What are these 543 MPs not being able to do that you need an additional number of MPs to help them with? Already, there is a paucity of time to let all these 543 MPs get their turn to speak in Parliament; how would you provide time for the additional MPs to speak in Parliament?
Typically, the party decides which matters are to be taken up in Parliament. These are typically the matters that can not be solved in the state assembly or are of national interest and need to be debated or raised in the national forum. So whether you increase the number of MPs or not, fundamentally nothing is going to be changed. Further, each parliamentary constituency is represented by 5–7 assembly constituencies for structured down representation. Below that, we have panchayats and municipal corporations for micro representation. They can reach out to the MP for feedback, or the MPs can have collective feedback from them, who represent every pocket of the society.
We already have a very well-structured and multilayered platform for information dissemination. India has approximately 2.68 lakh (268,000) Gram Panchayats nationwide. India has a total of 279 municipal corporations, based on data compiled from city municipal limits. India has well over 4,500 urban local bodies (ULBs or Municipal Councils/Municipalities) in total, though the exact count changes as new towns are being formed and boundaries shift. And all these structures are governed by approximately 4,123 to 4,131 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and 426 Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) across its states and union territories. Then we have 543 MPs to represent the entire population at the national level.
You can see that we have a fairly extensive multilayer structure in place for people’s representation. If such an extensive and elaborate structure cannot provide proper people’s representation, how would an increase in MP seats help? Don’t look at the existing number of Lok Sabha MP seats in isolation. We have a huge structure to back it up. Plus, we have a strong district administration with a total of approximately 800 districts across its 28 states and 8 Union Territories. The MPs can have administrative feedback from the district administration. Any structure has to be tapering at the top. You are going to have one PM, one Home Minister, one FM, one Defence Minister, and one CM per state.
Give me your logic for increasing the number of Lok Sabha seats. But then, by the same logic, you have to increase the number of PMs, Home Ministers, FMs, Defence Ministers, and the number of CMs per state. Would you propose to increase the number of PMs, Home Ministers, FMs, Defence Ministers, and the number of CMs per state?
Certain logic, like the idea that increasing numbers would increase efficiency, is fallible. Imagine a wife having multiple husbands or a husband having multiple wives might have a few utilities. But would it mean more manageable families or better family governance? There has to be a ratio. You want to increase the number of MPs and MLAs, fine, but then increase the number of PMs, Home Ministers, FMs, Defence Ministers, and the number of CMs per state? You need more leaders to listen to so many MPs and MLAs.
We find it difficult to listen to and fulfil the wishes of one wife. How would we listen to and fulfil the wishes of ten wives and twenty children? Similarly, a wife finds it difficult to manage one husband and two children; how would she manage ten husbands and produce 20 children, two from each?
The small family could have its problems. The wife might complain about how much she will do alone. Just propose to her that you will bring her a helping hand in the form of a new wife. And see the reaction. Similarly, the wife may not be happy with your earnings or your performance. Would she propose having a 2nd husband or a boyfriend by her side to fulfil her wishes? There is something called the problem of plenty, which is always bigger than the problem of less. Finally, we have to settle for less. Somebody couldn’t manage to maintain one wife but wants to have more MPs.
Last Chinese Emperor Aisin Gioro Puyi and wife Empress Wanrong, 1925. (Images courtesy of Hsu Chung-mao.)
You can justify an increase in number if you have a proportionate increase in the size of the empire. The last emperor of the Qing dynasty and the final Emperor of China was Aisin-Gioro Puyi, who had five wives (an empress and four concubines/wives over his lifetime). At the end of the Qing dynasty in 1908 under Puyi, the Chinese empire spanned about 11.35 million square kilometres (4.38 million square miles). That is double the size of the Chinese empire under the preceding Ming Dynasty. At its peak, the Ming dynasty ruled an empire covering roughly 6.5 million square kilometres (2.5 million square miles). In fact, Emperor Aisin-Gioro Puyi wasn’t married when the Chinese Empire fell in 1912, when he was abdicated from power. His first wife, Wanrong (Gobulo), was the Empress consort, married in 1922.
The Maurya Empire, at its peak, reached its maximum size of about 1.9 million square miles (5million square kilometres). Chandragupta Maurya managed with only 2 wives. Durdhara: His first wife and cousin; she was the mother of his successor, Bindusara. Traditional accounts note she tragically died during childbirth.
Helena: His second wife, who was a Greek princess and the daughter of Seleucus I Nicator. Their marriage formed a strategic political alliance following a peace treaty between the Mauryan and Seleucid empires. Only one political marriage.
In those days, kings and emperors having multiple wives was common, and most of them were political marriages. Even then, strong emperors like Chandragupta Maurya had only two wives. He didn’t give any excuse for having more wives to expand his empire. Emperor Ashoka had five wives. 543 PMs are good enough for fair representation of the whole country and to have a fair political balance if you are politically mature. Otherwise, don’t you think Emperor Chandragupta would have needed to marry at least a hundred princes to establish and expand the base of his empire?