I would say it is still early to say there has been a major change. Though the government has lost its overwhelming majority, we have seen complete continuity in the Cabinet. The Speaker is the same, and so far, in the style of the Speaker and the Ministers, I haven’t seen a major change.

What will be interesting to see is whether there is a decent allocation of Standing Committees. In the past, the government had in many ways abandoned the existing conventions… There used to be a joke during the Congress’s time that the Parliamentary Affairs Minister used to spend more time on the Opposition benches than on his own side. During the 10 years of the BJP, that was never the case. Suddenly, in the last few days, I see (Parliamentary Affairs Minister) Kiren Rijiju come over to our side. But whether it continues, and if there is an effort to promote cooperation from the Opposition, it is too early to say.

Since the Lok Sabha poll results and after taking over as Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi seems to have become more active. Do you see a change in him?

I would say the precursors of the change were the two Bharat Jodo Yatras. That is when he (Gandhi) began getting out on the streets. For a year and a half before the elections, I would say that change was already underway.

But certainly since the election results, he has been busy. He is more accessible to everyone. He is also hands-on as the LoP, he is participating in Parliament quite frequently. He is actively getting involved in everything in a way that has clearly asserted a sense of leadership and confidence. The body language and the way he is functioning are conveying very strongly within the party, to allies and to the BJP that he is in charge and willing to take them (BJP) on.

The dynamics in the Lok Sabha have changed and we see the Opposition and the ruling side engage in spats on the floor of the House. How is it different from the last term?

We are now double the strength we were last time. That makes a difference… The bulldozer has always been a metaphor for the BJP’s style of politics as well as what they have been doing to people’s homes. Even when the Opposition made noise last time, they still passed Bills anyway. That will be difficult now.

There were also allegations against the Opposition that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was disrupted during his speech.

That is a different issue. The way it was explained to me by my colleagues who took that call to disrupt was that they had begged the Speaker to give three minutes to the second Manipur MP to speak before the PM came for his reply. This was a major issue that the BJP had ducked on the Manipur issue. By denying the three minutes, which was a call by the Speaker and the ruling party, it cost them more than three minutes.

My own view is that there are many Parliaments where the Opposition is given an entire day to discuss an issue… We don’t have that system. Therefore, it is more incumbent for the ruling party to make an effort to give the Opposition space.

You contested the election for the Congress president. How do you see Mallikarjun Kharge’s tenure so far? And, would you have done anything differently?

The latter part I don’t wish to answer because once it is over, it is over. On the former, I would say Kharge sahab has had a terrifically positive impact.

There have been some concerns raised by southern states over the proposed delimitation. What are your views on this issue?

My concern remains that you cannot disenfranchise these states that have done well because they are in the south… States like Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu. If there was a Census in 2021, they would have lost population. If there is a Census in 2031, Andhra Pradesh will also lose population. We are looking at a situation in which southern states, because of their better human indicators, have smaller populations. And the migrant labour doesn’t register to vote locally.

In the context of Indian politics, an outcome that gives you a two-third majority from the Hindi belt completely disempowers non-Hindi speaking states. That would be disastrous for national unity.

I accept the argument in principle that in a democracy, one person’s vote should have one value… The truth of the matter is that you have this genuine problem that, for example, if a purely demographic recalculation is done and say the Hindi belt gets the two-third majority, tomorrow someone may say that we will make Hindi the national language, and Tamil Nadu will say why should we stay in such a country.

Already there is some resentment on the part of the same states that their share of what they get back for the tax revenue they pay the Centre is disproportionately low. Everyone accepts the richer must subsidise the poorer. But if the richer are subsidising the poor and they have no political clout because they have been disenfranchised, then it will feel like a colony. That is why a humane solution is important.

One solution is to make it practically impossible to amend the Constitution without the consent of these other states. On issues like any fundamental change in the country, you can create a supermajority requirement… For example, making the country a Hindu rashtra, it shouldn’t be possible without the consent of states whose views need to be taken into account.

A second possible formula could be not a supermajority in the Lok Sabha, but giving the Rajya Sabha a totally different composition. Right now, the Rajya Sabha also represents the population discrepancies. In America, you have a situation where all 50 states have the same two senators. This could be another formula, and there could be a variation on this. The idea of States’ Reorganisation Commission, where you might create four states out of Uttar Pradesh, so that in effect it has eight Rajya Sabha members. That will be fairer…

No hasty decision should be taken on the basis of the next Census to conduct a delimitation without taking into account the consequences.