By Siba Sankar Sahu
A map is never merely a picture of the Earth. It is an argument about how the Earth should be seen. This argument has acquired fresh relevance after the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on 4 September titled “Correct the Map: Rebalancing Global Cartographic Representation and Promoting Equitable Representation of the World’s Regions, Particularly Africa.”
The resolution was adopted with 164 votes in favour, 1 against, and 6 abstentions. But there is an important distinction that should not be lost in the headlines: the UN did not adopt or endorse a particular new world map. The resolution seeks greater equity in cartographic representation, particularly through equal-area approaches. It does not determine international boundaries, disputed territories or place names.
So, what exactly needs to be “corrected”? The answer begins with a simple geographical problem. The Earth is approximately spherical, while most maps are flat. When a curved surface is transferred onto a flat sheet, some distortion is unavoidable. A projection may preserve area but distort shape; another may preserve direction but distort size. There is no such projection that preserves area, shape, distance, and directions simultaneously.
The question, therefore, is not whether a map projection is simply right or wrong. The more meaningful question is: right for what purpose? The history of cartography is, in many ways, the history of humanity trying to answer that question.
Ancient Babylonians represented their known world on clay tablets. In the third century BCE, Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth from the difference in the angle of the Sun’s rays at Syene and Alexandria. His estimate was remarkably close to the modern measurement.
Later, Claudius Ptolemy systematised geographical knowledge in Geographia, using latitude and longitude and discussing methods for representing the spherical Earth on a flat surface. With the age of exploration, maps acquired another dimension. Martin Waldseemüller’s 1507 map famously introduced the name “America”, after Amerigo Vespucci.
Maps were no longer merely tools for locating places. They became instruments through which societies understood territory, routes, resources, and power.
This is particularly evident in the case of the Mercator projection. Created by the Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569, it was designed primarily for navigation. It has a crucial advantage: directions are preserved in a way that makes constant compass bearings appear as straight lines. For centuries, this made the projection extremely valuable to mariners for navigation.
Its weakness, however, is equally significant. Area is increasingly exaggerated towards the poles. Greenland is perhaps the most familiar example. On a Mercator map, it can appear comparable in size to Africa. In reality, Africa covers about 30.3 million sq. km, while Greenland covers approximately 2.17 million sq. km. Africa is therefore roughly fourteen times larger.
Canada and Russia can also appear disproportionately large. Alaska may visually compete with Brazil, although Brazil is vastly larger. These distortions do not alter geography itself, but they can alter our mental geography—the images of the world that we carry in our minds.
Yet this does not make Mercator a “bad” map. It makes it a map designed for a particular purpose. Criticising Mercator for not preserving area is rather like criticising a road map that does not accurately represent population density.
For comparing the relative size of countries and continents, equal-area projections are more appropriate. They preserve relative area and therefore provide a more faithful basis for geographical comparison.
The Equal Earth projection, developed in 2018 by Bojan Šavri, Bernhard Jenny and Tom Patterson, is one modern example. It seeks to combine equal-area accuracy with a visually balanced representation of the world.
This distinction is at the heart of the present debate. Africa’s concern about cartographic representation is not simply a technical dispute among cartographers. Maps have cultural and psychological consequences. If certain regions are consistently enlarged while others are reduced, those visual representations can influence how people perceive geographical importance, distance, and even global power.
There is, however, another danger. Cartographic correction must not become political cartographic manipulation. India’s position on the UN resolution underlines this point. India supported the resolution while making clear that its sovereign territory, including the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, must be represented in India’s official map. Any inaccurate or misleading depiction of India’s territory remains unacceptable.
The resolution should therefore not be interpreted as the UN replacing the existing political map of the world with a new authorised map. Its larger significance lies in encouraging a more critical understanding of how cartographic choices shape geographical representation.
The debate over “Correct the Map” is consequently also a debate about map literacy. Students should learn not only where countries are located, but also why they appear the way they do on different maps. Citizens should understand that every projection involves choices: what to preserve, what to distort and what to emphasise.
There is no single perfect world map. A navigation chart, a climate map, a population map and an area-comparison map serve different purposes. The pursuit of cartographic truth therefore does not mean finding a single projection that replaces all others. It means choosing the appropriate representation for the question being asked.
The Earth has not changed because we have begun to question the map. Africa was always much larger than Greenland. Brazil was always much larger than Alaska. The geographical extent of India does not depend on the projection through which it is viewed.
What can change is our way of seeing them. That is perhaps the most important lesson of “Correct the Map”. The objective should not be to label one projection universally correct and another universally wrong. It should be about developing a more critical geographical consciousness—one that recognises the science behind maps, the limitations of projections, and the power of visual representation.
The most useful map, therefore, is not necessarily the one that looks most familiar. It is the one that enables us to see the world with greater accuracy, context, and awareness of the choices behind the picture.
The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Ravenshaw University.