Column

Chief Minister Mayawati’s call for the division of Uttar Pradesh into four smaller states has stumped her political opponents. Her proposal isn’t new, but coming a day after Rahul Gandhi launched his party’s campaign for the upcoming state elections, she stole his thunder.

This bold move can change the political debate currently focussed on her government’s performance. It may help her to marginalise the Congress in some areas, appropriate the BJP’s agenda of supporting smaller states and undercut the Samajwadi Party’s national ambitions. Yet, it may not help her to win a majority in the next elections.

It puts the Congress, which has long championed this move but can hardly concede to the division of UP when it is struggling to deal with the demand to carve Telangana out of Andhra Pradesh, in a quandary. The BSP on the other hand hopes to appeal to the sub-regional sentiments in Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh by pointing out that while her cabinet has decided to reorganise UP in ‘the interest of accelerating development and providing better administration’, it is the Congress-led UPA government that is sitting on the matter and delaying it. Both UP and Andhra Pradesh are crucial to the Congress and to the formation of the UPA government. It was a strong showing in Andhra Pradesh and UP in 2009 that helped the party form the government.

Apart from assessing the political gains and losses that will accrue to major political parties, it is important to examine the state’s reorganisation on its own merits. The demand to divide UP isn’t that strong everywhere in the state. It is not driven by intense grievance or resentment comparable to Telangana, but major political forces — with the exception of SP — agree that this behemoth needs to be broken into more manageable units.

Although smaller states may not be the best way to solve the problems of regional underdevelopment, very large states are clearly more unmanageable than smaller ones. UP’s huge size is reason enough to reconsider the conventional arguments for territorial reorganisation. The rationale for UP’s division is principally administrative; it derives from a recognition of its large area and population. Smaller states are likely to be better administered and at the very least can bring the government closer to the people, making it easier to hold legislators and officials accountable.

The Indian state has continuously reorganised its internal boundaries but UP’s political importance as the largest state has proved to be a decisive factor against its reorganisation. From the 1920s to the 1940s, it was the key battleground in the anti-colonial struggle. After Independence, thanks to the Congress’s political ascendancy in the state, UP came to occupy a dominant position, which helped consolidate its status as ‘political heartland.’ The Congress found it advantageous to preserve UP’s special status as a counterpoint to the linguistic principle of statehood.

The special ‘political framework of UP’ was justified as a guarantee of India’s unity, as a corrective to disunity elsewhere. The political elites dismissed proposals for UP’s reorganisation on cultural or administrative grounds, and instead emphasised the theme of ‘quintessential unity’ as more important than the elements of difference.

Ironically, being seen as India’s heartland has not exactly been rewarding for UP. In fact, the state failed to develop a regional identity or a regional agenda for development that can help mount pressure on the Centre for resource allocation. Owing to its administratively cumbersome size and lack of effective leadership, UP has not developed organisational capacity to deliver social development.

UP ranks among the most impoverished states in most development indices. The pattern of state neglect, which excessively impacts the poor, reflects the deep-rooted nature of inequalities based upon caste, class and religion. Political parties and governance has for the most part either ignored or reinforced social inequalities.

In the context where India’s federal structure is being reconfigured, the reorganisation of UP is an idea whose time has come. At the same time, it is difficult to predict what exactly the political consequences would be. But there is good reason to believe that post-reorganisation political trends will not simply reproduce the current mould. Politics in UP is unwieldy enough.

The sheer size of the state makes everything that happens there a high-stakes game. If nothing else, the state’s reorganisation will bring to the forefront issues of development, governance and social justice beyond identity politics that seem to have gripped UP for the past two decades.

There is reason to hope that reorganisation of UP may result in politics that will be more progressive, accommodative and manageable than the current configuration.