From an administrative point of view, Uttar Pradesh is truly an unmanageable State. Cutting it up into four smaller States as Chief Minister Mayawati has proposed, roughly along regional cultural divides — Bundelkhand, Avadh Pradesh, Purvanchal, and Paschim Pradesh — has its merits as an idea. It could lead to more equitable development of these regions, and relieve the pressure on Lucknow. The idea itself is not new. But politically, it is counter-intuitive — the Chief Minister of a State that elects 80 Lok Sabha members wields much more influence than one that sends one-fourth that number. Even with Ms Mayawati's confidence that her party would rule all four proposed States, the instability of governments in small States makes it an unattractive political proposition. And administrative manageability could be achieved by a more effective decentralisation. So it seems more plausible that the Chief Minister rolled out her promise of a 1x4 division of U.P. in the knowledge that it will not become reality, at least in the near future. In any case, a green light from the State cabinet is only the first step in a long process that involves an approval by the State Assembly, and then by Parliament.
It is certainly a clever political gambit by Ms Mayawati ahead of the elections, and it has already succeeded in confusing the opposition parties. There are no popular agitations for the division of Uttar Pradesh, yet the idea is not without some resonance in the four regions. The Congress has always opposed the creation of smaller States; its dilemma is all the greater now as its reaction to Ms Mayawati's move would hold immediate significance for the Telangana agitation. Mulayam Singh's Samajwadi Party is set against any division of U.P. as his party's backward caste vote base is not as evenly spread as Dalits are across the four regions. Only the Bharatiya Janata Party favours smaller States, but it too has been taken by surprise. As hot air builds under the proposal, it is bound to deflect attention from other issues, such as the BSP government's track record and allegations of corruption against the Chief Minister. While there is no doubt that Ms Mayawati has stolen a march over her rivals, it is surprising that for a politician with national ambitions, she seems to have not fully thought through the ripple effect of the move on statehood demands in other parts of the country. There is no denying that the disappearance of single party rule at the centre and the growth of regional politics have brought about a more federal polity, and a more equitable sharing of power. But fragmentation of the country on the basis of ever-narrowing identities hardly represents a progressive idea of India.
Mayawati and her proposalas are all juvenile and worthless.I dont have much incite into whether or not the State should be divided but one thing I can propose is we can go for fragmentation of Mayawati as she is also so big and huge.
This editorial is like talking out of both ends. It concedes unequivocally that "It could lead to more equitable development of these regions, and relieve the pressure on Lucknow." Then calls it a politically counterproductive!. Utter nonsense. Even more nonsense is that the editorial supports the undemocratic and unfair advantage of 80 MPs from one State "the Chief Minister of a State that elects 80 Lok Sabha members wields much more influence than one that sends one-fourth that number..". Is this kind of excessive power grab by one State even good for the country? All other States have to play second fiddle to UP for ever. Almost all PMs of India (except a couple or three) have been from UP. Do we want to continue this nonsense? The editorial seems to be a politically motivated one. For a nationally respected newspaper like The Hindu, such a political ploy is not befitting. A stalwart of the Indian Media, The Hindu, should not participate in the twisted logic of politics.
Few life will be change, but the thing is till when? The division will
bring facilities to common people living in villages. This division is a
lure of a political party to established its dominance in four regions
of India. If people distribution in these four regions would be
different then will it be the same division?
It has been a common thinking of a political party that whenever you get into a trouble, play divide and rule game. Division of a state into n part does not make sense. If you are not able to serve the people of a state, you must roll out from the party. That is all common people say.
Everybody should talking the administration is the key point for dividing the states, but nobody shouldn't talk about the resources of a state. if a state is divided in to 2/3/4 states automatically the resources will be reduced to the people. Than nobody can't help the people to take their natural resources.if a state is divided how much strain to build a new capital for that state . it leads to waste the money of that state people. finally it leads to increase the taxes on common man. But finally this division will not help the common man. In India , many times the states are divided , but still the common man life is not changed yet.
The division of the state on the basic of the regional culture by Mayawathi at this globalization and postmodern era is the true respect of the popular custom, tradition,trait,language,the common conviction of the people and their like feeling of inner necessity.It is rather to say that by the division of the state, the popular will of the people can prevail over the dark side of the globalization and justice reinforced by history and heritage can be meted out which is 'internal silently operating forces'.
more state division more leader rulers.........and this automatic leads addition of corruption...
Division of Uttar Pradesh is right or wrong depends on two different aspects. In the first we say for "administrative reasons" and in the second "Who creates the new sates". According to some persons this division of states seems to be based on regional culture. But my question to those persons is that "Is there a clearcut definition of culture and administration as imposed from ancient times?"
With reference to Goa(2 Districts), Uttar Pradesh(some 75 districts)also has one CM representation. Is this equality? Is this justice with Uttar Pradesh? Many of the investors are not ready to go to Uttar Pradesh because there is Dalit based government. This is not an election issue because here is always elections in one and the other part of the country, before and after. Yet now, If you feel this is based on regional culture, you can help Mayawati by telling him reasons, what we called administrative regions. You should help her.
***Jai Hind***
Mayawati clearly has succeeded in carrying out her plan to perfection. The existence of debate of small states vs big states among the audience when they should be questioning her extravagence, ineptness in governance and rampant crime scenario in the state. We have seen a series of news reports about crimes against women featured on main page for days. What has she done to prevent it in future? A political carrer on the clutches of caste has come to a standstill. ( Alas, she cannot award more than 50% for reservations ).She needed a new play to bamboozle our short-memory gulliable audience like a 5-year kid watching his new toy. Before the kid has lost interest in toy she attempts to grab his Lunch Money. This is the age of charltans.
its very sorry that., UP is about to divided. Some comments have the topic that "for better administration the smaller state is good"... but i like to remind that., for better administration only, the Districts, Tahsils, Municipalities have been created.. and their elected leaders and collectors will do their task if they were allowed or properly monitored.. Not necessary that, each and every cases to be handled by the CM., this is their leader's selfishness and monopolies of their people..
It is completely unaccepted to divide the state into four pieces because it is just a plan to fullfill the political requirement & the people will not support this decision the ruling party wants to run the party in 4 states so the plan becomes the conspirecy against the public.
Easy access to the people of the State to reach the capital is a basic necessity. Inefficiency of one person(Chief Minister) should not affect a large population. Our History shows that always there was a change in boundaries of any state without any problem.The smaller states created in the recent past are doing well in almost all fronts. However division of any state has become an emotional issue instead of an economic issue. It is preferable to divide all large states into 2/3/4 purely based on the Administrative convenience and the needs of the people. Resources sharing can be based on equitable distribution.
Whether or not Mayawathi's sudden announcement of the proposal to form four smaller states stems out of a genuine desire for the economic development of the State, which, at present, is uneven, or it is done with an eye on the forthcoming elections in UP, the fact remains that the proposal assumes validity for various reasons. First of all, in view of the sprawling nature of the state, development projects get unevenly distributed and there is lack of effective administrative control. Secondly, in view of the state having a major share of MPs in the Parliament, they play a vital role in the decision-making process in respect of other states which, generally goes against the interests of other states. Thirdly, UP is invariably having a 'monopoly' in the choice of a Prime Minister - which is not a healthy sign in a democratic state,. The division of the state into four viable states is the only solution and should not be brushed lightly
It is highly optimistic on the part of The Hindu when it says &she seems to have not fully thought through the ripple effect of the move on statehood demands in other parts of the country. Ms Mayawati, or for that matter a majority of our politicians, have a scant regard for the wider ramifications of their actions or policies. The overriding priority always is to accomplish narrow political objectives. Ms Mayawati's demand may have certain merit but it is hardly likely that the true motive behind this political masterstroke that seems to have left different parties gasping for response is the development of the region. Rather the move is more designed to sway attention away from the incompetency of the government and thereby neutralize the anti-incumbency factor. It remains to be seen how the center now responds to the proposal, stuck as it is between the exigency to come up with an adequate response in view of approaching assembly elections and to keep Telengana from flaring.
being a huge state, Uttar Pradesh is not easily manageable. political tricks aside, its a feasible idea to divide the state in 4 regions so that it can be properly managed.
A country, where the largest political party is totally controlled by a family and most of the smaller parties are political fiefdoms of some leaders,cannot be ssid to have unquestionable democratic credentials. Even though the media apparently has per se nothing against such an undemocratic dispensation as demonstrated by its total acceptance of Sonia Gandhi and her son as constituting the ruling autocratic royalty of the Congress party, it plays a different tune when it loses no opportunity to catigate the Mayawatis and Mamtas of such a skewed democratic polity on everything they do or say. Along with the Congress party the media is losing its democratic credentials. That is a sad thought!
The idea of division of the state has come at the right time, and is a well thought out plan for the coming assembly election.All the important issues concerning the developmental aspect for the people of the state will be eclipsed under the shadow of division of state in four parts adn the only topic on which politics will be played is this only. People of the state here needs to understand adn voice what is being proposed is not the solution to their problems.
The way the proccedings hastened to pass the bill in a din and the post-facto events indicate how self-centred politicians convert Assembly proceedings into a mockery or a big joke. 'Baulkanisation' of the State is never a solution to rid it of its problems and issues. What is needed is inclusive governance and dectralisation of power. The division does not serve the aspirations of the people. It serves only the soaring ambitions of the politicians. Moreover, more States mean more CMs, more ministers, more delay in getting things done and more avenues to corruption. Other States also lie in wait to jump into the bandwagon of political heavyweights that begins to roll.
We feel big state like U.P needs to be separated into smaller units for having a better administration & very efficient rule & imparting speedy justice to the people . Public sh'd have least trouble to contact ministers & its officers very speedily and early for presenting their own grievances.Smaller units can be handled very easily and efficiently & also could be better controlled & managed in all spheres of social activities. This is indeed a prerequisite for any state to be prosperous & hence it should be certainly better for our country
'India, the Bharat shall be the union of states', First article of our Constitution clearly conveyed the message that large country like India needs federal system to manage the affairs efficiently. The objective per se was to decentralize the decision making power, administration and execution. Following the intent, State Reorganization Act adopted the linguistic basis for creation of states. With the passage of time, the core changed, and we saw more number of states because of negligence of particular region. Here aslo the motive was inclusive growth. All these changes support the economic basis, and not the political narcissism for further division. If one person remains in power for five years and could not bring any substantial changes in the very basic life of deprived of neglected region, then he/she has no good reason to propose the creation of smaller states on the eve of election. It is nothing but the hypocrisy to take away the attention from main issues.
U.P. is my home-state and there is nothing wrong in breaking it down into 4 pieces. First of all, hardly anyone cares about division there as witness during Uttrakhand division when U.P. lost most of its power-generation units. It may have implication for 'language-chauvinist' state division but for U.P. people, its a welcome move. It surely not a bad-thing to do.
To develop a state in a country like india its not a difficult thing but it is also not easy to run such a big state like UP. From the social and economical point of view the UP can be divided to run it successfully. But from political point of view i don't think so ?
Mayawati is indeed a master tactician. There is a saying that wars are won before they are fought, i wonder if the same can be said regarding elections. I think this presents a grander vision for emerging India, now that there is an increasing trend of devolution of power among several classes, it is only logical that the voice for equality (in power) becomes loud. Yes, dividing UP will take some time, but anything can happen, if mayawati wins the elections, she might drop the whole idea, or push for it if she loses. The ball is clearly in her court.
clearly disintegration of U.P is required as argued in the past,but a
sudden bullet from the chief minister's political weapons around the
proximity of General elections certainly seems a little weird.Creation
of a new state is a sensible affair and demarcation process requires a
well researched and a consolidated approach adopted on regional
aspiration of people.The state division based on caste politics
reflects the ill-ideology of Governing govt.to get short-term political
gains.
it's all political drama and it show that politician can do anything for
their political interests. she is offering four state plan for U.P. for
better caring and better administration for backward areas but she does
not know that financial burden will come on these own people while
constituting small states.
For more highly performing best and meritorious governance Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Ms Mayawati's dividion plank is good and it will enable her to become one of the best Prime Ministers of PraBuddha B harath.
I do not agree with you. fragmentation of the country on the basis of ever-narrowing identities hardly represents a progressive idea of India& neither the huge identities like UP are progressive either. Only way ideally democratic India can progress is to make effort to devolve peacefully in to small units possibly to village republic level. We already have Ralegan Siddhi example of development pioneered by Anna Hazare. Throughout history, people who have lived in small states are happier, more peaceful, more creative and more prosperous. All our political and social problems would be greatly diminished by the devolution of big states into the small units. Rather than making ever larger political unions, in the mistaken belief that this will bring peace and security, we should minimise the aggregation of power by returning to a patchwork of small, relatively powerless states, where leaders are accessible to and responsive to the people.
Ok, so, your editorial clearly vindicates the point that the bigger
states that can send more MPs to Parliament have better say in
the Parliament! A bigger state's views, proposals and support or lack
of it can be easily 'enforced' on the other smaller states. What kind
of a federal polity is this? This amounts to nothing but 'enforcing'
majoritarian view on minorities - be it cultural, linguistic or for
that matter overall developmental agenda. What kind of confidence and
hope can smaller states and minorities have on the polity if this is
the blunt truth as you have put?
The Election, is a race indeed, that each political outfit tries to elbow the other out.It is more often that the concept of freebies and more so, the value of freebies assured on the eve of elections, ultimately scores. Now U.P is seen to tread the path of A.P noted for its turbulent pitch for a separate state. The regional imbalances normally witnessed in big states like U.P,may appear to justify the proposal of Mayawati. Her bid to take leaf from Andra Pradesh, where the cry for secessionism is on the high decibel and the political opportunism of the ruling congress has to sing chorus, was visible. The Centre's dithering adds fuel to the fire in A.P. Better Mayawati not take cue from the above state, where the territorial sentiments are fanned to reap harvest.She may explore other means by ensuring adequate funds to the limping regions within the state. India, as seen united, is our pride and strengh. .So are the states.
The original idea to divide the country into different states on the basis of mother tongues prevailing in those areas appear to be more logical and sound than any other basis.Same mother tongue would unite people in those regions.The prob;ems,culture and customs would be more or less same.And this has worked all these years to a reasonable degree.
People in India also should get involved in this idea mooted by M/s Mayavati,since it would perculate in every other state.Already Telengana is a hot topic.
When development has become difficult, people and politicals start thinking about division. What political leaders need is vision but not division unasked for. The fragmentation may further lead to less development in the absence of economic plan. Anyhow.such ideas have to be proposed after much study and not in a theatrical manner as Ms Mayavati has done.
Idea of decentralization of power to the lowest level possible is for
the common good. But Mayawati using the idea just before polls is
worrisome. This is a classic divide and rule game by Mayawati.
The latest move of Mayawati to break UP into four states is a political gamble made out of compulsion. In a technology driven era where the role of human resource is dwindling in both private and government departments it is ridiculous even to think that creation of smaller states is necessary for development. If smaller states can bring growth and development why our north eastern states even after allowing tax holidays and Area based Exemption remain as same and no visible progress or development has taken place in these states. Creation of smaller states will only benefit politicians and bureaucrats and not the common man. Jharkhand is a classic example and a lesson to the votaries for creation of smaller states in the name of administrative convenience and development. The notable achievement in Jharkhand, if any, after getting the statehood are multi-Crore scams involving politicians and merciless sell out of precious natural wealth in the name of development to Multi National Companies and leading industrial houses in the country. If there is any lopsided economic and infrastructural growth among various states, the responsibility squarely lies on the political leadership and policy makers. For achieving all inclusive growth, the development and economic prosperity should percolate evenly to all parts of the country. Creation of smaller states will jeopardize the unity and integrity of the country in the days ahead. In order to achieve the Pan India inclusive growth, our political leadership should seriously think of dismantling all the states and reviving Rajaji Plan of creation of provinces of North, South, East and West so as to abandon once for all the political gimmick of creation of smaller states by our disgruntled and power hungry political leaders.
As you have rightly pointed out fragmentation of the country on the basis of ever-narrowing identities hardly represents a progressive idea of India. Rampant corruption, poor governance and vote bank politics both at the Centre and in the states have held back India's growth for decades and there is no evidence that things will change for the better in the near future.
Kudos to The Hindu for a very brilliant Editorial.Media persons should read this Editorial , before terming it a Master Stroke.Its a Clever move but not a Masterly move.
Please Email the Editor