What's new

Across Nepal, Hindi channels will be closed tomorrow

Ill try my best to find it for you where it is mentioned 79 seats fro terai and perhaps maybe you"ll change ur view.

I have already provided you two links in that post marked in red, one is from 'The Diplomat', all mentions only 65 seats, will provide more if really needed. But you are yet to provide anything to support your 79 seats claim.

Besides, there is another controversy, the constituencies were devided in such a way that Madheshis become minorities in many of them. They have a history of discrimination against them, it is natural for them to feel threatned. Don't alienate your own people, it always results in bad things.
 
Arey yar , area is not determining anything atleast 1 MP is given to one district however big or small the district is.
But would you care to know how ladakh has 1 MP? On what basis?
No matter how big rajasthan is , but even if population of rajasthan was around 1 thousand, rajastan would get atleast 1 MP. That is the point.

You were earlier asserting that India's constitution has geography and population based allocation of seats. This is completely untrue. I dont know where you get such ideas from.
All your questions will be answered here:
Election Commission of India

Q 2. What is the main basis for allocation of seats to various States in the Lok Sabha?
Ans.
Population of the State

Population is the basis of allocation of seats of the Lok Sabha. As far as possible, every State gets representation in the Lok Sabha in proportion to its population as per census figures.

Which are the States having the minimum number of seats in Lok Sabha?
Ans.
The following States and Union Territories have one seat each in the Lok Sabha
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikkim
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Daman and Diu
Lakshadweep
Pondicherry


Article 82 of the constitution states that:

Readjustment after each census Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine

Basically after each census, the seats will be adjusted depending on the population of areas.

WRT questions you had posted about TN having more seats than MP, here is the answer:
The above described the system that is normally followed, however there were some complications:

This Delimitation Commission demarcates the boundaries of the Parliamentary Constituencies as per provisions of the Delimitation Act. The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. The Constitution of India was specifically amended in 2002 (84th amend) not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first census after 2026. Thus, the present Constituencies carved out on the basis of 2001 census shall continue to be in operation till the first census after 2026.



Essentially, some states have been very successful in implementing family planning, education etc that has reduced population growth, while others have not been so successful. So to prevent punishment of these states, for successfully implementing policies, there is a temporary freeze on readjustment of seats, but it will be looked at again in 2026 by which time, hopefully the fertility rates of the other states have come down a bit as well. This is what has resulted in a few discrepancies but as shown in an earlier post, these are not that large discrepancies.

It definitely is not based off something unclear like geography!
 
Last edited:
I have already provided you two links in that post marked in red, one is from 'The Diplomat', all mentions only 65 seats, will provide more if really needed. But you are yet to provide anything to support your 79 seats claim.

Besides, there is another controversy, the constituencies were devided in such a way that Madheshis become minorities in many of them. They have a history of discrimination against them, it is natural for them to feel threatned. Don't alienate your own people, it always results in bad things.
Like i told u I have only link in Nepali. If you have someone to read it for you. Here it goes.
बहस : मधेसका ४ असन्तुष्टि, केही भ्रम र  संविधानको अन्तरवस्तु :: Nepal, Political News, Science, Social, Sport, Ecomony, Business, Entertainment, Movie, Audio, Video, Nepali Model, Actor, Actores, Interview
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    488.8 KB · Views: 19
I have already provided you two links in that post marked in red, one is from 'The Diplomat', all mentions only 65 seats, will provide more if really needed. But you are yet to provide anything to support your 79 seats claim.

Besides, there is another controversy, the constituencies were devided in such a way that Madheshis become minorities in many of them. They have a history of discrimination against them, it is natural for them to feel threatned. Don't alienate your own people, it always results in bad things.

Will gujrati be minority in UP?
Will Bihari be minority in West Bengal?
Its something like that. Madhesis are the only ethnic groups to get their own ethnic state with highest ever majority i.e. 85% . No other state has that much majority of any ethnic group. They live in plains and so you can understand how they are minority in rest of hill states.
Now coming to tharus, who live in west terai. Their population is very low probably 1% , so no matter how ever you carve it they will still be minority, so special provision is said to be provided them.

We have seen how biharis are treated in Other cities of India. And madhesis being very close to Biharis face same stereotyping. Biharis and Ups work in meager jobs here in Nepal and due to cultural similarity they face the same behaviour Biharis recieve in other parts of India.
However madhesis arent treated as 2nd class citizens according to constitution. But they are definitely one of economically backward socio ethnic groups except high caste madhesis. But all of the madhesis including high caste enjoys inclusion. The dalits in hills are less in number and have much better life compared to dalits in terai . Also number of dalits is much higher in terai.
So it is economocially backward people who are ill treated but since madhesis have the num of economocically backward people i.e, dalits , they might feel so.
Since being from same cultural background maybe the madhesis elites also do feel ill treatment when an economically backward person is not treated well by the society.
Nepal is one of those country where social disparity is high. No respect is given to low level works.
Poor are ill treated. Caste system still persists. Women are torched alive in the name of dowry at south. Gender equality is low. But these are socio issues , constitution cannot solve this. But the current constitution has probably highest ever inclusion in the world i.e. 45% and We are hoping the poor gets benefitted .

I wont read any of these. I have read my constitution. And already had comparative studies with world constitution.
If you have time do read the nepali one I posted.
Now Id like to read about kashmir, assam, nagaland issues and see how India is solving it.

You were earlier asserting that India's constitution has geography and population based allocation of seats. This is completely untrue. I dont know where you get such ideas from.
All your questions will be answered here:
Election Commission of India

Q 2. What is the main basis for allocation of seats to various States in the Lok Sabha?
Ans.
Population of the State

Population is the basis of allocation of seats of the Lok Sabha. As far as possible, every State gets representation in the Lok Sabha in proportion to its population as per census figures.

Which are the States having the minimum number of seats in Lok Sabha?
Ans.
The following States and Union Territories have one seat each in the Lok Sabha
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikkim
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Daman and Diu
Lakshadweep
Pondicherry


Article 82 of the constitution states that:

Readjustment after each census Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine

Basically after each census, the seats will be adjusted depending on the population of areas.

WRT questions you had posted about TN having more seats than MP, here is the answer:
The above described the system that is normally followed, however there were some complications:

This Delimitation Commission demarcates the boundaries of the Parliamentary Constituencies as per provisions of the Delimitation Act. The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. The Constitution of India was specifically amended in 2002 (84th amend) not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first census after 2026. Thus, the present Constituencies carved out on the basis of 2001 census shall continue to be in operation till the first census after 2026.



Essentially, some states have been very successful in implementing family planning, education etc that has reduced population growth, while others have not been so successful. So to prevent punishment of these states, for successfully implementing policies, there is a temporary freeze on readjustment of seats, but it will be looked at again in 2026 by which time, hopefully the fertility rates of the other states have come down a bit as well. This is what has resulted in a few discrepancies but as shown in an earlier post, these are not that large discrepancies.

It definitely is not based off something unclear like geography!
Same in Nepal, the 6 northern districts will have minimum CA representatives. And our seats would be fixed in every 20 years , still sooner than India's , no?
And the main criteria would be population after that every districts would have atleast one ensured CA member.
That brings us to pradesh 2 i.e Madhesh pradesh who will get 33 CA representatives which will be proportional to its population and Pradesh 2 doesnt have 50% population living there. The whole of terai has but the terai area itself is divided into 2 complete terai states and on east , west and central terai where the demographics constituents is hill population it is included into hill states.

If you consider India has two major topography one is hills on north that consists of himanchal, arunanchal, ladakh etc and the other as plains such as UP,Bihar, Andra , Madhya pradesh etc.
If you have CA constituents acc to demographics on hills and plains do you think Hills will get any CA member unless minimun Cs representative criterion is added?

You were earlier asserting that India's constitution has geography and population based allocation of seats. This is completely untrue. I dont know where you get such ideas from.
All your questions will be answered here:
Election Commission of India

Q 2. What is the main basis for allocation of seats to various States in the Lok Sabha?
Ans.
Population of the State

Population is the basis of allocation of seats of the Lok Sabha. As far as possible, every State gets representation in the Lok Sabha in proportion to its population as per census figures.

Which are the States having the minimum number of seats in Lok Sabha?
Ans.
The following States and Union Territories have one seat each in the Lok Sabha
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikkim
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Daman and Diu
Lakshadweep
Pondicherry


Article 82 of the constitution states that:

Readjustment after each census Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine

Basically after each census, the seats will be adjusted depending on the population of areas.

WRT questions you had posted about TN having more seats than MP, here is the answer:
The above described the system that is normally followed, however there were some complications:

This Delimitation Commission demarcates the boundaries of the Parliamentary Constituencies as per provisions of the Delimitation Act. The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. The Constitution of India was specifically amended in 2002 (84th amend) not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first census after 2026. Thus, the present Constituencies carved out on the basis of 2001 census shall continue to be in operation till the first census after 2026.



Essentially, some states have been very successful in implementing family planning, education etc that has reduced population growth, while others have not been so successful. So to prevent punishment of these states, for successfully implementing policies, there is a temporary freeze on readjustment of seats, but it will be looked at again in 2026 by which time, hopefully the fertility rates of the other states have come down a bit as well. This is what has resulted in a few discrepancies but as shown in an earlier post, these are not that large discrepancies.

It definitely is not based off something unclear like geography!

Did you see where its written minimum seats given? The same provision is being provided to 6 districts on north. And I hope you know if you go compelety demographics wise these staes wont have any CA representatives.
 
You were earlier asserting that India's constitution has geography and population based allocation of seats. This is completely untrue. I dont know where you get such ideas from.
All your questions will be answered here:
Election Commission of India

Q 2. What is the main basis for allocation of seats to various States in the Lok Sabha?
Ans.
Population of the State

Population is the basis of allocation of seats of the Lok Sabha. As far as possible, every State gets representation in the Lok Sabha in proportion to its population as per census figures.

Which are the States having the minimum number of seats in Lok Sabha?
Ans.
The following States and Union Territories have one seat each in the Lok Sabha
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikkim
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Daman and Diu
Lakshadweep
Pondicherry


Article 82 of the constitution states that:

Readjustment after each census Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine

Basically after each census, the seats will be adjusted depending on the population of areas.

WRT questions you had posted about TN having more seats than MP, here is the answer:
The above described the system that is normally followed, however there were some complications:

This Delimitation Commission demarcates the boundaries of the Parliamentary Constituencies as per provisions of the Delimitation Act. The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. The Constitution of India was specifically amended in 2002 (84th amend) not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first census after 2026. Thus, the present Constituencies carved out on the basis of 2001 census shall continue to be in operation till the first census after 2026.



Essentially, some states have been very successful in implementing family planning, education etc that has reduced population growth, while others have not been so successful. So to prevent punishment of these states, for successfully implementing policies, there is a temporary freeze on readjustment of seats, but it will be looked at again in 2026 by which time, hopefully the fertility rates of the other states have come down a bit as well. This is what has resulted in a few discrepancies but as shown in an earlier post, these are not that large discrepancies.

It definitely is not based off something unclear like geography!

Here , something seems imbalanced here. Not exactly constituents according to demographics, huh?
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    596.7 KB · Views: 19
I'd want to know why Tamil Nadu have seats more than proportion? And Why UP and Bihar has less?
Did you even read the post? Do check the last paragraph of post #170, already explained.
 
Did you even read the post? Do check the last paragraph of post #170, already explained.

Even the only Nepali link that he gave seems to mention that Terai people who are more than 50% of Nepal's population are getting only 65 seats out of 165 seats, not 79, and 100 seats are going to mountain people who are 49%. Though the writer has tried to justify it with some mumbo jumbo. Even the interim constitution was far better than this one..
 
Even the only Nepali link that he gave seems to mention that Terai people who are more than 50% of Nepal's population are getting only 65 seats out of 165 seats, not 79, and 100 seats are going to mountain people who are 49%. Though the writer has tried to justify it with some mumbo jumbo. Even the interim constitution was far better than this one..

Countries which are born through voting are fake. But who fought for their countries are real. India and Pakistan are fake countries. But BD and Nepal are real countries. Similarly whom are the successor of these winning countries deserve extra privileges. Gorkhas are the winner people but the Madhesh was given to Nepalese as war token by the British so these Madheshis shouldnt claim equal rights. Countries are won through blood and hard work but how can these go in vain by just simple voting rights. Simply mind boggling.
 
Countries which are born through voting are fake. But who fought for their countries are real. India and Pakistan are fake countries. But BD and Nepal are real countries. Similarly whom are the successor of these winning countries deserve extra privileges. Gorkhas are the winner people but the Madhesh was given to Nepalese as war token by the British so these Madheshis shouldnt claim equal rights. Countries are won through blood and hard work but how can these go in vain by just simple voting rights. Simply mind boggling.

Nice try.
 
Across Nepal, Hindi channels will be closed tomorrow
- Post correspondent, Kathmandu
October 11, 2072- cable television operators across the country on Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock in Hindi channels are off.

Government of Nepal for a week Monday after a blockade of Nepal Association cable television cable television Union and Nepal have decided to close the joint meeting of Hindi channels.

Association President Sushil Parajuli National svadhinamathi serious intervention, concluding it has been decided to close Hindi channel. "Hindi channel was shut down a few parties and incentives," he said ikantipurasita, on Tuesday morning decided to close between 10 pm and arrived for an indefinite period. '

Bikram Chand led Maoist pressure had written off television Hindi channel.

According to Parajuli, Chitwan, Pokhara and Mahendranagar earlier Hindi channel has been closed.
कान्तिपुर समाचार :: भोलिदेखि देशभर हिन्दी च्यानल बन्द हुने
Translated the article so it's readable.

A man got into a fight with a pond. In a fit of rage and spirit of tit for tat he announced he is not going to wash his *** with the water of the pond anymore. Whose loss?
 
Even the only Nepali link that he gave seems to mention that Terai people who are more than 50% of Nepal's population are getting only 65 seats out of 165 seats, not 79, and 100 seats are going to mountain people who are 49%. Though the writer has tried to justify it with some mumbo jumbo. Even the interim constitution was far better than this one..

Government hasnt officially even said 65 seats for terai. Thats how people guessed.
Districts in terai= 20
Districts in hills and mountains = 55
Now given that terai has 50% population = 165-(20+55) / 2 = 45 for terai. Hence terai gets 20+45= 65 is not true.
The population for every districts gets subtracted. For eg. If 1 mp is said for every 10 people and a district of 9 people gets 1 Mp , then this population of 9 people wont be futher added into demographics .
The population in hills are very less so once these district gets minimun of 1 mp , their population wont be further added into Assignment of MP according to demographics. So 50% population of hills will be divided into 55 districts in such a way that only 7-8 hill districts would get more than 1 MP. So the most of remaning 90 seats will be given to denser areas in terai.

Interim constitution says 601 MP for a small country like Nepal, how was it far better?

Did you even read the post? Do check the last paragraph of post #170, already explained.
Can you re write. Sorry I donot see the answer anywhere.
I still dont understand why UP and Bihar is getting lesser MP according to its demographics and Tamilnadu is getting more.
Understood mizoram, sikkim, nagaland were assured atleast 1 MP, if not these states would not get any MP.
But thats what we are doing 6 districts in north are aasured atleast 1 MP.

A man got into a fight with a pond. In a fit of rage and spirit of tit for tat he announced he is not going to wash his *** with the water of the pond anymore. Whose loss?
Nice analogy. We would like to believe its our loss. Happy?

Countries which are born through voting are fake. But who fought for their countries are real. India and Pakistan are fake countries. But BD and Nepal are real countries. Similarly whom are the successor of these winning countries deserve extra privileges. Gorkhas are the winner people but the Madhesh was given to Nepalese as war token by the British so these Madheshis shouldnt claim equal rights. Countries are won through blood and hard work but how can these go in vain by just simple voting rights. Simply mind boggling.

I dont believe in Madhesis getting lesser rights than gorkhali. No matter who cam from where and when , we all are proud Nepali today. And madhesis have contributed alot to our society.
But madhesis arent getting any lesser rights.
But what madhesis are asking is to seize rights from indigenous mountain people and then give it to them. That is so unfair to people living in mountains. Life is as hard it is and not having any representatives from their place in CA will be very unfair to them.
 
Last edited:
Can you re write. Sorry I donot see the answer anywhere.
I still dont understand why UP and Bihar is getting lesser MP according to its demographics and Tamilnadu is getting more
Post number 170, para about 84th amendment. Explained quite simply, leave it to you to figure it out :)
 
Back
Top Bottom