<',aql
v1
{
ci*
ata!o)
(u
vI
c
.)
-G
rtdtaa
llll
J ei. t'i +
.6qQ',H9s'v6;;
a.q Qtd9R' v-;6 q'a
,.i\oall=..t<l,VY;
cqqIF'og
r.,vY
E#€Eiiilad;
?DUEATTONA! L!VfL
*<
€
f.'l
-o,:>
6aat
YI
c}\
a.)a€t.
46 CHANOING POLITICAL RBPRESBNTATION IN'1ITDIA
per cent in thc Fifth Lok Sabha, in the case of Assam; 15,3 perccnt in the First, 16.?-per cent ia the Fi_fth, ls.j per cent in tbelSixth, and, 15.7 pcr cent io the Seventh Lok Sabba, in thecase of Uttar Pradesh ; and ll.6 per cent in the First, 15.2 perrent in the Fifih, 13.7 per cent in the Sixth and lB.5 per certin thE Seventh Lok Sabha in the case of Bihar. The break-up ofthe ruiing party legislators falliog in this category frorn the.states of Orissa and West Bengal can be seen from Tabtest9(t) and (tr). (Fqr Assam, Bihar and Uttar pradesh, see Tablec1(t), 18(,) and l9(i/i) respecrively).
The three states, viz, Orissa, West Bengal, and Asiamconstituting the Eastern Region of the country hav; amongthemselves highest p:rcentage of such Lok Sabha members whofleft their College/University studies unfinished due to one reasonor the other and joined politics. In the abtence ofadequate oate,tltough.no conclusions can.be. drawn as to the greater degrecof politicisation/active participation in politics of the student.corumunity at the College/University stage, it has dennitely'pointed.to an area which needs an inelepth examination. Athorough investigation ofthe question as to why the incidenceof College/University dropours entering into active politics isextremely high in Eastern India as compared to the rest of thri:l€o_untry, may unearth important information about the pattcrnof students' involvement in politics in various parts of thecountry. A graphical representation of College/University.drop outs of the ruiing pirrty from the Eastern india statesand from the rest of the country in ihe First, Fifth, Sixth andthe Seventh Lok Sabhas is shown in Diagram V.
It is interesting to note from Diagram V that the represen-tation of the College/University drop-outs from the EasrernStates slumped considerably in the Seventh Lok Sabha.
ln addition to the College/University drop_out category,quite a large numb-.r of legislatore in all the fr_rur Lok Sabhasunder scrutiny have been found. to be under-MatriculatrslMltriculates or with professional and other. miscellaneousqualificdrions ofthc older Indian systvn of erjucation. Together
.-.41.siffJct rroNAL rtVrL
I
.
SASI
RTST
INilA AtrN$T
OF INOTA A'EFA6E
pER(tNT RtPRqseNTATtoN 0F croLLE'GE !*]YE-l:tT,:- DRoP-ours rB
THE TtRST. FIFTH, SIXTh 'ANO
TH6 SEVENTh tOK SASHAS
NoTt I €49i. lndta repreEents the stotes of Assqm ' orissa cnd
\.le si Bengol.
tl- AvefoqQs vorke<j oul fron tobles xvl ' xvtt ond Xvlll obtt* -
Diagraqr No. Y
!?4Fz,
s
'FlRsi ''
\CHAI\GING PoLITICAL REPRBiINTATTON rU Il{pIA
a\ ,-\
=F..rl
ae.cNdAExi6,xn<
?qcq-;.{
=g**? ?c-:lFo,5Y V;6,
-lFrt'Ytl
9€'aaVE;Fi:(f c.l - ttYiiXr
c-'rqqca{ cl F rale{tr+.1;(6Y+,
r--o'oFgr?y;:. ;: aJlfr l{ A al,
'-: ri Fi +
lEst{i sssI lia
la)l"tloI
lEslS'S rl< +st!.: :
TlFssctlu <.4-ll;'E S
ts$$lEsEI
lq)
rlr*it;'st.ist\El !
I:li "F
l*oI
I$t*'rsfi
*t"!*-:d
rj*
.$
G'
.:i
I
GII
6F
49
()60F
oq)
Fo
q)
cn,
0.)
ho,
l)
z.
^^^l\o{ol1,.;oiFl| :r_ c{ c.t Ii{n<El-l
. AQQt6RxX+.X
- a' ,-.t;=Xii c..' x
| 6i ..i odr-(\l*sstC-
^^^I c.i o. odl\clN=i_
O r.) oo
,Rq\lg9s,
rtdlllvl
tu
'(A
$
EE;I' IL, Q'
-i .i ..i
ol
i\=.!s-d
SsF<\d
'ad!FSN
t
;BIs.9H*- b *\s s*{€ I -
.oFr
B.a^og\tt
!
6*\i
"s
's-ovt
!
i.dr4e
TDUCATIONAL LEVEL
eI
.\l()
F
50 CHANGING POLITICAL REPRESENTATTOI.I IN, I}IDII,
these two categories of the Lok Sabha Members account forapproximately lO per cent to 20 pcr cent of ihe total numberof legislators. Sueh Members are rcturned from almost allstates but Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar andMadhya pradcsh seem to be ahead of all thc rcst as lar asthe First, Fiftb, Sixth and the Seventh Lok Sabhas are concern-ed. Represcntation of these categories of legislators fromRajastban a,nd Maharashtra is shown in Tables 20 (i) and (ii)below. (For Mddhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, see
Tables 17 (iv), 18 (l) and l8 (iii) respectively).
We had clarified at the outsct that though scholastic attain-ments cannot necessarily be eguated with political maturityand competence, I certain minimum level' of educational quali-fication is nevertheless essential for Lok Sabha Membe rs so as
to grasp the complexities of parliamentary business. It is admi-ttedly a difficult proposition to define this 'minimum level of€ducational qualification' and lay down the lowest desirable levelof education for the Membcrs of the Lok Sabba. Oo a purelysimple coirsiiJeration, if rve assume the first degree examination,i.e., graduolion as the minimum educational levil requiredof the Membeis of the Lower Llbuse of Indian Patliament so
as to give them a supposedly better understanding of theparliameritafy business, then we find that nearly 30 to 40 percent of tlib Mimbers of the Lok Sabha do not ful6l this condi-tion. Tbe followihg tablb shows separately the numbers andpercentago representation of the Graduate and higher degreequalificatibrls on the one hand and those with lower qualifica-tions on'thd other, in all thc four Lok Sabhas under cxamina-tion.
Table'2l' thus shows that over the lait 30 years since thefirst Geoeral Elections in the country, the increase in thceducationdl level of the Lok Sabha has bcen only marginal.On the contrary, it actq_ally feE down by nearly 5.5 per centfrom the f ifth to the Sixth Lok Sabha and,did lrot close thegap cven,in ihc"Seventh. As compared to the First Lok Sabba
the cducational level of the ruling party Members in the Sixth
Lok Sabha was highcr by'less than 2 pei.ccnti Even in the
ADUCATIONAL LEVEI. 5t
Table 21
Graduate and Non-Grailuate Members itr the nist. Fifth,Sixth ar*l the Seventh Lok Sabhas
Sr, LokNo. Sabha
Total Numberof rulingpartyMembers
Member with Non-Graduate and Gradu-Higher Quali ate
fications* Mem-bers*t
I
J,
4.
First
Fifth
Sixh
Seventh
327
Jlf
288
344
r 96(59.9)
212(67.3)
178(61.8)
222(64.5)
13r(40.1)
103(32.7,
r l0(38.2)
r22t3s.5,
Note : Figures in parentheses show percentages,
" Includes Graduates, Post-Graduates and Doctor-ates.
** Includesunder-Matriculates, Matriculates, Collegeand University educated, professionals, and allothers holding various diplomas, certificates anddegrees etc. in languages and humanities etc.
Seventh Lok Sabha which bas the second best representatiooof the Graduate category, the increase over the First Lok Sabhawas less than 4.5 per cent.
From this discussion ol the education l:velsof the rulingparty members in the Lok Sabha, we can tentatively conclude{hat there bas been no appreciable increase in the cducationallevels ofthe national legislators in India. Even the partern of?break-up of the ruling party legislators by various educationalJcvel categories has to a great extent remained unchanged which,is approximatcly 35 per cent Graduates; 25 pcr ceot post-Gra-duates; 3 per ccnt Doctorates; l0 to 15 per cent College/Unr-wcrisity cducatcd; atrd nearly 20 per cent under.Matriculatec
52 CHANGINC PoLITICAL REPRESENTATION tN INDIAI
and with miscellaneous othcr qualifications. Considering tlevarious facts however, the relative stability of university level
of €ducation must be considered no small achievement.
As regards the individual states, no grave differences have-
been found in the patterns of representation from one state to
the other. By and large, all the states bave been found with
a pattern of representation of national leadership by their
educational qualifications, similar to the one obtainable at
the national level. However, the three Eastern States of Assam,
brissa and West Bengal havc been found to be returning a
relatively too large a proportiol of their Lok Sabha Members
from amongst such persons who leave their College/University
studies unfinished and join active politics. An answer to thisphenomenon is beyond tbe scope of this study, but a thorough
investigation of the problem so as to find suitable explanations'
asto wby such a practice is confined largely to the Eastera
States may reveal important information.
CHAPTER V
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS
Occupational status of the legislators, while one of the'most important consituents in determing the socio-economic.character of a legislative assembly, is at the same time asource of special diffculty, especially in the Indian circumstanc*.In India, it is not uncommon for a person to be engaged insarious occqpations at different strges of his life, or to be-engaged in several of them even at the same time. A LokSabha Member may be a lawyer, a journalist, and a socialworker, while at the same time.claiming to . be a land-owner
,aud a holder of several busincss interests.
In the absen:e of accurate, complete and reliable data, alldiscussion about the occupational background of the rulingrparty legislators is reduced at best to intelligant guess work.However, considering the fact that the economic and political
.development of a country rarely fails to reflect itself in the occu-
.pational composition of its ruling elite,* we have neverthelese"{oade an attempt to ass-ss the emerging pattern of occuptional
*For a detailed discussicn of the changing occcupational comp-lexion of the Inclian legislators ever since the advent of parlia-mentary elections in India, see W.H. Morris-JonEs, ParliamEntin India, Westport, Connecticut, Grejnwood Press, 1976pp. 114-128.
CIIANCING POLITICAL REPRESETITATToN IN INDIA
character of thc ruling clite in India on the basis of tbe infor-mation furnished by the Members to the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
The data on tbe occupational composition of the rulingparty in thc Indian Parliament does not lend itself to any srricr.classification, due largcly to the variety and multiplicity of vo-cations said to be followed by the politcal rlire in India. In thefollowing pagcs, howcvcr, an attempt is being made to analyse.the social and occupationgl .base of the Indian legisltors bygrouping them under ten broad categories as shown inTable 22.
It is clear from Table 27 that on an average, 50 to 60 perccnt of the ruling party legislators in the Lok Sabha arcLawyers and Agriculturists. If ryc add to this those legislatorsclaiming to be "social and pclitical workers", then together thethree groups account for ncarly 80 per cent of the total rulingparty lcgislators in each of the Lok Sabhas under study. Thetr0ost irqportqnt developmcnt is that the pgrcentage of Lawyermembers has been decrcasing while that of Agriculturirts isgradually incrcasing, a phenomenon which we will commeut
.upon in detail lircr.
There wasa sudden increasc of more than 13 per cent inthc members'of Soiial and Political Vy'oikers in the Sixth LokSabha as comparcd to the Fifth Lok Sabha. It rray bc ofiaterest to note that as far as this category is concerned,carlier trend bad been towards a decline in their numbers dg
ehown in Table 22.In thc Seventb Lok Sabha the pc{crntagesbare of tbis once again fgll by nearly 28 per cent as comparedto the Sixth Lok Sabha.
The predominance of lawyer legislators in tbe earlier LokSabhas can be explained in terms the bistorical legacy of theBritish Raj in India when largely Westeri educated Barristers-drawn mainly from powerful soeial and cconomic classes form-ed the core of the lcadcrship io tbe Indian National Congress,.which in course of time also becamc the vanguar{ of theIidian freedom struggle. It was therelore perhaps natural thata larger percentag€ of ruling elite came from amongst tbelegal prqfessioo. The gradual dccline in their numbers is aninteresting phcnomenon and could perhaps be cxplaincd in
54
rfN
55
<fSOFoPF-o\o\crvo\ci ci "d
.'i d; vt(\r+
EHx g 3 go\o+od-jte;(\ a.t ai
9=$t.)d|'1.r?9;<l'6qXS=\o+\o
RKK
t\.l OO cn c\lf- (.1 \O
frPs x
rat \O anc.l lf! rn
c.a:(\
€qFl-
e{ |.| c.laof);(\l
8fr€ E\c; .o d \o
.'daCq.!t9-xeH-E ef E.; EEe, = E= .Yg =.i :E
E $ gE frE Eg E€e{ aa
sl*I.9lst:tG*t\
'iI\l lr--cl!$t!
,:iR-l
*lu-\t !Y]
^-*1.
*llbstxihuI
-E-S O)
.Elt,alal
-{ls>:11.:3!-la'I
I
BS-t}'|iSv
drS*l=!lql
t{, lE
tS
AR
. OCC$PATIONAL S1ATUS
;:r-l
-6E.->r Ci
e0 !.a{ .= c,l\ E4
"E E>,4 or'cF
tr€L-!Eqa2?9c,9ag!61rr J:2xna
CIIANGTNG POI,ITICAL REPRBSENTATION IN I.NIXA
a.o Fr cl
,a_-t[ !. tfTr* *
o
(r)
o
xEl'.i{)#
.rFv.:-
v) -;
a!? -<'! rlcl (ooc.2 ';
,:& E-?-CB Lt
o g) '5o
*'' & EEori.:o::1'48
q::o?i); E.g E
56
!1 \o rf, r_Y.:\ooFl.i6;'
oo.)
.lf
.rIt
F-
t-$
*
t-c'l
oo
\o..i
dc.l
$\o
.;-i
m(o
a: rar
F. .i
{ F.-
\O |/l\9ol
\o e\
2(J=
r.E e iit-r bo .=
3rq .g ndE 5 ;n #6 (s c, F.9 e-t)'lC.:>4.}5 -u, F = :'i f,o.: _F >d; 6r- o<t oi n
OC'CUPATTONAL STATUS 57
that the political base of tbis group has sbrunk as against
some of thc other groups especially the agriculturists' But'-what is mos! surprising is that except for the agriculturists
the percentage share of representatives of almost all other
classes has declined during these thirty years.
Put differently, the agriculturists turn out to bc the only
class which has gained substantially at the expense of all other.categories in the recent Lok Sabhas and especially thc Seventh
Lok Sabha when its representation rcached an all time high
'of 40,11 per cent. The only exceptions to this have been the two
categorie-s of Social and Political Workers, and Teachers which-had also been gradually losing ground, but sornehow managed
to register an upward push in the Sixth Lok Sabha'
In the Seveoth Lok Sabha not only the agriculturists
succeeded in consolidating their position' even the lawyers
registered a slight in"t.uit. The percentage share-.of Social
.and Political Workers category declined by nearly 22 per cent
but it was still sufrciently higher than in the First and tbe
Fifth Lok Sabhas. As compared to the Sixth Lok Sabha'
Educationists and Teachers class has come out to be the
highest loser in the Seventh Lok Sabha in so far as its per-
€entage share fell from 8.30 per cent in the former to a mete
3.77 pet cent in the latter, (See Diagram VI)'
It is thus clear from Diagram VI that the Agriculturist.class has consolidated its position in the Lok Sabha after every
'successive election. On the other hand, the percentage shares
of representation of all other categories have been declining
from one Lok Sabba to the other. The only exceptions to
this have been Social and Political Workers, and Educationists
and Teachers. Heaviest losers in this process of change of.occupational composition of the Lok Sabha have been the
lawyers, followed by Journalists and Wr iters, Traders and
Industrialists, Military and Civil Setvants, etc.
1he profound significance ofthese developments cen hardly'be overlooked. The present trend is a clear indication that the
political processes unleashed through free and democratic
58 CHANGING POLITICAL R.B*RF$ENTATION "IN INDIA
-
r!fttuttllils- rrflY|$.-+ s00r r ,ouffI' rcltltr ..
$..{.+ cldtsosti | rfAtiflt \+-!+.. !utnl
OCCUP.{TIONAL STATUS
parliameutary clections, have started to bring about a majortransfer of political power form the westernised and urbanpolitical elite ,to the rural classes. This pbenomenon wbich forthc first time camc into a sharper focus during the Sixth and
the Seventh Lok Sabhas may have major implications for thepolitical and cponomic development of thc country.
State-wise Break-up of the Ruliug Party Leglslators in the First,Fifih, Sixtb and tle Scrcnth Lok Sabbe by Thelr Qecupations.
The pattern of represeotation of various occuptional cete-gories from the different states of the Indian Ulion in the fourLok Sabbas under scrutiny does not show any oarked variations.
frpm thp overall natiooal model as discussed above' [See App-endix lV(i), (tD, (iii) and (iv)1. With few exceptions, even the
ffuctuatiotrs inthc percentage share ofa cert&in occupationalcategory from a particular state, from one Lok Sabha to the
other, have bcen largely on the same lines as at thc national.
level. For instaoce, the representation of agriculturists from. Hicrachal Pradesh fell by nearly i5 per cent from the First tothe Fifth Lok Sabha, while during the saore period there was
actually,an incregse of morc than 139 per cent in the rirare ofagriculturi$!g-at the national level. Similarly, from tbe Fifth tpthe Sixth Lok Sabha, the tepresentation of the sam€ categoryfrom Assam increascd by approximately I 14 per cent, wbilc'there was a decling of nearly 9 per cent at the nationql level.
Incompatibilitics in thc trends of representation, such as
above, have been.found to be not so uncommon, both as bet-
ween individual states as well as between the states and the
national Dattern. But as stated earlier, most of the states of thc
Indian Union have, by and large, the same occu ational-
composition of th-'ir r:spective representations to the Lok
Sabhas as the aggregate national pattern. A detailed State-wisc
account of the percentage share of various occupational cate-
gories from each of the states in the four T ok Sabhas undcr
examination is however being given in the following pagcs'
Thethrcc occupational categories, namely, Agriculturists'
Lawyers, and Social and Political Workers, havc by fat,"
59
60 CHANGING PoLITICAL REPRESENTAIToN IN INDIA
invariably been respoosible for more than 75 per cent of thetotal membership of th€ ruling party in the lower house of theIndian Parliament. For the sake of convenience, therefore,we have grouped the various states around these three occupa-tional categories in the main, so as to facilitate analysis. Thcstates have been clustered around the tbree vocations accordingto the following criteria:
(a) States from which 25 per ccnt or more Lok SabhaMcmbcrs have invariably been agricultrists;
(r) States from which at least 20 per cent Lok Sabba Mcm-bers havc been lawyers; and
(c) Such states which have returned 9 per cent or morc oftheir legislators from amongst. social and politicalworkers.
The states of Haryana, Bihar, Orissa Madhya pradesh,and llimacbal Pradesh fall in the first category. AII these stateslave invariably returned to each of the four Lok Sabhas underscrutiny, no less tban 25 per cent of their Members fromamongst the agriculturist class. The occupational composi-
tion of Lok Sabha members from each of these states is beinggiven in Tables 23(i), (rr), (ttt), (ir), and (r) respectivety.
It can be seen from tables 23 (i) to 23 (y) that all thesestates have been returning 25 per cent or more of tbeir represen-tatives from amongst the agriculturist class. However, there.are hardly any other parallels that can be drawn between thepatterns of representation from tbese five states. In the case ofHaryana and Bihar for instance, we find that from the Fifthto the Sixth Lok Sabha, the percentage share of agriculturistsactually came down, remained constant in the case of HimachalPradesh, while rcgistered an upward push as far as Orissa andMadhya Pradesh are concerned. It is significant to note that thepercentage share of agriculturists from the Fifth to the SixthLok Sabha came down by morc than 37 per cent in the case ofHaryana. Though in percentage terms. this state is still ahead of.all others'js returning highcst percentage of agriculturists to the
OCCUPATIONAL STAIUS 6l
Table 23(i)-Hart anr
.Sr1',' Uccuoatnnal Lategortest\ o. First Firth Sixth
Number of Members in the
Lok Lok LokSabha Sabha Sabha
SeventhLokSabha
l.2.
3.
4.
LawyersAgriculturistsSocial and PoliticalWorkersEducationists andTeachers.Journalists and Writers. -Traders and Indus-t rial ists.
7. Doctors, Engineersand Scien tists.
8. Trade Unionists. -9. M rlitary and Civil
Services.10. C thers.
l(14.3) 3(33.3)s(71.4) 4(44.4t1(14.3) 1(11.1)
rfi I l\
2(40.0)3(60.0)
5.
6.
Table 23(ii)-Bihar
Sr,No.
Nunber of M embers in theuccupatrcnat Lategoty
rrrst - " riftn sixtn- Seventi
Lok Lok Lok LokSabha Sqbha Sabha Sabha
Lawyers I l(25.U)Agrioulturists 15(34. l)Social and Political 7(15.9)Workers.
Educationists and 2( 4.5)Teachers.Journalists and Writers 5(11.4)Traders and Industria- l( 2.3)lists.
7. Doctors. Engineers and l( 2.3) l( 2.6)Scientists
t.)
4.
6.
8.9.
10.
2( 5.1)
2o(s 1.3 )6( rs.4)
4(10.3)
2( 5.r)2( 5.1)
7\r3.7)22(43.3)l s(29.5)
4( 7.8)
1( l.e)
1( l.e)
l( 1.e)
3(tl.r)1s(s5.6).
<rra {\
2( 1.4\
1( 3.7)
1(3.7)
Trade Unionists 2( 4.5)Military & Civil Services -othefs.
62 CHANGING POLITTCAL NEPRE"ISNTATION IN INDIA
Table 23(iii)-Orissa
ff',. occupational Category ai3;ils*:;ry#;Lok Lok tot, 1iiSabha Sabha Sabha Sabhq
l.2.
4.
Lawyers.AgriculturiStsSocial and PoliticalWorkersEducationists andTeachers.
1( 6.7) 2(11.r,5(33.3) 4(22.2'4(26.6) 7{3e.t}
r( e.r) 2(ts.s) 2(t3,3) l(5.s)
l( 9.1) 3(23.0) l( 6.7) 2(n.t\
2(18.1) l( 6.7) l( 5.s)
2(18.1)4(36.5)l( e.l)
2( r 5.5)4(30.6)r( 7.7)
5. Journalists and Writers.6. Traders and Industrialists7. Doctors, Engineers and
Scientists8. Trade Unionists9. Military and Civil
Services
10, Otbers. t(7.7) -
,Sr.No. occupationat catesory i{#!t#f*!#" in the
Lok Lok LokSabha Sabha Sabha
SeventhLokSabha
l.',.
4.
5
6.
7.
LawyersAgriculturists
Social and PoliticrlWorkcrs.Educatiouists andTeachers,Journalists and WritersTraders and Industri-alistsDoctors, Engineers and;clcntlsts.Trade Unionists.M ilitary and Civil-Scrvices
8{2e.7) 5(23.8) l0(27.s)7(2s.9, 7(33. r) l4(3s.s)5(18.5) l( 4.s) 9{25.0)
2( 7.4)
t( 3.7) 2( 9.s)3(l r.l) 4ile.0) t( 2.8)
l( 3.7) l( 4.S) l( 2.8)
l( 4.8),
7Qu.A,t5(42.e)7(20.0)
2(5.'1>4(l1.4)
8.
9.
OGCUPATIONAL STATUS 63
Table 23(v)-Flimacbal Prailesh
Sr, OccupationalNo. CategorY
Seventh LakSabha Sabha Sabha
l. Lawyers
2. Agricult urists I (33.3)
3. Social and 2(66.6)Political Workers'
.4. Educationistsand Teachers
J. Journalists andWriters
6. Traders andIndustrialists
7. Doctors, Engi-neers and Scientists
8. Trade Unionists -9. Military and
Civil and Services
10. Others
1(25.0) r(33.3)
l(2s.0) r(33.3)
l(25.0)
l(33.3)
l (25.0)
1(25:0)
1(2s.0)
1(25.0)
rtzsrl
Note: Figures in parentheses show pacentage representation
of given occupational category from the glven state.
Lok Sabha, yet this abrupt fall in their numbers in the 1977 elec'
tions points to soniething akin to a reversal ofthe tr6nd notic-
ed at thc natiooal level. Sirnilarly, from the Sixth to the Seventh
.t-ok Sabha the percentage share of this cartegory fell by nearly
60 per cent in tbe cdse of Ofissa. While rio firm conclusions
can be drawn just on this basis, rapid and 5ll round develop-
ment of thdse states during thu part fe]fi yeirs $e€ds to have
played its part in thi!.
Thus, wc find that the Stat€s rhich have been singled out as'
the states rcsponsible for returning higbest pcrdbnt'ages of' agrF .
cullurists id thc Lok Sabha do not ho.wever indicate any cleilr
64 CHANGING POLITIGAL REPNESENTAITON IN INDTA
continuity of the trend. The case of Haryana and Orissa in parti-crrlar, is unique from two points of view. One, that as againsitbe overall national trend, these arc the only states where thepercantage share of the agriculturists actually camc down; andlwo that rapid ind ustrialisation and overall progress in theintervening period between the Fifch and the Sixth Lok Sabhas.should have so sharply reflected the transfer of power fromthe predominantly rural and agriculturist classes to other classes.
In the second category, i e, those states from which atleast 20 per cent Members have been Lawyers in all the fourLok Sabhas under examination. we have the states of Rajas-than, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh.The break-up of the ruling party legislators from the legalprofession in the four Lok Sabhas from each of these states isbeing shown in 'lable 24 (t) and (ti). [For Madhya Pradeshand Himachal Pradesh, see Tables 23 (tv) and(v)].
Table 24(i)-Rajasthan
Sr, OccupationalNo. Category
Number of Members in the
First LokSabha
Fifth Lok Sixth Lok Sevenrh LoE-Sabha Sabha Sabha
l. Lawyers 5(62.5) 5(38.4)2, Agricultuists 5(38.4)3. Social and l(12.5) l( 7.7)
Political andWorkers.
4. Educationistsand Teacheis
5. J ou rnalist s
and Writers6. Traders and 2(25.0) 2(15.5)
Industrialists7, Doctors, Engi-
neers & Scientists -8. Trade Unionists -9. .Military andCivil Services
10. Othcrs
8(33.3) 7(43.8)8(33.3) 6(37.5)3( r2.5)
3(r 2.5)
r( 6.2)
2( 8.4)
-2(r2.s)
OCCUPATId'IAL SiA;NJS
Table 24(ii)-Mrharashtra
Sr. Occapational Nntnber af Members tn lheNo. €ategory fiitfrE-itnn 6n sixtn n*-sivui;i LE
b5
Sabha Sabha Sabha Sabha
l..,
3.
4.
5
6.
8.
9.
'Lawyers
AgriculturistsSocial andPoliticalworkers
Educationistsand Teachers
Journallstsand writers
Trbders andIndustrialists
Doctors.Engineers andScientists
TradeUnionists
I
Military andCivil Services -10. Others
l2(30.0) 7(41.2)
14(35.0) 4(23.6)
5(12.t 3(r7.6)
1( 2.5) 3( 17.6)
1( 2.5)
3( 7.5)
1( 2.s)
rr(29.7)l r (29.?)
7(re.0)
3( 8.1)
3( 8.1)
r( 2.7)
1( 2.7'
Out ofthe four states falling in this category, tie case ofRajasthan is most typical of the overall declirging hold of thelegal profession on politics. It is the only state in which thepercentage sbare of representation of the Lawyers has beencontinuously declining from one Lok Sabha to the otter ; itfell from 62.5 per cent in the First to 38.5 in the Fifrh andto33.3 per cent in the Sixth Lok Sabha. Ih the Seventh LokSabha, however, its share registered a slight increa,se so as tobccome 43.75 per cent. In thc case of Mdliarashira andMadhya Pradesh also the percentage share.of Lawyers in_
creased in the Sixth Lok Sabha as compared ts the Fifih oirlvto take a d-ownward plunge in the Seventh t-ot Siltd in,it Odtltbe cases. In thc casc of the latter, it had however, fallan down
!'
66 CHANCING POLITICAL RBPRESENTATION IN INDIA
from the First to the Fifth Lok Sabha. Tht statc of Himachal
Pradesh also falls in tbc sbare of this category except in
the Scventh Lok Sabha in nhich it increased by nearly 33 per
cent over its predecessor. It may be'mentioned tbat despite the
generally. dwindling position of the legal profession in the Indian
. Parliament, cven a slight increass of 4 per cent from the Sixtb'
to the Seventh Lok Sabha in the case of this category is highly
surprising.
Finally, in the last of the three categories mentioned abore,
we have Delhi, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam,
tsihar and Maharashtra. All of these have been found to return
at least 9 per cent of lheir representatives to the Lok Sabha
from amongst Social and Political Workers. The State'wise break-
up of this category in each of the four Lok Sabhas-First, Fifth'
Sixth and Seventh-is shown in Tables 25(r), (tt. (t,t)' (iv) and
(v). (For Bihar and Maharashtra, see Tables 23(ii) and 24(ii)
respectiv€lY).
Table 25(i)-Delbi
,Sr. OccuPationalNo. CategorY
Number of Members in the
ri* to* ffiTroTSixth Lok Seventh Lok
Sabha Sabha Sabha Sabha
l.2.
4.
5,
'6.
"7
LawyersAgriculturists -Social andPoliticalWorkers 2(50.0)Educationistsand TeachersJournalistsand Writers I (25.0)
Traders andIndustrialists l(25.0)Doctors,
Engineers andScientists.Trade Unionists -Military andCivil Servtccs
Others
1(20.0) 2(28.6' 1(25.0)
2(28.6)
1(20.0) r(14.3)
2(10.0) r(14,3) 2(50.0)
l(20.0)l ( 14.3)
r(25.0)
'8.
9.
10.
FT
Sr. OceupationalNo. Category :
Members in the
1.
2,
3.
Lawyers
Agriculturists
Social andPolitical'l.l orkers
Educationistsand Teachers . -
Journalists andWriters
Traders andIndustrialists -:-
Doctors, Engi-necrs andScientists
Trade Unionists -Military and
Civil Services
3(30.0) 2(r+3)
3(30.0) 1( 7.r)
2(29.0) 7(s0.2)
-,- 1( 7.1)
l( 7.r)
.4.
:5.
"e
9.
2(20.0)
- -:-
.{0. Others
1( 7.1) .
r( 7.D
h
'Sr. Occaptionat Nu4bcr ol[_Agl\yjZt\S _
No. Caesory VistfrF-FifiifrF-Sixt|-Lo* seveniFrotlSabha Sdbha Sabha Sabha
l. Lawyeis 3l(46.4)
2. Agiiculturists'9(13.4)
3. Social andPoliticalworkeis 9(13.4)
4, Educationistsand Tcachers 3( 4.5)
5. JournalistsandWriters. 1$4.4)
6. Traders andrndustrialists. ?(10.4)
7. Doctors, Engi-neers and
l2(18.3) r6(r9.0) 8(1s.7)
32(18.7) 37(44.0) 24(47.0)
8(1r.8) r5(17.9)
6( e.r) 7( 8.3)
I( 1.5)
l0(r9.7),
3( 5.e),
2( 3.e>
4( ?.8).4( 6.1) 4( 4.8)
Scientists. t( t.5) 4( 4.8)
E. Trade Unionists -
9. Military andCivil Services. l( 1.5)
i0. others .-". ft r.sl t( 1.5) l( 1.2)
-oq€. qPArro,li^p, Tilrys q
5r.No.
l. Lawyers
Agriculturists
Social andPoliticalWorkcrs
Educationistsand Teachers
Journalistsand Writers
Traders andIndustrialists
Doctors,
3{r2.0)
5-(20.0)
4 8.0)
2( 8.0)
6(24.0) 4(3.0.8) 2(14.3) 2(40.0):' r'
3(23.0) 3(2t.5)
.4.
5.
Engineers andscientists 4( 16.0)
:8. Trade Union-ists
2(rs.4) 5(35.7)
3{23.1) 414.3)
r(20.o) l
fr CIIANGING POLTTICAL etioN-r* rwoil
i rtdro'2$("FAsren'-
Members in.sSabha
1.-"'Lawyers 6(54.5) 6(46.1)
2. Agriculturists l( 9.1) 2(15.4) l(33.3)
a
3. Social andPoliticalWorkers l( 9.1) 2(15.4) l(33'3) -
4. Educatibnists' . {
and Teachcrs. l( 9.1) l( 7.7)
5. Journalistsand Writers t( 9.1) -l( 7.7')
6. Traders andIndustrialists -1( 9.1) l(7.7) ' l(50.0)
?. Doctors, Engi-necr_s andScientists
8. Tradc Unionists
9. Military and
Civil Scrvices
10. OthErs ,
A large pcrccntage of ruling party lpgislatqrs in the LokSabha have bcen found to dcclarc social and 'political wofk a$'
, thcir.solc.occupction prior to oontcstigg Parliaoentary elections., '
An analisis of tbc tkcupational comlosltion of the ruliog party''*fftte-four Lot'Srbtas undcrtcratiny rcvcels that almost 8ll'
dCCUPATIONAI STATUS
tbe states invariably return part of their Lok Sabha represen-tatives from amongst this category witb Delhi, Gujarat, uttatPradesh and Wcst Bcngal in the lead.
It may be of interest that the percentagc of sucb m:mbersin the Sixth Lok Sabha increased significantly as compared tothe Fifth Lok Sabha. Thg percentage increase in the numberof social and political workers in the Sixth Lok Sabha over theFifth Lok Sabha was neady 421 per'cent in the case of MadhyaPradesh ;. more than 271 per cent in the case of Orissa ; 150 percent it.the case of Gujarat ; and 130 per cent each from WestBengal and Assam. The representation ofthis category, how-ever, fell by more than 2E per cent from the Sixth to the SeventhLok Sabha. Table 26 shows the number of so:ial and politicalworkers rcturned from each of the states ofl the Indian Unionin thc Fifrh, Sixth and th6 seventh Lok Sabha, and percentageincrease/decreasc in the one ov:r its predecessor.
A review of Table 26 shows that from the Sixth to theSeventh Lok Saba, the perccntagc representation of Social andPolitical Workers fell in atl the States but th ree-N(aharashtra,Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh. West Bengal, Bihar, Gujarat, andMadhya Pradesh came out to be the heaviest losers in this res-pect.
It is significant that in the Sixth Lok Sabha the memberswith social and political background, with the exception.oiHaryana, tremendously increased from all lhe States listedabove. A tborougtr investigation of this rather unknownfeature of the occirpational composition of thc ruling party intbe Sixth Lok Sabha may reveal intercsting information aboutthe socio-cconomic background of the various .censtituents ofthe Janata Party which had heretofore always occupied' theoppositiotr benches in .thc .Parliament. Thc extent of flrrctuationin the perccntagc reprcsentation of Social and Political Workersin the Fifth, Sixth and the Seventh Lok Sabba is being shownsep3ratfly for cacb of thc twelve statcs listed in Table 26 andin Diagram VIl.
7r.
41 O[IAt{GTTire POLITICAL REPRSSqNTATIOII IN INDIA
-
^JSnr '--o-d^.Bftirf. -1
_. --r - lt t^t - r-. - -&t3r-.r;-'r;.i. *${ " ---.-.dff d:rft*3I
: ...!.i.FF 6qnlt- _. -a *rft! e|lf,rf l- * r-.{- flllYAia
-#r-* Hill(sL m rft$r!*-r.-r+- rlllllR |6iln{+{-.- |t r'{}lYA pl r(f,stl
' nr , r$i
7l
Fa.C}oralor* ..i. O(r) (\l.A A li\ttl
flll
r.rqq*K?
t\F..t3
Ylnqq|ft u.r O IJ c.r o{
" -: c,i. .,i, -t:
I
.
I far a
ce-l\oqsnnSrat 6l f-
c.l \o cl
.:',
al
ol
v
qqcp.rArlollAl sr rus
9r o'
Ei TEE*t_! i.,3 SrINSt i-F*t'$St... h \o*x.E >d38bd
;xEsSSi tr%€ EbiI\: ..1
:i d.E =u e 8b,dE .,1.
;:EIS$.v.:!t
e *ss
:l
=
tllo*sii-d
Iro\
Biltrt.!$
tf,
FNud\x
*t
3*as|\l.{
u)
-q
,X*ar..l.i
tr)
II
a6all{axq
ttru
ll,{Aqt
a!t,taa
Naa€t1l1r
l>,6i=cfli e!
It
I'il
olD
i).I
.Fc
Eeatt0
4A
.t
!)
it)J'
.9.:{)E !O.
3S96u)*.-2;B.= ir:;Zr/tExq 5t.
o=*Fo !,)€()ei:E3'ut .2*
cHANcING polrrrcAL RE pREsE1[ATI6N rN -rNpil
Fq
JGI
-i
? f' - ,.^. ,-rJ-'.JJJJJJrrqsrqqerooA'\9(O
i( .a * c.l
llr-r'l-3
oO O c.l cl\a.rooo+t-cj*Foi(\ an+r ++
\/ \J \J
h..€e€*FgN*€8il5;!f, dl
v) .q I t,.) \o 9. - (.|tl ral
. -': q g o ro \ q \-:\aFd..iIf'Itrc.t (\i ; c\. ta
,a;+
F-!+95:gE3
ra\oFooo\oN
;cqo\mnI
o\ + F. \o !f, ta, !f,16 c.t q t
E9?
E ."€ E
-:;iE €$EEscEi,gsElg?fi; --f;iESSEdS*
74
,.+
g\
al
al
(rcCUPATIONAL STATUS ,15
Diagram VII clearly shows that tbe representation of sociaF
and poiitical workers was much higher in tbe Sixth Lok Sabha
"r "o.p"t.a to the Fifth, but in the Sevcoth Lok Sabha oncq
again cate down to the same or even lowcr levct as in thc Fifth
fot S.Uhu. It also shows that though l\{adhya Pradesh re-
gistered an unprecedented increase of more than 400 per cent io
iutu.nlng Social and Political Workers to the Sixth Lok Sabha.
"...*p""*a to thc Fifth; ordinarily the states of Gujarat'
West Bcngal, Assam, Bitrar atrd Orissa, ctc' are responsible forreturning highest percentage of their representatives to thc Lok
Sabha from this category' On the other hand' extreme Northern
states of Himechal Pradesh' llaryana; 'Rajasthan - and Uttar
Pradesh, etc. have bcen ,lound toieturn lowest percentages of.
$ocial and Political Workers to thc Lok Sabha' It is significant
to not€ that Himachal Pradcsh' Assam, Haryana and Gujarat
did not have cven a single Member from amongst this category
in tne Seventh Lok Sabha.
From thc resbarch point of view it may be of immensa
academic intlrcst to investigate the following'tno qnestions:
(a) factots rcsponsiblc for giving to the soc-ial and politi-'
cal workeis highest representation in the Sixth Lokjsabha, is anY tok Sabha bY far; and
(b) ieasons as tb . why cxtremc --Northern
and Norih:
Westcrn.states of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh' Uttar-
Pradcsh, Rajasthan' and lr'iaharashlrareturn relativcl|-
lower peicentagei trf their represcntatives froh amongsf,
this categorY.
CHAP,TE& VI
More than 50 per cent of thc ruling party legislators cven iathc First Lok Sabha had previous legislative experiencc of tboCentral or . Statc lcgislature. Of thc total 349 ruling panymembers in tbc First Lok Sabba, as rrany as as 28.65 per
't7
Trbte=2?
Dfstrlbbtlon of &e members of the Ruli4 Pgrty in the First'
Fiftb, gixth, snd g€v€ntb Lok Sabhae by their Past Legislativc
Experience.
Legislative BodY First LokSabha
Seventh LbkSabha
No. % No, %
Fifth LokSablu
* Central Legis-latures. 100 28.65
** Statc Legis- .
latures 77 22.07
No LegislaiiveExperience. 172 49,28
r8r 52.47 82 28.28 l3l 38.08.
78 22.61 126 43.44 124
86 21.92 82 28.28 89
36.0s:
25.87
Total 349 100.00 345 100.00 290 100.00 344 100.00
# Old Central Legislature, Provisional Parliament, Consti-tuent Assembly, Lok Sabha, and Rajya'Sabha.
** State Legislativc Assembly, Statc Legislative Council,.
and Princely State Legislatures and U.T. Legislatures'
gB cHANGtNc pollTlcarlBEr.IiESENIA3IoN.IN INDIA
. Table 27: llsq shoqe ,that. qompared- to the Firqt I,oFSabha, thc perc€ntagc of ruling party Members having prcvious
experience of a Central legislature had significantly increased inile f ifth Lok Sabha (52.47 per cent), while that of Memberswithout any legislativc experience had almost correspondinglydecreased to 24.92 per cent, The intake of legislators withState legislature cxperiencc, howevcr, remaioed more or less
'the same (22.07 per cent in thc First Lok Sabba and 22:61 par
cent in the Fifth Lok Sabha). From the Fifth to the Sixth LokSabha and from the latter to the Scventh Lok Sabha, the
?ercentage shares of all these categories of Members registered
wide fluctuations. For instance, in the Sixth Lok Sabha there
was a decline of more than 46 per cent in the number of .rulingparty legislators having previous experience of Central lcgis-
lature; the share of Members with State legislature backgroundincreased by more than 92 per cent; while that of Members'without any legislative eiperience increased by 13.4 per cent.
Similarly, from. the Sixth to the Se venth L,ok Sabha, thcrepresentation of Members with past Central legislative experi-cnce increased by nearly 35 per cent, while that of Memberswith State legislati've background and of those without pastlegislative experience decreased by 20 per cent and 8.5 per centrespectivelY.
The fall in the percentage share of legislators havingcxperience of an earlicr Central legislature, and tbe consequentswclling. in the number of Mcmbers with a State legislaturebackground as io the Sixth Lok Sabha can be understood interms of lhe dislodging of the thirty-year old Congress rulcfor the first time. Diagram VIII shows separately irt each ofthe four Lok Sabhas under scrutiny, the fluctuations in the
. relative share of th€ three categories of ruling party legislators
. identified above.
If we look at Diagram VIIIrSixth Lok Sabha had as manylature cxperience as having noFrom tbe Fifth to the Sixth Lok
we can clcarly sce that thclegislators with Central legis-
legislative erperiencc at all.Sabha, it also shows a ste;p
T'8A$T, LECISLATIVB EXPBRIENCB
q
.-.
'- celr*Al- ulostlrung expcnlexe
--- iirit r-totstrruce ExPmltil(e
::---- No isststrrrvg txPER'eNcE
/A'-'-.1.
t., /'__--vf--J
F.-.?'.n
-.-r _ __O
iEt
;
iL"
eFtvlots lg6lstAflytir rxt tqsr fFtH
t.0l( sADlll
:,X?ERIE.I{(8 CF THT, NU,H5 BANTY
s'fr* -nd
tHE stvElllll tEriAE|lA:
DhFDib.Ym
ISIX TH stvE!lTH
'iEl.1B[,R3
\
S cIrANcrNc }ouflci'[ nss{eiiixt&{€,kf,$.iilDfA
decliae in thc share of Menbers with Central legislature back-ground ; a near correspouding incrcasc in the sbare of Memberswitb State legislaturc cxpcrience ; and a marginal increase in thecase of legislators having no previous experience,
_ As against this, from the Sixth to the Seventh Lok Sabha,tbc perccntage share of legislators having previous CentralIegislature experience increased remarkably, yet in comparisonrvith the Fifth Lok Sabba the representatiotr of this categorywas lower by no less than 37 per ccnt.
It is significant that even in thc First Lok Sabha thecategory represcnting Members with preVious Central lcgis-lature background was better represented, thoug! onlymarginally, than in the Sixth Lok Sabha elected cxactly 25 ycarslater in 1977. True, a decline of such a magnitude in thcnumbers of this category can, to a large extent, be attributcdto the change of the Central Government, but even tbe FirstLok Sabha, as the name itself suggests, was fhe first evcr LokSabha ofthe Indian Parliament yct it had a greater percefiagcof Members with Central legislature background.
Even as we compare the relative length of Central legis-lature experience in the Fifth, Sixth and the Seventh LokSabhas we find that thc Fifth Lok Sabha had much more ex-perienced Members tban the lattcr two as shown in Table 2g.
As already stated (Table 27), compared to the Fjfth LokSabha, the Sixth Lok Sabha had I3.4 per cent more Membersbaving no legislative cxperiencc at all. The share of thiscategory however fell by nearly 9 per cent in .the Scventh LokSabha. Even among those who had becn in earlier Lok Sabhas"the length of erircriencc in the case of Fifth tok Sabha wasrelatively mubh large r than the latter two. . For instance, com.pared to the Sixth and thc Sevea,th Lok Sabhas" the Fifth LokSabha bad respectivcly l?6 per cent and 124 pcr ceot moreMembers having expericnce of four Lok Sabhas; about 5? perccnt and 38 per cent more Members having cxperience of lhrcsLok Sabhas. The ruling party itr thc Sixth and tbe Sevcntb Lolr
]PAST LEGISLATIVE,EXPERIENCB
Iable-28
Distribution of Ruling Party Members in the Fifth, Sixth aadth! Seventh Lok Sabhas by their Previous Lok Srbha Experience
Fifth Lok Sixth Lok Seventh LokSabha Sabha Sabha
No. Per cent No. Per cent No, Per cent
&ll
Ekperience of oneLok Sabha
Experience of twoLok Sabhas
Experience of threeI-ok Sabhas
Experience of fourI-ok Sabhas
Experiencc or fiveLok Sabbas
t5
JJ
l3
l5
86
44
1i
2l
49.14
25.14
13.71
12.01
60.86
21.74
8.70
4.35
4.3s
55.72
25.19
9.92
5.35
3.82
Total 175 100.00 69 100.00 131 100.00
Sabhas, however, had resp:ctiv.:ly 24 per cent and 13.39 percent more legislators than the Frfth Lok Sabha who had becnmembers ofjust ono earlier Lok Sabha. It may be of interastto note that of the total 290 legislators of the ruling, party'intheSixthLokSabha,jultthree,i'e.namerel.03p:rcentof its Members had been in all the previous Lok S rbhas, whilethc comparative figures for its predecessor work out to 21 outof a total of 345 which is more than 6 per cent, In the ScventhLok Sabha however, there was no Member of tbe ruling partyhaving erperience of all the earlier Lok Sabhas. Thus, we findthat compared to Congress, the Janata Party in thc Sixth LokSabha had far less experienced and seasoned parliamentariansas indicated in Diagram IX.
82, csANcING poLrrIcAL REPlEsrNTATigir lN iNDde
I Ff rfl rot SagEA ffi ,rr* to,. sA6M Klr,r,nr" !or( 'A!lt,s
|6 tg 918fi|5 rHR[r.'ul( 5a8H!5 Fqn l9K $81{as
lor 9a8HA !xt€Fltr(t 0f tHt flJLll{G
AtrF rtit st.ytxrtl Lol EA!H- 5
Diegrao No. lX \
fiIfiiMF1VE {O!( SnQhAE
nlnrv'xtFlgtcs rtr lflftf ql{ otl*.rqr gxrx
PAST LSCISLATIV! EXPERIENCB
As already stated, the ruling party even in the First LokSabha had a bigher percentage of legislators having experienccofa Central legislature than in the Sixth and tbe Seventh LokSabhas. In this context, it is important to remind that of thetotal 289 Mer,rbers of the ruling party in the Sixth Lok Sabha,as manv as 70 Members, i.e., more tban 24 per cent of themhad no other claim to a seat in the Lok Sabha except that theyhad been 'social and political Workers,* (See Teble 2l). asagainst this, the share of this category of legislators in theSeventh Lok Sabha was considerably lower-4g Social andPolitical Workers out of total 344 lvlembers of the ruling partyi.e., nearly 14 per cent as compared with 24 per cent in theSixth Lok Sabha.
83
State.wise Break-up of the Ruling party Legislators in theFirst, Fifth, Sixth and the Seventh Lok Sabhas by lheir pastLegislative Experience
With few exceptiors, most of the States included in. oursurvey have been found to be following almost the samepattern, [See Appendices V(i), V(ii), V(iti), and V(n)j minorvariations therefrom notwith stand ing, as the one observed atthe riational level. (See Diagranr VIII). To facilitate analysis,we have, however, grouped lhem in the follor+ing fourcategories:
(a) States from which at least 25 per cent Members invari-ably had experience of a Central legislature;
(6) States which invariably return 20 per gent or more oftheir representatives with a State legislatule back_ground;
(c) States which returned 25 per cent or more of rhcirMembers without any legri*latjve experince in eech ofthc fcur'Lok Sabhas under examination ; and
t The Sixtlr. l.{titsbhA bad n€ady {60 per cent niorc ifaxareers of,this catqSofy {'hn the Fifth Lok sabha; 24.22 per ccnt as aSait tll,14 Fo; €@4.
84 cHANcINo PoLITI0AL REPRESENTATIoN lN INDIA
(d) States which do not fall in any of the tbree categories
stat€d above.
We may, however, clarify that neither of the categories
identified above is exclusive and that classifcation has been
done more for the sake of convenience.'a State placed under oncgrouping, may well, in some other respect have traits overlapp-
ing with those of another category'
The States of Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, and Orissa
fall in the first category, namely, States which invariablyreturn at least 30 per cent of their representatives with Central
legislature experience. Of these five, Assam and Bihar fulfillcdthis criteria in all the four Lok Sabhas under scrutiny, while
Gujarat, Haryana and Orissa only in the Fifth, Sixth and tbe
Seventh Lok Sabhas as they were non-existent at the time ofthe First Lok Sabha. The representation of all the three types
of Members, viz., those having exp:rience of a previous Central
legislature; those with a State legislature background; and those
having no legijlative experience at all, from each of these fiv€
States is shown in Tables 29(t)' (tr)' (ttr), (lv)' and (r')
Table 29(i) -Assam
Sr. Type of Legislative
- 4t ;lbha
-No. Experience First Fifth Sixth Seventh
1. CentralLegislaturc 4(33.3)
2, Statb Legislature 3(25.0)
3. No Legislative'.. , E*Fet;eqce 5(41.?)
8(61.5) l(33.3) r(50.0)
2(r5.4) 1(33.3)
3(23.r) '(33.3)
1(50.0)
PAST LECISLATIVE BXPERIENCB UJ
Table 29(ii)-Bihar
Sr. Type of LegislativeNo. Experience
Lok SabhaFirst Fifit Sixth Seventh
"1. Central Legislature
2. State Legislature
3. No LegislativeExperience
ls(34.1) 22(5',1.e) 18(35.3) 7(2s.e)
7(rs.e) 6(ts.8) 22(43.1) 14(sl.e)
22(50.0) 10(26.3) ll(21.6) 6(22.2)
Table 29(iii)-Gujarat
Sr. Type o.f LegislatiueNo. Experience Firth Sixth Sevnth
Lok Sabha
1. Central Legislature
2. State Legislature
3. No LegislativeExperiencc
4(40.0) 8(s7.2) 7(28.0)
2(20.0) 3(2t.4) l2(48.0)
4(40.0) 3(21.4\ 6(24.0)
Table 29(iv)-Haryanr
Sr. Type of LegislativeNo. ExPerience
Lok Sabhaffil. Central Legislature
2, State Legislature
3, No LegislativeExperiencc
4(s7.t) 4(44.4) 3(60.0)
3(42.e) 4(44.4) 2(40 o)
1(l r.r)
&6, CIIANGINC POLITICAL RSPTESSr,rDATIqq TN $&TS
Table 29(v)-Orissa
f.r. Type of LsgislctiveNo. Experience
Lok SabhaFtrst Ffin--S*tE-Se't;nti-
1. Central Legislature
State Legisla.ture
No LegislativeExperience
4(30.8) 5(3s.8) 7(36.e)
2(1s.4) 7(50.0) 9(47,3)
7(s3.8) 2(14.2) 3(1s.8)
2.
In the case of Assam and Bihar, the representation of mem-bers having past legislative experience can be se,:n to be higherin the Fifth than in the Sixth Lok Sabba, and for obviousreasons. But from Fifth to the Sixth, this percentage fell byneatly 46 per cent in the case of the former and by more than 39per cent in the case of the latter. As regards tbe remaining threeStates placed under this category, the percentage of such Mem-bers fell only in the case of Haryana, wbile from the other twostates-Gujarat and Orissa-the percentages fell, but onlymarginally. In all other respects, all these States seem to followthc overall national pattern, except that the State of Haryanastands out among all others in sending strikingly lower percent-age of legislators who have had no legislative experience what-ever,
The States of Uttar Pradish, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Raja-sthan, and l{aryana fell in the seeond eategory, in that, all ofthem have beeu consistently returning 20 per cent or more oftheir Lok Sabha representatives with previous experience ofaState Legislature. Tables 30(t), (ir), and (til) show the relativcposition of these States in returning Lok Sabha r€presentativesby the specified experiencc categories. (See Tables 29(iii\ and(r'r) for Gujarat and Haryana respect.ively).
?AST LEGT5LATIV! BXPERIENCE qt
Table 30(i)-Uttar Prailesh
Sr. Type of LegislailveNo. ExPerience Sixth Seventh
Lok Sabha
Ftfth
1. Central Legislature
2, State Legislaturc
3. No LagislativeExperience
30(41.1) 41(56.e) 18(21.4) 20(3e'3)
i6(21.e) re(26.4) 3e(46.4) 17(33.3)
27 (37.0\ 2r(16."1) 27 (32.2) 14(27 .4\
-Table 3O(ii)-Maharashtra
Sr. Type of LegislativeNo. Experience
t. Csntral Legislature
2: State Legislature
3. No Legislative. Experieace
rq48.?) 5(2e,4) r2(32.s)
s(20.5) 7{4r.2) l5(40.5)
12(30.8) s?e.4) l 0(27'0)
Table 30(iii)-Rajasthan
Sr. TYPe of Legislative
No, ExPerience
1.
,)
J.
Central Legislature
State Legislature
No LegislativeExperience
7(so.o) 5(20.8) 3(lq.?i
s(35.8) 8(33.4) l0(62.6)
2(14.2) l1(45,3) 3(18'7)
CHANCING POLITICAT REPRESENTATION IN INDIA.
The representation of legislators with State legislaturebackgrounds increased marginally from the First to the Fifth.Lok Sabha. But from tbe Fifth to the Sirth Lok Sabha, it rosestrikingly by more than 100 per cent ir the case of Maharash(ra
" and by tearly 77 per cent in the case of Uttar Pradesh. It rose-.in the cese of Gujarat and Haryana (Tables 29 (iii) and, (rr) res-pecitively) as well, but only marginally. As against this, fromthe Sixth to the Seventh Lok Sabha, tbe representation of thiscategory of legislators actually fell by morc than 39 per centin the casc of Uttar Pradesh while in the case of Maharashtra.it fcll only marginally. Only in tbe case of Rajasthan there was.
- an unprecedented increase of more than 88 per cetrt.
In fact, an analysis of thc behaviour pattern of differentstates in returning legislators of this category precludes anypossibility of gencralisations. For instance, in the Sixth Lok
, Sabha, againstthe national aggregate of more than 92 per cenf,increase in the numbers of legislators with State Legislature
'backgrounds, not only was there a marginal increase in the caseof Gujarat and Haryana, it even fell by neaily .7 per cent as faras the State of Rajasthan is concsrned. Variations in the pcr-centag€ of state level legislators returned to varibus Lok Sabhas"notwithstanding, the fact however remains tbat these are thestates which have consistently been returning morc legislators
. of the said category than any other state of the Indian Union.
Entry of pcrsons with no legislative experience whateverninto the Lowcr House of the Indian Parliament is understand-
'ablc to an extent so far as the First Lok Sabha is concerned;But it is interesting that no less than 25 to 30 per cent ofthqMembers of the Lower House of the Indian parliament walk into'Lok Sabha without any legislative training even after 30 yearshistory of free Parliamentary elections from the grassroot levelupwards in the country. Althougb, the two states of West Bengafand Himachal Pradesh alone fall more conspicuosly within the.purview of the third category, practically, each and every statEof fte Indian Union has its share of such Memberr in cach Lok
-Sabha. The relevart data in rcrpect of West Bengal an&
s8
PAST L, EGISLATIVE DXPERTENGE 89
llirnacbal Pladesh is, however, given in Tables 3l(i) and (t,).
Trble 3l(i )-We st Bengal
Sr. Type of Legislative Lok SabhaNo, Experience First Fifth Sixth Seventh
* ,. Central Legislarure Z(30.4) 5(38.5) 2(14.3) l(20.0)
'2. StateLegislature 2( 8.8) 5(38.5) 7(50.0) 3(60.0)
3. No LegislativeExperience l4(60.S) 3(23.0) 5(35.7) t(20.0)
Table 3l (ii) - Hirnacbat Pradcsh
Sr. Type of LeglslativeNo. Experience
Lok Sabha..-__..',--------.--=|-i----lirst tt th Stxth Seventh
l.z.
J.
Central Lcgislature -Statc Legislature
No LegislativeExperience
2(66.1)
3(75.0) 1(33.3)
3(75.0)
r(2s.0) r(2s.0)
- Tbc State of West Bengal has been found to return tbchighest percentage of its representatives r,vithout any legislativecxperience. In the Fjrst Lok Sabha, the stale returned nearly61 per cent of its representatives who had no legislative expe-rience at all, which is by far the highest for any Indian State inany Lok Sabha. Even in the Sixth and Seventb Lok Sabhas,West Bengal returned no less than 35.7 per cent and 20 per-cent respectively of .its Lok Sabha Members from amongst this.categoryi
90 CHANGING POLITICAL RPTREfBNTAIION IN INDIA
Madtya Pradesh and thc Union Te tilory of Delbi have
been found to fall in neither of the three categories identified.above. The representation of legis,lalors refurned from each ofthem in the four Lok Sabhas under discussion is being given iaTablcs 32(irand (ff) below.
Table 32(i)-Madhya Pradesh
'Sr. Type of LegislativeNo. Experience First Ftfth Sixth Seventh
l.t
3.
Central L:gislature 6(26.1) 15(71.4) 9(24'3) l0(28.6)
State Legislature 4(17.4) 3(14.3) l9(51.4) l0(28.6)
No LegislotivcExperience l3(56.5) 3(14.3) 9(24.3) l5(42.8)
Table 32(ii)-Delhi
Sr Type of Legislative Lok SabhaNo. Experience First Fifth Sixth Seven'th
t.,
Central Legislaturc -State Legislature
Nq l-egislativeExperience
2(28.6) 3(42.e) 1(25.0)
1(14.3) 3(42.e) 3(75.0)
4(57.1) r(r4.2)
In the case of Madhya Pradesh, if we compare the figures
for tho four Lok Sabhas, a rather unique pattern of represen-
tation can be .seen. In each of the four Lok Sabhas underEcrutiny, the $tate has returned highert percentage of its
representativcr from a di.fferent catagory ; in the First, it is'the Mcmbers with no legislative crp€ri€ ee (56.5 pcr cont) ;
in ths Fifth, it is the Members with Central Legislature
9l?AST LEG1SLATIVB EXPERIENCE
.€xperence (71.4 per cent); in the Sixth, it is the Members with
.State Legislature background (5t'4 per cent); and in the
-Seventh, once again, it is the Members without any legislative
o"p.rin.. who dlminate (42.85); Delhi, however, does not show
.any striking feature in its pattern of representation' except
ttrat in rtre Fifth and the Seventh Lok Sabhas' In the case
,of the former, it returned as many as 57'1 per cent of itslegislators who had no legislative experienc-e-the highest
in the country for any State of the Indian Union in that
House ; while in the case of the latter, it returned no less than
?5 per cent of its representatives with a State legislature back-
ground, and had no legislator with nil . parliamentary
,Jxprrience' It may be of interest to note that this was greater
than the national aggregate in any of the Lok Sabhas by far'
.and nearly 130 per cent greater than the national averag€t ln
'the Fifth Lok Sabha'
Theimoortanceofvariationinthepatternofreplesentation-fromindividualstatescannot,however'bestretchedbeyond.a certain point. Frorn the point of view of present.study' what
'js more important is tbe overall picture emerging from this
. analysis.
The foregoing examination of legislative experience in tbe
lfoui Lok Sabha-First, Fifth Sixth and the Scventh-indicates
most importantly that as many as ?0 to ?5 per ccnt of Lok
:Sabha Members have previous legislative experience' whether
,at the national or the State level' Only about a quarter of
the Jvlembers have tro previous legislative experience' AIso
that the Lrk Snbha stint of nearly ?0-80 per cent of
politicians in the country does not extend .beyond two
ierms. Of the remaining iO-SO p., cent, approximately a little
ioi, tr,oh two-thirds see a third term, and less than one'third
: a fourth term.
A good number of Members are drawn from Statc legis-
',lature background as well, cven though experience does not
recessarily appear to be the most convcnient or popular step-
-ping stones io a sest in the Lower House of the Indiaa Pa'rlia'
fient.
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION
In 1947,India inherited not just a parliamentary structurebut aiso an impressive leadership, qell trained in operating.parliamentarv institutions and a modern state apparatus, In,course of time, this proved to be India's single most importart:asset in running the country in the post-independence era.These people belonged essentially to the small but relativelyafruent middle class of India, and deeply imbued with thE,iiberal ideologies of the West. Most of them were deeply drawn .
into the freedom struggle and saw its successful culminationinto independence in 1947, and later on constituted the single.largest chunk of leadership in the first elccted Parliament of'free India in 1952.
The governance of the country and operation of tbe com.'plex political system of India did not pose any major intrac.table problems in the initial years of inCependence. The rulingurban elites, under an able national leadership, espccially of^Jawaharlal Nehru, was able to make important strides in,national developrnental spheres, The successive five ycar'
.plans, and the national elections, both at the Central and the-State levels, however, saw thc slow and imperceptible change,io the pmrer complexion of the country. Increased rural invest-men ts, growth of the ne w middle peasantry often called
,coNCLUSloN
'.'progressive" farming cl ass,
ness heralded the rise of new
93
and increased PoPular conscio us-
forces in the Indian Politics'
ln several respects, the General Elections of 1967 presaged
ithe nature of emerging changes' The political . map of the
-"f..r.J ooOi"r, especially the Lok Sabha' altered considerably
""01f*;'"t* 'poiitit,"
began to be visible in dimensions more
;;-;"". oidihese changes merely refiectlhe troubled mood
fi1h..""n*v or did they reflect the basic changes taking place
,.i,n the bodY PolitY ?
No institution is more reflective of the changing pattern
"f ;"li;; epeciall-v of the power politics of- the country thao
"the Lok Sabha.. What power equatiors does the Lok Sabha
"""tp"*f* t""aal ouer the years' and in whose favour ? This
.was our central concerninihe present study' -
especially the
""tp*i,i"t of the ruling party in th^e..First' Fifth' Sixth and
ifr. -'S"o.ntf,
lot Sabhas. The foltowing are the major
.conclusion s.
'(A) fhe reievance of age structure in any legislative assembly
'' -'in deciding the quality of its deliberations cannot be under-
estimated' For instance' younger Members of Parliament are
i"""i r" be ''more inctineO than their elder toward"'ideo'
logical thinking"'1
In the Lok Sabha or tbe Lower House of the Indian
Parliament, the age'groups 36-50 and 51-60 (together desig-
nated as middle-age group) continue to rem.ain the most
frvoured or the "colmanaing" groups of .the Indian
electorate ; tbe young age-group of 2S-3j ]r.ave
lost ground
between the First and the ieventh Lok Sabha' In so far as
i}t. ."tutiue shares of tbe young (25-35) and the old (61 and
-*1. t I( B.tt*h
-
et al , in a comparative study of- th€ British and
Italian legislators found thc younger Members of the former to
be more icclined towarAs iJeotogicaf thinking. Sec-Gary K Bertsctt'
n"i"r, p. clark, David ru. wooo, comparing- Political systemsT
. Power aad ?oticv rtt rn'ee iirLli'il'r"* v"trt t lotrn witev and -Sods
Inc. 1978 P. 89.
94 CEANGING TOLITICAL REPRESENTATICN N.TNEII
above) groups are concerned, the voter app€ars to show a.distinct preference for the older and more seasoned politi-cians. Thus, rvhile the middte.age group has been able tomaintain a steady hold, the youngcr group is being gradu-ally replaced by the older group. The numbers of theyounger group from a position of being two_and-a-half.times gteater than the older group in the First Lok Sabha".declined to one,half of the latter in the Fifth Lok Sabha.and to one-third in the Sixth Lok Sabha.
In the Seventh Lok Sabha, however, the relative share,of this group looked up for the first time in 30 years.
Among the states, the younger group has found sup-port of the electorate from Bitrar, Uttar pradesh and.Madhya Pradesh. Assam and Gujarat, on the other hand,have becn found to return largest number of olderpoliticians.
(B) Contrary to all expectations, female representation in theLok Sabha has not improved in spite of adult suffrage,equality of sexes, and 30 years of all_round Drosress anddevelopmEnt.
In a crods-national study of sex related di{Ierences inpclilitical activity in Austria, India, Japan, Norherlands,Nigeria, United States and yugoslavia, Sidney yerba, et. al,concluded tbat . it is tfue that women are, on the average,less psychologically involved than men, but that differenceis reduced when women are, educated...',2. But our studyshows that this has not been the case in India. Inspiteof more than 136 per cent increase in feinale literacvbetween 1951 and 1971, the rcpres:ntation of women jn theLok Sabha has not correspondangly iocteascd.
.dlthough -the glaph of .rso$en,s r€prasonlstion in the LokSabha is 'faf fto6 toirg uti*faaofy, .?hro we tlke a look
II. Nb .4nd Jae.on Kim, parttcrpdldn ond:r-
u: t dt,' Eq wttfy :,1 se r.n tte ni 6 affii;o, i ffi ;' ;" 6ffi ffiUniv€rsity Prcas, 1978. p. Ze|.
G{NCLUSION 9'
at the perfofmance of their counterparts elsewhere on the'
alnhe- we find th&t tboy have not fared too badly' either' WithL' n io the seven Lok Sabhas so far'-
5.04 per cent representatro
Indian women are next only to their Swedish and West German'
;;;;;;';;;i; ,o fu. u' the Democratic world is concerned'
They have however a long way to go before they can catch up'
;iil;; socialist countries tit<e the USSR' H'nguty' Yugoslavia-
etc. (See Table 33).
Table-33
Representation of Wonen in Legistatures of Selecteil Countrles
Name of tlte countrY P e r c ent ag e Re P re sentation ofIVomen Members
Canada
China
Egypt
England
Ethiopia
France
HungarY
JndiaIraqJapan
Sweden
Sri LankaUSAUSSR
West GermanY
Yugoslavia
0.3
9.9
4. r
1.6
20.0
5.04
1,4
25.4
4.1
2.3
31.0
6.1
20.0
e6 CHANGING POLITICAL REPRSSENTATION IN INDTA
Compared to the First as wEIl as the Fifth Lok Sabhas,:tbeir representation was down by nearry one-harf ii-irxtu rokSabha. This was however rEversed in the Seventh- Lot SuUtruin the sense that agrinst 3.4,per cent representatfn of thiscategory in the Sixth Lck Sabha, its share inc.earrO to tfreaverage of 5 per cent as in the Lok Sabhas before the Sixtb.
Among States, Uttar pradesh andStates which have consistently returnedto each Lok Srbha.
Assarn are the onlvfemale representative-s
(C) Sixty^ to. Sixty-five per cent of the members in alt the fourLok Sabhas examined, hold Bachelor,s or higher ".;l;;;;degrees. Thus. the educational standards of the ruling legisla_.. tors have been consistentiy high over tlte last 30 years. We
did find, however, that the educational tevel of tle SixthLok Sabha was considerably lower than the Fifth LokDaDna.
It may be interesting to record that compared ro mostother legislative assemblies of the world, the representatioaof the "advanced" education group is the highcst in In6ias,Table 34 illustrates this point.
As regards the break-up of the ruling party legislators inthe Lok Sabha by educational levels, ii iras -rcriaired
un-changed, except for marginal variations
Most individual Ststes have a pattern of representationsimilar to the overall national pattern. The States of,Assam, Orissa and West Bengal constituting the Easternflank of country, are hovever unique in tliat they lravebeen found to return highest percentages of, collegeluni-versity dropouts.. The all-India u"rrugi, of such Mem-bers in any Lck Sabha so far are nearly one-half af tiosefrom these three States
- 3, rbid. P. 300
CONCLUSION 97
Percentage ofCountries
Table-34
Aitvanced Ettucateit GrouPs in Selecteil
Nation
* Proportion ofPopulation with
" advanced"Education
Per cent'
* Proportion ofLocal ElectedLeaders with
" advanced"Education
Per cent
O,terrepresentationof those with"advanced" Edu'cation in the
Local Elected
LeadershipPer cent
Austria
India
Japan
Netherlands
Nigcria
UDited States
Yugoslavia
8
l0l0
16
8
9
7
2.4
1.3
r.9
l9
IJ
19
29
JZ
44
1.8
4.0
3.6
6.3
* The defnition of "advanced" education varies from
nation to nation depending upon tbe educational dis-
tributioq in each nation. In India, it means post'primarY cducation'
Note: Table from Sidncy Verba et. aL' P'300'
(D) By far thc most important issue rclates to tbe occupational
rcprescntation in the Lok Sabha, espccially the nature of in'terests tbe House represents. Agriculturists, Lawyers, and
Social and Political Workers are the three major occupational
categories of tbe Indian ruling legislators. Lawyers, in most
countries are "thc single largest occupational category in
Parliament, followed by agriculturists, and businessmeo, or in
98 cHANcTNG pot-rrrcll REpREsENTATToN rN rNDra
'Western European couhtries rrith large communist andsocialist parties, by farmers and 'workers".a The IqdianLok Sabha started iri this tradition of an over-wLblmingrepresentation of the middle class urban legal elites.
One of the most significant development in the occupa-tional composition of-the Lok Sabha, between the First andtbE S€venth Lok Sabha, has been the gradual replacementof lawyer legislators by the agriculturist Members. From aposition'of being the Iargest occupational category in theFirst Lok Sabha, Lawyers as a group had slumpcd tothe third po;ition io thc Sixth Lok Srbhas. While in theSeventh Lok Sabha the legal profession emerged as thesecond largest occuptional category, the agricultuial ildiS-"clearly emerged as the dominant interest represented in th€Lok Sabha. Their repr'esentation in the Seventh Lok Sabhawas over 40 per cent of the ruling party members. This shiftis by far the most significant change that has taken:plac€in the Indian Lowet House reflecting a profound politicalchange in the power configuration of the country.
An interesting feature of the Lok Sabba discolcredduringthis study is that l0 to 25 per ceqt ofthe Lok Sabha
99,€ONCLU$ON
Menbers declare to have no other occupation exccpt'social
""a p"riii*f woik" From a purely research p"iil1l]:l
il#;;" interesting to-delve deepcr into the^socio-ecomlc
base of this category or legislatori in the Lok Sab.ha' DiFc-
t* S",.t of thi tndian Union do not vary significantly ic
t.rp;J;i occupational break'up of their respective re-
Presentatives.,(E) Nearly 70 per cent of the Members in any Lok Sabhat"'rr"""^i.."
lound to have previous legislative experience
whetber at the Central or State level' Compared to thc
other thrce Lok Sabhas, the Sixth Lok Sab-ha had the lowest
;;;;;;"6" li M"tttt* who had had central legislaturc
experience.
As far as the manner of representation from the indivi-
dual States, it more or less aggregates the overall national
"u,r"ro. Howevcr, the States of Assam' Biher' Gujarat'
;;;;;" lnd orissa have been found to be most consistent
lo- i"ioroiog legislators with Central legislature experi-
"n..; tl,. stites o1 Uttar Pradesh' Maharashtra' Gujarat and
ii;j;;;;"" in returnins legislators with State legislaturc
i"ift't-*"at""d the Siates- of West Bengal a.nd Himachal
;;;;il;t t;"rning lcgislators without anv polirical experi-
ence.
€oncluding Observation
Briefly, the most important finding of the study is the basic
h;i;; tf political power from the urban middle.class as
reDresented by the lcgal profession' * lh:, 1t:l-.ltricultural;il;;; fJ"s theirk Sabba represents the power structure
of the country. The Agricultural class has systematically im-
;;; il *desentation from 16'51 per cent of the^rulins party
intheFirstLokSabhatoover40peicentinthe'SeventhLoki"un".Inti .ttift in political po*"i in favour- of the. agriculturatr
ciass has profound imptications both for the. politics and the
.economics of the country' ihe directions in which this political
p"-"tJint "gritutturai class will move is no-t yet clear' It is'
however, transparent that the lndian politics.of the eighties will
il;ffiil;Jiffc'ent from ihe urbin middle class pclitics of
the fifties or the sixties'
,APPENDICES
CIIANCING POLTTTCAL RIPRSSBNTATION IN INDIA,
IIo | =8grgr33, .
| =d*i eod<' od- I I
rf, !? 99 c.r 9 c.r - r.) ..t .'},o,Tq.i:oo F c\ rn oo'o\ \o -j co r.i .t -Joi,C',1 F
\O!!-r-\[email protected]_.ire{t!.+ ^i o c.r c.i oi doddtri
\O O', \O v^) oo r+ o9 C- oO OO.c.I
FEYrsr r6\qJ O ..i ..i <i ,ri I ca trr 'rl'
- O oo ct 6 c-r ra) ..) a',t a.!.(..l a
_caGt_cr*cr3l
*..lat oo+o I d t'l c'),
o\ st oo \o ca -
ra, H .n rt).!'.iot..)_-F-C!<
!=.t==o :v^ x), Tl a - :t*c FS!tr.*€ biIF3-{:ii:X39;oglE*':.E'aA=lt{83>'gEes>ff
R
R
t)
^a
-
*
E
>E-s\o\
.{x
a
al
t\r
Ea
O' o'
Rr-
tu
o0
El)
c
o,,|.q
xiih=f-a =ZFr9Ft=1t El1a)
a
a0
a
F(|)
.ah
-T
103
o
<tre.l
\o
O
@s
IYlv
I
looI V-l
t<
tl:ll
F'{lll-llllI
,gxxeEqll| -:
j-
r-e{s-i
dPPENDICES
<. ca
rlltlllt-
r.1rllrfll
r l:tl
ll
ll
ltl
ttl
ll
l$rq
-,..rdllllll
sRETEEtEEE,- 6i
I c'lI
\o an$ l-.ra a.tr-ill\F- F-
oo cl .6 * tn * cl .o
,ddt;
t '€3EFE=ggErfrlt-a
e!--i
.+
.i
I
r:c.l
l\oI afl
-;
l.lI
(\\s
I
I
c- rlllllltrl
rlllllll
*it Frdol I
!. (g r-
FAE.E,E€3> il E a s< z
<Qt4-* I l-.ot-.
dRI
g
< r?-r e{ ia F\ Vr rr.!
- ,1 OO r.r o\ i\ r.l_ ,.r rf d oi oi ,.i
q66Fq65EFxh\oca.o";:"jt;;;ii
9iefrqsqq€s?o- =-.;
odv; .o'od.n.o
iiqerERqqElt't t-t V r.j ' .i ..) F + ..t I
cIrANcINc poLrTIcAL REpRESENTATToN tu iNol,t
\o (l.r oo.a fr r., ..r l3_ I
c-$O\.',:6.a!+F-g.A
--.f or l-*c.rrH I
S:gsHSe:RFl
E;: L. EId Zll =; -?€ s tr! s F E So F e€EsE.q€d.$diFE€tE6gje=i9g
R
s
c;R
s
^!J
.ie
e
\
\o
(-
\o
F
\
O' c.
<vt
Fi
S
q
104
lr
E'
I
v)iaFl
€
Xq
z-gA: .qf
. A. Z
-q)
00
o6Fe)al
a
105
t
€
o
Fc.l
t'.
ttrErllll
APPBNDICES
€e I tE€ | I'F a.l
+.{'er | | '- .- I
saes\a I;odd c.i o
.61 d -r ,-r (rl d I
14esfrq I'.+ (fr cj i '-r 6,1
IIrl
,rfr9
t-
tlqrl
ll-'ll
ll'--
ll
!tl-'ll
3a
\o"': Ic{
<rl
I
I I,o\lo\l
r-'l
ttl
tllttl
c-ll-a.t c.)
a,
oo
t >,29I'oE-trcd9.9 c7€:*FH
t
I
oo
u
I
+c;
I
I
l
rt- \O ,{ ca .,1 .<l I I
qtqretl' aat
'(r' l(.'l-ll
I6-tftr\Ol
tZ
^,9aLc ^.
r.(g-c=/1 ()
* H€ * Ez>oo<
z3 o rd,, :
? E € E g; a itir?ifi:*F
POLITICAI. REPRESENIATION IN INDIA
-..ro 'ad I
lQ'sQt* t tjF{
l'. ;'o*' 1
o,oo,o $* root\ @ -.'- I
-i a'i od or co
rr3;$:irrfFr
. C.lC.t M\O* ...r Gt oOla9-&nnlo9t-nl'OF-.r;c.t- O lF-F I
llg-ror*ll*-J
l-F.+-*l*l&.t^
t-rrv')rr I I I | -.i I t' cfr
lr llr\ollrltl
o\tr\rl l,. l
ll-l
!E: = g gF
E5E.3fi4$;xs
lFr- I
a6-g lr
3E g,E €S.si:!<€
Ei€6ME>>
*(?|O$O\!{,-.c.rra) i
CHANGING
I l=l
f-
R
Aq.,
R
R
.iR
5
xt)
\o*
\o
t^:
ol
o' st
<4tt
V)
,t06
A
0!
G
'Et).lthl
xa
4'
,&
al
il
at
(l)
;tsu)l
APPBNDICES
rrFrr-3t33,F
ll-ll-l*9.+
tl.llllll
,tlllllll
' ',*5 rqp r$$
ll--l-*lR-
rll
l-,ll
,rsrtrl*r8E r lSll-\llq.ir;.';rd
,lF.
I1..-|l-:..,*o. I I
q-tS,.r\rrtrttlll;l l\l
'='fi\l.l
rt,tic..'tl-l l-lltll
\oln | | | |
l+tlllrl
tl"n.alR--*f, | --i:
E: :EHt cd: .q6 _'lS CF al, ,B
-E ES iba'-s-bo3-h-qe5o9.EE-3iTE'=-dg'g'tH=:o:oo*oE€FE.Bf 5*g,F;51; *5i:Edi>zo*thxFFh,,!
'\O.t.o I
c\l
lllrql
tlllll
rll
tt--Ill
H.:b0 i,1
HtrogE': .r'1 >= cJ;d o o
t07
A
(€
F
It€hrr$$393rri td' '-.;; c.iood I
CHANCINC POLITICAL REPRESENTATION IN 'TNDIA
t J-s I l-..-orr-ro I
:l:3oll'l*91
I l't.t r| 'oan I
I l--, | | I ter -. F-cr '..
OolFYl i .o - \O rar rt) F '-.$ t\t c\{ (1 ."1 atl
n 839,,h rl*irE;nll;rFgl
RqeaRS,8883,oi -i\o \d o'ci I oiJ;oi I
+oloOr(nlo6cotrr I
| ,3:i33
.:E Z4 €n €.q EE $X €ei lEc o-*:e
€esg'g;!$sgg$
s
^\)
R
:
R
$
aa)
R
^!)
R
"a\
b
s\o
tr
\
v)\.ciR
i
llvt
n08
(|,B!
6
g(h,la
Fl
€)q)oq)
6)
lt)
a
BE
olel5l'r: I
=ltrl5lalolatIEI(l9l;l6l I
I,a
,X
71
F
109
,<t(?T
$
;
c.l
cl
.o
ll
tl
Es rE? |ocj O .-t
Fr-. l-.^ |
r:rlrll-.ltll
oo.
6il
ctl
.l
c.l
I
II
R
raOl\qrIqRIAla) t-
l.+,., l-r
rr|^f-loq- l{,t c.t ti ' o
l-ol:
REAEq<itt \o o :
*OOQ-r(.lc.l
rat ra anrS-f,1-l.';.'i,X
l"-'le'
rlo\cttl
^aO\o\tFv?a-: i ra) (.l
-,..of'
o\ o\lnlnlI
APPENDICBS ,
O\ carl$o\-
ral
llFr-'
r\ t/|ll.ooo.lodoi
l-',l-l
t36'do
l-,'-'
.*lll..i I
rl Ill
-.:9S*9R-..6'n-ol F?; h.!QAz3 $EE E,t * ?-6F|rF* l'
ggEF,ggEg:!€!s*e€
, I talTV CIIANGING POLITICAL REPRESENTATION IN INDIA
APPENDTX rl(i)
State-wise Distribution of Fernale Representatives of CongresrParty in First Lok Sabha
First Lok Sabha
State
No. of Members percentage to Total l
Assam
Delhi
Bombay
Bihar
l 6.67
| 6.67
3 20.00
2 :^:.33
llr,APPENDICES
APPENDIX II (ii)State-wise Distribution of Female Repre'enlatives of:
Cong'g5t PartY in Fifth Lok Sabha
StatelU.T.
Fifth Lok Sabha
No. of Members Percentage toTotal
Andhra Pradesh
AssamBiharDelhiMadhya PrideshMysoreTamil NaduUttar Piadish
2
II
22
iI5
13.33
6.676.67
13.33
13.33
6.67
6.61
JJ.JJ
TOTAL 15 100.00
AP;PENDIX II (iii)Stste-xise'Dlstribution of Fenrale Represertatlves
Janata PartY in tbe Sixth Lok Sabha
of
Sixth Lok Sablm
State
No. of Members Percentage to Totai
AssamGujaratHaryanaIv{abarashtraUttar PradeshWest Bengal
IIIIJ
I
t2.5012.50
12 50
12.5037.5012 50
TOTAL: 100.00
112 CHANGING POLITICAL REPRESENTATION IN INDIA
APPENDIX II(iv)State-wise Distribution of Female Xepresentatlves of
Congress (I) Party in the Seventh Lok Sabha
Seventh Lok SabhaState
No. of Members Percentage to Total
Andhra Pradesh 3 15.80
Bihar 4 21.05
I\{aharashtra 2 10.52
Madhya Pradesh 3 15.80
Punjab 2 10.52
Orissa | 5.26 *Uttar Pradesh 4 2l,Os
TOTAL: 19 100.00
..lOOO\O trt!trt Iodi-:t-F I
rxlrlr{l-tlrl6l
6,;.qqEffEqgE-.; ..r F F- ,.i a! t.i ("j + +:-
l!t1t1l:l.')=;6
I (..l ..r O |-\ \O .n oO \O.+ | 99"1 q9.1 "1 9- -
o\ \E) r+ a{ (a) .(t
?{ It\ att '(?l
3 lt*^c I t'r o'' l
: l-llll
-t9.nt\."r6t6qo
l-l-lll-l
t, cn =
,., e{ rf, .l - R t}
lt-g"rcl--<.r
F .,1 \OOO\O \O a.f <H$mC\c{d-C-(\l
rqlr-
l-f
5iSe3$SsSa +: "- oi,.i c.i ., R'.;
4EEqaqElqra) - < \O O c.t,J1,.) Vt
roXIooS"n.o=r
(,dthE - PE.5^xI*€ Eq A?*= 3.5oj €
dE,9=S,5is=
r.E^$o
&$
EE
R
R
.C;e\:CE
=qU
de
e
e
u)Fb€F!t \,Ea
3 .3RtE $sS= .- .\- .-sx.YEI l\J |{.l \,/
.=-g F{
'*rA>r orv ^,: SRFtr FiEd \, -a st45'iF \'3 -^ Sri\JEE E
:p< €Xr:k.i-t .- iz 3 s.-l -) !\rFt -o sr tl*E t6<.4.a
fr*q)YH€;rt
'I \
4\h -:..':-"Ei rstF.;:i a-:
fr O a-,; uea.2Etr:6b.aS
a4
-
q8
{s
.i
t'-c.l
s
-i
t-.
o
?-i
F.\o
q
et
;
Y
c-.t
F
I l4 q.r*A,Ilicrlic r.oullclt, .BEr&ESINTATToN rN rNDrA"
Flll-l--lalllll tl\rrr\r\\r\rrtlt rl(n(.r(.|.ncn
tltl
llIE
t-'ll
I .ltl
IR
I i-,
rl
tttl
*lll-t--l-llllllllllltlllllltl
<.'Frl*l^-'llllll
33 r I I I | | I I | | | | |r\.1 i
**ttltlltltltlllrtEqaqltqttttl
-.i r.r (..t 6.1
ttttlrllttltltl(alah I |.) t - V) - I | ' | |\\ql(-tra\,,?ttllll
rr-. CO H c')
lll'.<'rc' ll'-.lllllEEEEqqEI{qIISEI(AcA\O-F tn- O* Cj';
llrl
l(\ti
a'O$.Y
6ZP bE:S .1<E*<'
t+aolN$.rl-.\li,_.^l
\lqfillllttttts\o N c.t o.i
lltlttt_.6orel o\ \oc- N.n \r I I
ENF.
: ".EEf €
$guEsEEE=gEcE,ujggE*:5;;8SF=iXdg
t:ft^l.nloiI \t
e.l
ol
lsJ.,
{
$
ct
F
\o
l15
(aFrgHm f-r<
Ftllllll
,rr t\ ,o (\.l 6 Fr r-t ca
rl Ittl
=".'-u.'Rf-lcn
c.ll-l^ .n Fr I
ciAOrOO..lHCOCa.a F -,f-
cq - f- Fs
op oi -i oi od .i ei ci
SttltlllF'r
6\c)O\\0I.)€P,.roo a- € t- - ..l .J -:!d=:.tr-aic.rF
=: I
I
rl.lltl
.\oI Er= =:l- | vl I c) ra) v)
ol(\
\o
s3?Ss t€S+vj:J+N'+F<fhE-t+Ct<t\O
ee6:fi rytsX+",w:r.)oi
r.-"acaO!jrcoo.oct-cO-"
s.r, ._
.- .'i .. A0Ef - E E ivr f 5e;j ts r. \ I 'cq) -lE€*E$E3Ei*<c:<el)aa*ol t
af
6l
c.i .
R
!:{g.debs
ss^-p
R
r-ts
.iRrt{g.e;e\F
.c;R
:=
T4PPEt{DlcFS
F
-t
Q{ qr'i: Fy'ad
'= r.: i:,'SN.b
$s^.pPo^Siq,,QrE
h
's
:-l':- iEE*. .i-!qs\ssso'3
*aF!
U)
an
q,
q
Ei q)
Xe
.-r OO
-EA,q<E
o
{)
Fq)
a
*s-d.{ s\J(l
CIIANGING POLITICAL REPNISSNTATTON IN IND]A
lll
11tlrl11t11lrtllllrtlltllil
rllttlrll
lllrll
!s$3.eEi:2
sqs | | rrqqoiviodlrrr6irr
r-6r.nllllcl
88rR-qit:tltll
.-r l- lll ql
€EfriEnl1r-:+.it-se'le.l
o\c{-dre{l1l
.R=rt;tt=| 't | | -rN=
rrlll^-ll
$ss3,$€n{;+;+r;..rc.iorc.l
R*cn$l*-eil'l
essseqlElodJ+.'i.i"''o::-c.t
E,rgetlllOlll.)(.)c..l
I
lolttlllI
lgFs:\oFc.t'\''lIl4l-3iI ! E € EcI gE*€*S9.:lqt"FEFbihFlj>F1 Oi:vEE;
It6
ItII
I
\o
.c
at
o\
ao
D-
.rt
co
cil
II
LlI
\o
a.lr{.
A
a.l
at
A
al
Fr
t'oorllttittttt*llrllltlllllnllllloi
Itlll
llllll
lllllltlllll
llllll,aianrloqodllloo
tlll
tllttltlttrl
l-.'.t-.'ltE - I Fo €c .d o :'l 6= d
E ae €r i E I'* ,5
€-e-E 5€ E E tE F
422 Z.t, S & d2 5
.APPENDICES
Fc:.i c{I
I
II
I
I
I
I
II
c.t
:
A't
I
I
a.l
'I
'6:
'lt'
,lI
a| ''l
rlI'
'lt'l\t
lm
llll
tlleI
-r{ .ad9 6
rS*H rrl-oom | |
ttSttlcil
llr-lllg'€ld Kl
lol
CHANGINo PoLITtcAL BEPRESENTATToN' IN rrptA'
tllltlll
raqFXSloi.oi
| !-. c-l c.t l.)
c\l l.) <i ..1t--iYY
=\o$''llHal\O$c.l
\olt6iolv_')I I ..i f- c.l
c.l
tlO.qtl
5
ds :r E €E-S ,H * H E S
5S $ fi I s .;
s
r-E^qr G
C;
E
ie
:s
c;
c;R
!sdU
*
hs
ciR
?|
A
^,REs€*'Rs b! l{) \.,
$"atdi $QJxs:F
*E^- r\
\:'E
:\::.' i*ssE s<v<(4
*tFr\{r-'l:a
lt8
.'l5'a'61
aa!
6l!l
q)
{)
r''
ax
Y=aa:x .g
a-l .iz? I{iixllEAX
q,
lI)
F(,
(h
l.r$.
llllll
ttltll
\o
llr R
ll'r
I: c.r IRN
aPPBi'lbrcd:
tttl
tlltll
vtrF I
l\ol
tlltllll
lfrSl,od,.il
l-..r1r3E,| 6i c..t I
r:: I
rltltt
'tl1tt
lltirltttlll
o\,\oo\: I l;: I
I l(ar I
4Er;Eltt+=
r l:r'. I
E lrElle{O
ll-ll
lqq r(\.l iat I
t;$ |
I (., ta)r-ql(n rr,
r;.^lr'|.;
Ic.l
lcosl
lF-F-t(.rl
.|I
,ll:lI
.o\I a.l
I
'r Irt I
tlll
,c.l
-E gg. .., Ea
EgEEEBgBsEETg Ea
F
CTIANOTNCI IOLIITCAL TEPIIIINTATION IN INDIA
Rlrld;
lll
lllltlll
5| r|col ll
tll,lll
lllrll
ttlllllltltlrllltltllrlllllltllrtttlrlllllrltrtllllt
rlllrt
\o| @
t,-tl
tl
t\'(\lctlxI -v
l*rltl
8t rlc.i
:r rl\o o\nl t:'+l I
€r E Iv1 r*
v-'l*l
lrtlllll
o6lei
-o
I
t{o.l+
ot
.r;c^l ,
c.l
c.l\:f
OI
\oe!at
\oc..l
c't,ic\
co
5a>,5- g E EAAEEEXrg Jz S .lOF J E >
sfr*lF-l'
E
a* 3 H E=.6 : ,ai h0 et)
€gE€E€$=lzidSAzd
{a)
,5F
r20
el
:I
al
o\
6
t-
\o
-tc.tl ll-lNll...: ..i
o.l
-tNrllr rSrllllvil
e.t
l2r
| | I l- I| | I l- r
ll-t
tlIr
-t-lll
Rdo\<.1/.)r-=-9=l
- l."t- l*O (...l F- r t.) .r|<t c.l c.l
Fr \O tat rai F *e{ m(q
llll'..lI I leq I
rr) l/.)c.lN
lll*ltl9rOcocn.oI Y \O cn cO .n..l c.i oi oi .i
ot'r-^ l* | .{ "..r.-.- *.cO ,- .i) .n qi *
- F- -- rf t-.qt.."qv"j\ Fgr-. oio I.i'O \O cr\ c. O OdOr-c.i I
l-caOo. rr9,,jqcq I!9 * Cq a.|
l('|-.aoO\ |II
-. . !O ,.oq 1\?"1 l(jF* ri- a.l
E *E ' E€S3**ciEc'Eerq*B:{Eai;.EgEgiss
| | r-- I
I - t- oF, oq c.\ c! el I\o c.l oo c.l
,-*]-,,
ttrqttc.]
Itlt
\O.n.a \O lCn\caaco\.c)'m3.l -i o: oi -
s rQnoi 6.ia.l
XrXl'-itYloc)I (..t
ta\=$iqU
dts
r-=t*
$t:
€es
dR
.ia
^_, t
IItots
la. ,
I
I
rE
Fr\
q),s
EsdF:i "SE!.R
.\ qr
oiisiqi ri
3
",1
di
t\
*--\.
o'
€,
<!
\r:
casQ
\t\
t:::: 'sEEVEEd
q
EI€ltt!ltDlgl.9 IEIst€lt'l3l;lElEI?lr')l.vlolJl
,^:|-z 6li./ ilF 'xl
X€Z6rc€AEfe=z
(9
U!l)
;
€'i;i{,
.2v
Ea
/.i
(:
rt
<t
t-
IlnIIa)IY
-|,-
o
::
I
,rr I\olI
slI
sl
IN CHANGING PoLITICAL RTPRB$ENTATI0IiI:TI INI,TA
lr,rl
,
Irrl
tirl
l'r g-ltltstst IRN
llllNl"'tlrltltlqt
e.l
rlIts*te{
ci
t*ll
Ittlr+ rt6l I
.i
l-ll;t
rtltt I
rtlltl
ltll-'lI r lll I
r5
$$gsgF,$eg$s $EEu3
llltt*tIEn r;qR\o e\i + 1"il--l..rt-x
llr
rntt.1 ll
llf
l*rr\l
l-l
I lco
I l-ll
QAEH5€x
i5€g'n :4 C
ES8
rlllr I | ..1| | tca
rll*F qIF<)oo
-l'-| | t ..1trlral
.j
rll*e.l -{ - \r
I
c.l
r!ttt3l(\l
lltlt*lrE8n938'ro ,+ o., tt R o
I l--r-hXn
55r35$f5 |
I
HHOOT.)d'\O:l*
I t=---<i,'|Y\o\ooocal'+s+dc';
I t---Il,**ess3;-
\o
!f,
aa
(\l
F-
Y,
olcrldc.l
-.1 I
=SARS:T,BR:-a -*1E EEE
E 'EE€
aBnEE#{fEtgEes;fr9
tx, I
etrll- i
8& l46c.l V
-r el' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
ld;
i ert
i.c
.t
-.1rl
ltI
co
od
cl
II
I
\t-'
c.l
s
,o\
_
t-aA++6rA
lltl
tlFO
d:o
{'. (
\n-
cl
t-lI
d'
lcr
\t\
nla&if -i,i \Cl
tF
tl
I
F
lv
lt!
drtr:tct'
t\(
Fle.t
t\l
c.i'
..i
,a;
o\
i#al
{tljll
.ll
ttll
tl
,sl-
t,4
- ootI('1 t
I
oqr:an r\
- c.l
+eiFi (\
.l
I
r{F.r;
< c.l
' c| <f
.alc.lcri6l
e.l
I
I
I
t-@r\or
I
o\ooi
@(
I (\.l
i e.i
d' ooocd
bt
I\t
t-OrzYCo\-
n'.
(Yt i
o?(
oi
ol
aOl
I
:e.i
.t-
'i \o\ao
..i 1 |
I.nl
F,; I
I
'aII'
,,1 "
F-ct\(
a.l '
I
t\ta)
?o?.l
).d
d ..i
iF-
lc.
Il.'
i.i v..t' v
o\
oq!
nlcnl
oi
al
.l
rI.-
tcoc.l
iod)a
l(I
II'c,o(
oo
.,?s
j
oq
lco
lro
s
ca
a.l' c.i
ao
t,r
s
et
{E
,dR
,c;Rtq^'s\i:
*
.i;R
t$z
de\:^\,Fc;-
de:*:\d
z^.8t$
r*
A
t\lEEiE;i
-qEE.s
"eE:Q ':\
E;E
"*:isf.iliFr r:E
-E! p
\;i8.E S
ie!!
--l PIQ .3 r\l:C!.:.! $
?i qs
60:
€{\;s
s.BU)
EI*rlat*lol
-:* |LIa-ltl6tEI€lol,,ra Isl
IzlLl
trl
alol
EG,a,(9
P'(J.?
'5''E
!t.9,ar'diat
:x,
z
a5
5
ooo
oo
a1o
a.l
.io
oo
o<!a
(-o
o
o\
cl
F.
tlItllrrrrt,,,rrrrllll
llllltlrrr,rrrrrrrtllllll
lllirrr, I,rrrrllll
O\ N oo \O \o crr cr-r .11. Fr I l-a,t-trds'q;.. EFE36 r E€g '<. H5'5E ?c- Fo
V=&:?*q EE,i= 3's^$f g5E>dF1 F#tEd='F'd6g{H
ll
t'-l\ot
t.rtt-ltlltttll.FrtttEttttttllltrt:rttrtirllltr(\,trlrrtrHtllrtllllllt*tltltltl1"9\ | | r lco | | | loo. c.r f- | | | |
",j ' I r I (.i
l-..rllll*llll-| | I I I I loo I r I lc,:tttai
lllllll*lltt*
I
iII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IItlllllllrltllltlItrlttl09
t,-lct
:: .)
7.a
lilliiltlItlltllllloC I
I
r-<l
lll$t:ttt1
o\
€
..1c{
a.l
al
t
a\t
ao
00alltr.
I
rlI'
tl
I
@o\iqoO Or
{..1
C) i.)r.) (\(\ \o
t^ ta1 o ral(\i c'l "'l , cl\o.o or | \o
lltl
at al
*=rco+ii "1 - t v1
++= | <'
**{ I --.
\oo\o\olfloql"1llarnt(.l
: 6.1 O lo st t- <{rc.l ol
\O*$\O.nO\C'\O.iS\O\O-:\Odric.i d; + \o rri
(o \O ..1 (a 3 \fl (a
i.nO\OO.-Oar1_.n-$(..tF.
.EF:;^a3,d4.oE q.r tr u ! c5 :6
EE{E,tEErEF
I
co(\+
ltllllllll
_*or I
-i-N t
IIlrt--vl I6e{
.rlll -.'qtqllorr.l'' rat ol
ll'rl-'s ,;s ilR'=N sc.t l-.r e.l
HflA, Q+-f O\ I ..l
e{ -{
It
co c.l- ..!1r| e{
l.{\oc.l .n
,.}C-c.lt--(,.) ta) o: (\.1 Cn,ri ,i < c.i o
i*lal
oct
o\
ao
F
c.l
bs
.ieLEtr*
t$R,
iEz
^i, E
iEzr:tgFi
^r, I
a
{U.a'R
bEqu.da
ri ta
\'i.t.:v >
sE8
.3*IF'i
.T;;; I!R *!.; t 3afi Eq
FrSi
L:.
F;F{=s.,1
Ex!d ql
Etst.a
'Fst 5d Eqi
In
Rtdt-l
tt)
.n;
EI-!lCIAI,lEI-l.gl;lElcl€lfil{l;lslrrlQI
I
(l)
Ea90
c,
L)
(9
F,i)
a
xzr-l
t")I r: I I I I I.fa
,. I lcr I I ,l I I
Ilqltrr r!r .+
n f * | | | | ' t
f lllltt I
lltlttllllrllttlIlltllllllrlttq
I.,oi
lrtlll* |
. ralllttlt$ I
lltttt-t{rrrr*r\r llrt+ |
I
llll*lrlq | | r€€ .r,c.r | ' 'c.ic.i Xl-'vll-'-tRs rF | |o-i j o ' I
I
*v)* lH I | |
SSs | | rs ,
---i | | | ' I
rtl,-t$t-*fl*--
EV. b
E*isgsa.gEa
Nl r5,rEEt-Fl l-rr-*
Rl tgtrtl3l lrrrll=f lllltB=f ttitt::lt:rrtr
t*:ll-rrrrsl q=,9,,
J vd roi | /
.el --llorlt3l i{{ ri{l\o\o'oa\o:l t_*l__o I qnq,Q
.'1 F.+ lC\ |I -attfcoe*lc..rl
llI" I Xif $$ r
I c.l:\l
I ^-c{*_ |o I sR=RY| .iRd-i:i I
"l| -st-b'+
I
" I €qqise" |
'+:9\ooi";
I oSS-.^r-.l'l =€$?=-lsgsgf5Ei
I rE ,fE
I I ' 'llI r I | 'lEllllll-I t I I
'13I t | | ll:I i | ,
lg| 1 | | 'l:I I | | 'lE| 1 | | ' l*r r | | :lgI r | | -l=I r$ | rlEI r r rl;I r 3 q I le' ei ot l8| 1 ,l;, 1* | rlg| 1 \o I I lE, I I I
lAr* r | 'l*| -r o\ - l+
gEE F€ EgE 5* l=-cgtl
tl
tlrltlrltl
tllltllrlr1ltt1lll
.al\ol
.iI
1l1lll1l
I
Ed.4 &4T;F FE<FP<A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ol:
oo oI lcq I | | | t?. ralGl 6l :(\l
ll--rrrrl- llll
I arlrlrit{lltlan
llllt,r r ,- t- I I llm arl, ao ai ,;I..i d l; | | | | |.n a.r
l-- l- t | | | rI
tlllrCllll lllll'?I
llllrrr,lrr lllll*,.6lll?tllll?
o\
| | l- | | r I r Iltlll
!lllrrrrrrl,c,')rl,tttl
ll-lrtrrtrlI
F- l'\ ?>ll\O-ttr,tr(oI r€+ I I I | | I ^ilt;-rrrrtr ;'rlllrl
. !rst=$:J , . ,,.11,..,:_.-. llto, ^r'-==-- ' .i +I
l-'.'c\-- | | | ,.,r rvr
l.)(rrtr)14Orat o . ..t -1cI\a-c.rC\ lcr\ | c.l ooccio"do |
-'c.i c.;c..l
--.r -s- lc.r l+ s(.-l
!+ -r F- C.l C.l , , e! Otl:+--\\llc-\ nt 'C.tCara)iq F- e.l
I ir.c.r-** | l3 r\
-d] -*or<l-(.l l9 ltra) -
txg*e*a!$ers€
ct
a,l
oo
f\
*
aa
al
"rF
tiEs-i$
*^!i
jzq,3
iehE\8
i^1, S\-
i^;F\g
d-
R
fE\ c-:
q;R
E::
Si: !
.|t
: .i .ii.:u.;sEe
*lii .:s-r
5it rAs*E r
*-'i,.sEi<
tu <*'i.s 3d:Sri
: .:!.; .: ':<
"i S{S
\':i
LIG{
€ba\\
U)
ao6A
{)
6
(h,ia
il
5E:i6\€x.E.iEC<E
Frx<;
!D
E-(D
.da
-tl
8
o
d
oa)
oo
tn
-.i
l:N
d
;t:l.-tat-l3l-
t;ln
llllllillli*iiiri:liliiiiiilillriiilliil:lillllii:lllllill:lliillllillllll- ir---l:l'l
EstE=3,sEsl=u i-"
.r7 =#,9
II
I
I
I
I
V?a.l
oi
II
I
od
c..l
t'-
ra)
oooi
.(f,
C;
e'l
.ol
I
Ir'l
ll
tl
tvl-i
I .d'
. f-.ltn
l{
llll
tlrlFt;c.l
ln-a{ el
* c{
I c-\
I F-.
I \r')
'F- c.t
l\o
,.t .gZa5 r. l)i1 aEE
'-=!6Fpd
lllltlllttltr.ltltrlqltllglll.-.llllltllllllllllllrlllllftltltrtr'-lll
'q, oorrlxlt;lrrr-rrI'rllfi,rl"..rlttl
aallrrr-lllllll3rtff,
oo r.t I
lll-ll-l| | ri$ rKg, ,., .i + e.i
| | | +.'-, 1"n61
r I t{ t lq3' s c-o
lll-ll-*c..t Otrl:ll=t
lll-ll*l| | l:^ lF-d -'EF*E EEE.a{sr€.EElEo c l'^ 6'=x,=. FgSgiSE#d,E
oF
ttllllllll-lrll;ltlltllllltttlItttttlltt| . OO| | | I | 1 r33 r
' (\
''llllrlll-,,-lfrrKKr,'fr,,:':: | 'r | |
-'l*-.1tt*tlao \on- ri-j l, ri.i r!)erc lqi ' | 1""t,;
^*i*ltl*lllllrlltllE
o\oI I* I | 1 I I l,\
rlII
rlI'.lll
rlllrl
cJl
-.1\o,;r-,1oYIa.t
-J09r
ct
,al
FIo:lFcF-I
"SPrsrPrrll.,-. l*l-. ll3 t53, I r:IEo l-51 | l*-.:
5,g$iS rFSiF l:--'. l=-.:5r:5iri:i*b*r.tro3*1 x\oa.tF
Qoo
'.|i
g^FR*-*R-g S-.t--ss,
I;*ag*!ss*$tF
o.l
a{
o,l
o\
€
F-
g
e.l
\o
.f
a
t--
N
&E
E
.-tst8.e;R\E^1,
9,i
*
0re
il.ts^u sl
*
TE
.q;R
:F
*
^bF
*
iEe
3.t
It "Q;i E.E \,' 'i
=\ \>EdT
'3Es':
"iE ?\: !A;:g(ls
*3e-'t .t
.3.E:.\is*-.9 -* SE i-i(-:qoSr.EIuI '3 F'.
Er tPEXi^-fqaiF
-.:.
z6(b
>'
(n,llFl
>=
-a.\,=,= c,
ZE
<Ebo
I
g,
.Ft)
a
?
.5.;5\o
o-i5!.
-ct
a-
oo
rc
t
c)
.oo
L-ilo-
I
INIfr
Irl
lttlltrlttllrtllll1ll
r$r ll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c.lc\A
I
II
a:tsdau<z
,lr8rtrl!l
dt
I I l,- | I I I
a.t nr t?ta I ci.n a.l | | t'.1 I ."i ..i ".i
,
ra an aa
I l^-* I I I
oilrlrrl:r; (\ o{
lttl1'-.l-ooloo
I l'lllll.ldrs'r,t
rr-rrll-.rl | | r
..^F,l I ti rIJ I' 't r a(i I
.l I l,* t-{ |
t- .n ..: !:,1 r::i rE I
I l--- ld I
.,Y-aatrlttt:tc{
ll,-ttl-lqqe E rE9fr*-O(.taqr.t-
,--, I^ r^;-.r rBssEi r' oi."i+-i5'I lo-'o-*l, , F,RSqF,1 | c.i l;\d-cr
I l.'t-l ".-*tr"-.-399R;:
-= bo. E ='r, c=tr:d.)
5e€sgFgI
*lllltlltttllltlrttlttltrrlllt
ll
II
II
I
n
I
II
I
I
arl
=
lr1l1l1lllll
..t I
'--.tllll.aol..:
,:
Eg,*j-tH;i :^Fr 6
8E3
tl
rloo
I t'.|,
t<
lt,
db=2a
_€l:t'-
al F.
'cl-F- A sB?E S
iEsE
ldl
t:llllQrr-
IHl
| ,.)
l-
lllllltllr
rlllll
\l,-l
cHANGING pot,trrcAt, nEpngssri rartoii IN INDT.L
APPENDTX V (i) :.
Strte-wise Distribution of the Members of the Congress..Party ln the First Lok Sabha by their Legislative Experience
State No Legisla-Legislatures tive expefience-
StatclUT No. of centralSeats Legislatures
No. Percent
No. Percent
No. Percent
I
Assam
Bihar
Bombay
M. Pradesh
Madras
Orissa
Punjab
U.P.
W. Bengal
Hyderabad
M. Bharat
Mysorc'
12
44
38
23
l0
t6
T)
2J
74
9
l0
15
8
6
8
J
6
30
I
2
I
4.00
15.00
8.00
J
TZ
3.89 5 2.90
9.09 22 12.79.
1s.58 18 10.46
6.00 4 5.20
8.00 8 10.38
3.00 4 5.20
6.00
30.00 16 20.,17
7.00 2 2.60
1.00 I 1.30
2.W 4 5.20',.
l;00 , 2 2.60
IJ
19
3
l0
2]
14
t1
J
t
/.f ).
I I .04.
1.75.
5.81
15.6q,
8.t3.
6.97"
1.7 5
4.06
,{PPENDICES 133
I'2 4 6 -E
Pepsu .". . .- 2, -Ra.jasthan
Tr. Cochin
:'Saurashtt a
V. Pradesh
H. Pradesh
Delhi
I5
1.00 4
3.00 2
1.00
1.00
1.00
I Q'5.9
4 ,2.322 t.L1
.1 0.58
3 1.75
2 l.l73 1.75
I 5.59
1.30
6.49s?n
2.60
1.30
1.30
9
6
.4
+
IJ
I'|
I
I
I
I
2
Manipur I'Tripura
BhopalCoorgKutch
Andaman andNicobar Island s
Ajmer
I 0.59
II
1.00
I 1.00 I 0.59
Total 349 100 100.00 77 100.00 172 100.00
APPENDTX V (ii)State-wise Distribution of the Members of Cotrgress in the
Fifth Lok Sabha by their Legislative Experience
.StatelaT No. of Central State Legis- No Legisla'Seats Legislatures latures tive Expefience
No. Percent
No. Percent
No. Percent
,1.2
AndhraPradesh
Assam
B,ih4r
Guja.atMaharashtra
12.81
2.57
7.69
?.s7
10.25
29 15 8.28 10
13 8 4.41 2
38 22 12.15 6
l0 4 2.22 2
39 19 10;49 ' 'E
4
J
10
4
12
4.703.55
12.00
4.io13'50
134 CI'ANGINC POLITICAL REPBf, TNfATIOTTi ilq T TOiT.
56
. M..,Pradc*b
Punjab
W. Bcngal
U.P.MysorcRajaethan
Orissa
Tamilnailu. Kirala
HimacbalPiudesh
Haryana
JandKNagaland
Tripura, Nofd
ManipurGoa, Damanand DiuDelhi
2l 15 8.28 3 3.85 3 3.50
1063.3233.85 11.151352'7756'41 33'5072 41 22.65 19 24.34 12 13.50
2't 14 7.19 3 3.85 l0 12.00
t4l39
6
Andaman andNicobar Islands IArunachalPradesh
Laksbdwcep IPond.icherry IDrdra and
Negar Havcli I
Chandigerh I
7 3.86 5 6.41 2 234
4 2.22 2 2.57 7 8.0t
2 l.ll 3 3.85 4 4'74'
I 0.55 2 2.57 3 3.55'
4 3 l:667 4 2.22
::':
;;0;
l-72l.n
-{ I l'15'3 3.85
-..;-
I 1.28
I 1.15.
I 1.28 4 4:lo
I 0.55
I 0.55
I 0.55
t
1.15
1.15
Total 34s 18r t60.& 78 100.00 86 100.00
lriet{or:bh r35
APPENDIX V (iii)State-wise Distribution of the Members of Janata Party In
'ihe Sixth Lok Sabha by their Legislative Experience
Stote IUT No. of Central State No Legis'Seati Leglslatures Legislatures lative Expe'
rtence
No. Per No. Percent cent
No. Percent
AndhraPradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
H. Pradcsh
J. and K.KarnatkaKerala
M. Pradesh
MaharashraMeghalaya
ManipurNagaland
Orissa
Punjab
SikkimRajasthan
.
TamilnaduTripuraU, P.
W. Bengal
I-t
5ll49
4
I
2
27
24
3
I84
l4
| 122| 1.22 1 0.79
l8 2t.96 22 17.45
8 9.76 3 239
4 4.88 4 3.18
3 2.39
1 | )',
9 10.96 19 15.08
5 6.10 1 5.55
s 6.10 1 5.55
| 1.22 | 0.79
-:.5 6.10 8 6.36
1 0.79
| 0.79
18 21.94 39 30.9s
2 2.44 7 5.5s
^ ^ Aiz 1.ta
11 13.51
2 2.14
| 1.22
11 13.51
3 3.66
| 1.22
1 1.22
I r.22
| 1.22
9 10.98
5 6.10
JI
l7
l42
33.0:2
6.10
136 CHANCING POLTTICAL REPRBSENTATION IN TNDIA
Andaman andN. Islands
ArunachalPradesh
ChanCigarh
Dadra andNagar Haveli
DelhiGoa, Daman,and DiuLak'hdweep
Pondicherry
Mizoram
--:- t1
3
1.22
3,66 2.39
tt,
1.22J7 l
290 82 100.00 t26 100.00 s2 100.00
APPENDIX V (iv)
State-wise Distribution of the Members of Congress (I) party inthe Seventh Lok Sabha by their Legislative Experience
StarelUT No. ofSeates
Central'Legis-latures
State Legis- No Legisla-Iatures I ive Experien( e
No. Percent
No. Per No. Percent cent
AndhraPradeshAssa mBiharGujaratHaryanaH. PrarleshJanCKKarnataka
23.68 3
o.765.34 t45.34 t22.29 21.52 I
I9.r7 6
6.71|.126.746.74
8.98
6
I6
6
402
2125
3
I20
JI
I1
7
J)
;
2.41
11,299.671.61
0.800.804.83 R
APPBNDICBS
Kerala 5
M.Pradesh 35
,Maharashtra 37
MeghalaYa IManipur 1
Nagaland 1
Orissa 19
Punjab 12
Rajasthan 16
Tamilnadu 20
u.P. 51
West Bengal 5
Andaman andNicobarIslands I
-ArunachalPradesh . 2
'Chandigarh IDadra and
Nagar Haveli 1
Delhi 4
'Goa, Daman.and Diu 1
Laksbdweep 1
Pondicberry I
l012
I
7
4
J
6
20
I
I
I
1 0.76
0.76
l.l2
t.r2
t.rz
01632.41 11.12'1.63 10 8.06 15 16.87
s.L1 ls 12.09 10 lI.2+0.76
I 0.80
I 0.80
5.3497.2533.373.05 5 4.03 3 3.37
2.29 10 8.06 3 3.37
4.58 5 4.03 9 l0.l I
15.28 17 13.70 14 15'75
01632.4r11.r2
0.76
a r.61
1
I2.41
1
J
I 0.80
Total 344 ,131 100.00 r24 100.00 89 100.00
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Almond, Gabriel A atd Verba, S" Civtc CulttYS, Frinceton'
New Jcrsey; Princeton University Press, 19 73"
Almond, Gabriel A and Coleman, James (eds'): The Politics ofthe Developing lreas, Princcton, Ncw Jersey; Princeton
UniversitY Press, l97l '
Apter, D E: The Politics of Modernisation, Cbicago' University
of Chicago Pfcss, 1965'
Dailey, F Gz Politics anil Social Change: Orissa in 1959' Boobay'
Oxfoid Univlrsi9 Press, 1963'
Blondel, Ji Voters, Parties and Leaders: The Soctal Fabric of--- -Briritn
Poht:ics, London, Penguin Books' 1967'
Bottomore. T B: Elites and society, London, C A Watts and
Co. Ltd, 1964.
Broomfield, I H: Elite Conflict in a Plural Society: Trrentietlr
Century Bengal, Bombay, Oxford Univergity Prcss' 1968'
Dahf , R A: Who Governst Democtacy and Power in an Americaft'
Citl, Loddoq, Yalc University Prcrs' 1961'
Dawson, R E ald Prewit K: Political Socialisatian' Bostoni-
Little Brown, 1969.
Davics, Ioan: Social Mobitity nil Political Clwge; I-ondon'
Macmillaa, 1970.
140 CHANGING POLITICAL REPRESENTATION IN INDIA
Desai, A R: Socrcl Background of Indian Nationalism, Bombay,Popular Prakashan, 1966.
€ldersveld Samuel J, Kooiman J, and Tak Theo van d,er: EliteImages of Dutch Politics: Accommodation and Conflict, ArinArbor, Michigan, University of Michigan press, 19g1.
'Franda, Marcus F: Political Development pnd political Decay inBengal, Calcutta, Mukhopadhyay, 197 l.
Hyman, Herbert H: Political Socialisation: A Study in the.Psychology of Politfual Behavioar, New Delhi, AmerindPublishing Co. Ltd, 1972.
flardgrave, Robert L: The NaCars of Tamilnadu; The politicalCulture of a Community in Change, Berkeley, California,Univereity of California Press, 1969.
.:Kaslryap, S C: The Politics of Defection: A Studt of SrarcPolirics in .India, National, New Delhi, 1969.
Kothari, Rajni (ed): State and Nation Buitding: A Thiril WorldPerspectlve, New Delhi, Orient Longman, 1975.
'Kothari, Rdjoi: Caste in Indian politics, New Delhi, Orient
Longman, 1970.
Mills, C Wright:Press, 1959.
Morri;-Jones, W H: politicsLongman, 1978.
Morcr Gretano: The Buiing C/ass, Newt 959.
Nettl, J P; Potbiial1967.
The Power Elit e, New Yoik, Oxford University,,
Mainly Indian, Bombry, Orient
York, McGraw Hill,
'Wobilisation, London, Faber and Faber.
'Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, The Concept of Representation,Berkeley, California, Univelsfty ;rif California press, i 967.
iSeligman L.G : Patterns of Recruitment : A State Chooses itsLawmzkers, New York; Rand McNrilly, 1947,
:..Sisson, Riihard'arrd thbrJer, Lawrence L : Legislative Recruit-ment and Political Integration-pauern af politiail Linkages
. . in qt laCi@.$tsle, Cqfiforniq, Ccllar, L9?2, . ,
AIBLiOGRAPI{Y
?umin, Meivin M : 'Sociai. Stiatification : TheFunctions of Ineqwlity, Englewood Cliffs. NHall Inc. 1967.
TVeiner, Myron ! Pany BulWng in a New Nation t The Indiarc'
National Congress, .Chicago, university of C_bicago Press,..
1967.
Articles
Arora, Satish K :
Economic andpp.7523-32;
"social 'Background 6fPalitieal Weekly, Spccial
11t'
Forms andJ, Prentice
Indian Cabinet",.Number, 1972 ;
Davey, Hampton: "Polarisation and Consensus in IndianPany Folitics", Asian Surve.)t, XII (8), 1972 ; pp. 7AL'ft.
Datta, Ratna "The Party Representative in Fourth Lok.Sabha", Ecoiomic and Potitical.Iileekly, Annual Number,.
"Social Backgro und ofand political lleekly,1973 ;pp. 1433-40.
the Fifth Lok Sabha", Economic'VIII (31-33), Special 'Number, '
Seminar, Vol. 51, November...
1971 Revolution in IndianSurvey, . XI (12), December
I969 ;pp. 179-89,
Gupta, Sisir : "Competing Elites",1963 ; pp.41.43.
Jigi nbo tham, StanleY J : ' 'TheVoting Behaviour", Asiut1971 ; pp. 1133'52.
Hohnson, R.W: ,"The British PoliticaL Elite'i, in ArchivesEuropcan Jo rnal of Soeiology Vol. XIV (I),"1973;pp.35-77.
Kochanek, Stanley A: "Political Recruitment in .the IndianNatiorral Congress-The Fourth General Elections",.Asian Survey, May 1967 ; PP. 292-304.
Kothari. R.aJni : "Congrcss System.,Qn Ttielt';:Asian Survey,
VII(2), February 1967 ; pp. 83-96._
Narayan, G: "social Background of Scheduled Caste LokSabha Members 1962-197l" , Economic and PoliticafWeekly, XIII(37), September 16. 1978 ; pp. 1603-C8.
ro PoLitrcAL n$PrS3ENTI,TION rN tNpr4n42 CHANGIN
. Palm6r' Nornen D : "India's. Fourth Gcneral Electiont,
Asian Suruav, VII(5), Mav 1967 ;py 275'9t'
Rov. Ramrshray: "India in 1972t Fissurc in the Fortrcss"'Asian Snrvey, XllI(2), Fcbruary l9TS ; pP' 231'45'
.,India : l9i3 : A Year of Disconlcnt", Asian Survey
XIV(2), FebruarY 1974 ; PP. ll5-24'
..Rudolph Lloyd I : "Contiauity and Cbange in El€ctgral
Behaviour: The l97l Parliamentary Electioos in lndia"'
Asian Survey, XI (12), Deccmber 1971 ; pp' ll9-32'
Rudolpb, Sussanc Hocber : "The Writ from Dclhi : Thc Indian
iiovernmeat Capabilities After the l97l Electioos"'
Asian Srrvel, XI(10),O:iober l97l ; pp' 958'69'
'Sartori, G: "From the Sociologr of Politics to Political
Srciology", in S.M. Lipset (cil') Social Science and
Politics, New York, Orford Usiversityn Press' 1969 ;
pP. 651100.
;seligman, L.G. :
Americanpp. 77'86.
Singh, JitenCia : "Brckground51, November 1963 ; PP.
'\[;iner, MYronSYstem",453-66.
"Political Recruitment asd p rrt! Structure",
Political Science Review, LV ; I March 196l ;
and Possibitities", Se zirar Vol'4t-43.
,sirsikar, V.M.: "Potiticel Ledcrship in India" Economic
lYeekly XYll(L2), 20 March' 1965 ; p9' 517-22'
Um1p3thy, M : 'iEm:rging Power P1!!tt-1 t-" ,lndia
: Infre'structural Eliti or ldcologicat Elit€', Indian Jownal of
Political Science, XXIX, Septcmber 1968 ; pp' 197'203'
: "The 1971 Elc:tions and tbe Indian Party
Aslan Srvey, XI(121, Dgcembcr ' 1971 ; pp'
..The 19?7. Prrliamentary Elgetjoas in lodia"' lsarz
Survel, XVII(7), Iuly 1977 ; pp. 619-26'
INDEX
AgeConrposition,2,+20,9344, State-wisc analysis, 38'50,
-Age Composition 96' ll3'22lst Lok sabha, 5-7
5th Lok Sabha, 7-9 Gandhi, Indira,36th Lok sabha, g-10 Gen€ral €lections (196?), 9l7th Lok Sabha, 1Gl3 Gujarat M.Ps.State-wise break-up, 13-20, Age composition, 15
94, l12-g Education levcl,4oAndhra Pradesh M. Ps. Legislative experiencc, 84, 85'
Women members, 30 ' 86, 88
Assam M.Ps. Occupation, 66,67,71,75Age comiosition, 15, 16 Wom€n member,3lEducation level, 39, ,14, 46Legislative experience , 84, 86 Haryana M.Ps.Occupation, 59' 66,70,71,75 Age composition, 13, 15
Women members, 26, 32 Education lcvel, ,10, 41, 4
tsihar M.ps. L*'l?lir" cxpcrience' 84' 85'
Age composition, 13, 14, 19 Occupation, &,61, 9,71, 75Education level,41,42,44, Women m.mbers, 3l
46, 50 Himacbal Pradesh M.Ps .
Legislative experience, 84, 85 Age compqsition. 17, 18, 19Occupaiion, 6A, fi, 66, 75 Educations leial,.4l, 42,44Woman mcmbers, 26 Legislative expcriencc, 88, 89
Sertsch, Gary K.,93 Occupational Status, 59, 60,63,
clark, Robert P., e! *.#lu,l'rli**,,.Delhi M.Ps. Indian National Congress(I), 3
Age composition, 17, 18, l9Education level,4I,43, 44 Janata PartyLegislative experience, 90, 9l Occupation status of M.ps, TlOccupation, 66,7l W6man M.ps,23, lllWomen memhers, 27
Karnataka M.Ps.fEducation level, 2, 33.52, 96-7 Women members, 30
Othcr countries, 97 Kim, Jao-m, 94
144
l:i-stOrissa M.Ps,
Age compasition, l6Education level, 44, 45,46Legislative experiencc, 84, 86Occupaiion, 60, 62,63. 64,
71,75
Parliamenlary representation, l-2Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, 1lPunjab M.k.
Women members, 28
CHANGING PCLITICAL RE?RESENTATION IN INDIIT
Legislative qxpcrience, 2; 7 6-91, 99State-wise break-up, 83-91, 132-7
Madhya Pradesh M.Ps.Age composition, 13, 14, 19
Euucation level, 41, 50Legislative experience, 90
OccuFation, 60, 62, 64, 65,1r 't<
Women members, 27
Maharashtra M.Ps.Age composition, 18, 19
Education level, 49, 50Legislative experience, 86, 87, 88
Occupation, 64, 65, 66, 71, 75
Women member 29Mords-Jones, W.H., 53
Nehru, Jawaharlal; 92Nie, Norman M., 94
OccupatioDal status, 53-75, 97-9State-wise break-up, 59-75,
. Rajasthan M.Ps.Age composition, 17, 18, l9Education level, 48, 50Legislative experience, 6, 87, 8&;
Occupation, 64, 65,75Representation, IR.uling Party M.Ps.
Age composition, +20Sex composition, 21-32
Tamil Nadu M.Ps.Women members, 27
Uttar Pradesh M.Ps.Age composition, 13, 19
Education level, 41, 43,44,46,50
Legislative experience, 86,88
Occupation, 66, 68, 71, 75
Women members, 2{, 32
Verba, Sidney, 94, 97
West Bengal M.Ps,Age composition 13, 14Education leyel, 44, 45, 46,Legislativ€ experience, 88, 89Occupation, 66, 69,71, 75Women medber, 3l
Women M. Ps,21-32, 94-6Other countries, 95State-wise brcak-up, 23-32,
110-12Janata regime, 23
91
96*
6(lriB ot eul olfist^$a$lc FurLre*T|oNs
tsalflsobrffigheXtBisnas, Alrey
Bhatt.shtryo, lit*i$,
Bhatts@;'l[0ffi;r:'
Ccotre for-fnlicY.(eeercb, N. Dcthi".:Desbmukh, C.D"
Dcy, Bata K.
iDurrany, K.S'fianda, K.L.
Jrganaadham, V.
.Jain, D.K,
.Jain, R.B. rnd.€haudhury P.N.
.Jain, R.B.
lKamblc, N.D.rKemblc, N,D.
lKhan, Muotaz.dli
,iKhao, Mqmkz Ali .
lKhaa, M$mtsa Ali,
.*Iadro. l.GMclo!, M" tad$
,ddrr*kosr ; Gamt floc' the
Trcaoure Hourc of SalskritWordsB,urceucraoY, . Drvclopmctrt iSnd
Pubtic Mancg@cnt in IsdiaReligion in SocictY
Ptoglarnmc PcrformroccEudgctingAdnidstration end Socirt'
GhrngcProjcct Planaing ald Appraigelil Plmned" EconomY I Thc
Indiao ContcrtSurceueratio valucs iaDcvclopmcot
Comparetivc LegistetiveBlhaviourB@d€d Lrbour in India
Migaots in lndian Mctropolis
Sched$lad Castes & thcir Strrus
in IndiaSt tus of Rurel Womcn tnIadic$ociat. Logisl$on rnd' tb!Rural Poorlndirn Policclltatus of Muslim Womrn inIn4i*.:
Goctr12J.00:
50.q)
t0.00'tm.00
90.00
80.00150.m
75.00
60.00
?5.00
120.0J
t0.0o60.u}75.00
15.00,
75.00
t0.00110.00
50.00
*VS fi&t i.iitfir
it
;I
III
1s1{{ -"s5,9qReprescnta-
60.00"
(ii)
Sagar, Sunder
a .U:r. ..
ti&:.Policy in
l
Related Documents
