• CONTEST ALERT - Experience the power of DDR5 memory with Kingston Click for details

Divide Uttar Pradesh into four states, says Mayawati

theserpent

Firecracker to the moon
The Bahujan Samaj Party demanded splitting of Uttar Pradesh into four smaller states Wednesday, a day after the Congress Working Committee (CWC) urged the government to form a separate state of Telangana.

"We have always supported smaller states," BSP chief Mayawati said here at a press conference.

She said Uttar Pradesh should be divided into four smaller states -- Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh and Pashchim Pradesh.

"When this population is divided between four states, development will increase," she said.

"Ministers in central government who hail from Uttar Pradesh should build pressure on the central government for formation of these states," she added.

Supporters of Mayawati and those of Ajit Singh's Rashtriya Lok Dal have begun rallying around the demand for splitting Uttar Pradesh into two, three or even four states.

Mayawati has been frantically looking for an issue that could galvanise her Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) workers in the run-up to the 2014 Lok Sabha polls.

Just before her electoral defeat in the 2012 assembly polls, the BSP supremo had played a political gamble by proposing in the assembly that the sprawling state be split into four parts.

Many people welcomed her proposal, though the Samajwadi Party leaders opposed the idea.

The debate continues on whether smaller administrative units open the way to accelerated economic growth and help bridge communication gap.

At the local level, BSP leaders see political opportunities and a broad-basing of the party organisation. "From just one now, the BSP could rule four states in the future," says a party leader, echoing a widespread feeling.

It was Dr B.R. Ambedkar who in 1954 advocated splitting of bigger states into smaller units.

Later, socialists like Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, Jai Prakash Narain, Acharya Kripalani and others favoured re-drawing of the administrative map of India. But, Jawaharlal Nehru, the then prime minister, supported the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) recommendation of re-forming states on linguistic basis.

Choudhary Charan Singh also favoured smaller states. Later, his son and Rashtriya Lok Dal chief Ajit Singh launched a movement for Harit Pradesh, comprising 22 districts of western Uttar Pradesh.

Dr K.M. Panikkar, in his dissenting note to the SRC report, however, opposed linguistic states and favoured formation of a state of west Uttar Pradesh. For years, socialist leader Hukum Singh Parihar alone carried on the movement for a Braj Pradesh with Agra as its capital.

During the 1975-77 Emergency, Sanjay Gandhi almost succeeded in carving out a new state of western Uttar Pradesh with Agra as capital. The new state was to include parts of Haryana too.

The issue came in sharper focus when Agra lawyers, in the early 1980s, launched a mass movement for a Allahabad High Court bench in Agra. The union government set up the Jaswant Singh Commission, which supported the demand.

In the 1990s, Surekha Yadav's Braj Pradesh Party did a lot of work on this front, but response from public was not enthusiastic.

Almost all political parties have at one point or the other supported the restructuring of the federal polity on a more scientific line, taking into account the area and population, says political analyst Rajeev Saxena.

"The time has come when a comprehensive exercise to redraw the political map of India should be carried out through a new SRC," suggests social scientist Paras Nath Choudhary, former researcher at the South Asia Institute of Heidelberg University.

"Size does make a difference. For political reasons, the Congress party has been averse to splitting bigger states into smaller ones and pointlessly dragging feet on such demands as is happening in Andhra Pradesh. Earlier the Uttarakhand movement was unnecessarily prolonged for years," he added.

With Telangana now becoming a reality, people in the Taj city are excited and looking forward to a whole lot of new opportunities, should the dream for a separate state of West Uttar Pradesh take shape.

"With the unwieldy size of Uttar Pradesh, Agra region has always got a raw deal, with all the funds and tax revenues siphoned off to eastern district

Divide Uttar Pradesh into four states, says Mayawati


Soon many states will follow :/
 

funskar

Padawan
F**k these assh***s mayawati n mulayam:twisted:
Trying to divide the state n rule in there majority area:cool:
 

theterminator

Wise Old Owl
the state should be divided. 200 million is too much for a single administrative unit to administer. this demand is legit & will bear fruits in the long run.
 

sujoyp

Grand Master
if we start dividing states...the india will look just like it was before the iron man of india sardar patel put it togather...there can be easily 50 states in india if the division continues
 

Skud

Super Moderator
Staff member
the state should be divided. 200 million is too much for a single administrative unit to administer. this demand is legit & will bear fruits in the long run.


+1. Also Mayabati is making this demand for quite some time now, nothing new.
 

sujoyp

Grand Master
here is a pic I saw yesterday on FB ...although its a joke...but it can be a relaity someday

999398_522141271184382_1515932248_n.jpg
 

Flash

Lost in speed
United Status of India.. :lol:
With the emergence of Telengana, many states will (soon) follow this spirit and ask for separate entities.
 

Desmond

Destroy Erase Improve
Staff member
Admin
Actually in the future, all of us will be living in about 25 Triangle metres of land allotted to each of us.
 
Last edited:
If division is required for better governance then I feel its better to divide states on the basis of number of constituencies.. say 25.. instead of divisions like language, caste or religion..
It would help smaller states like the NE states to have their voice heard in the center...
Its funny that the same constitution which discourages differences between people has on the other hand put so many things in place to divide them
 

theterminator

Wise Old Owl
^coz we indians are highly religious/superstitious people. the constitution makers must have had this in mind. thats why secularism bullshit comes into picture coz they assumed that indian people can be 'easily' misguided on religion. people will not follow rational thinking instead they will go n light up n pray for god to make their life awesome. they have mixed up too much into one book. everyday one hears freedom of speech with reasonable restrictions :lol: ...what is the restriction has not been clarified yet.

UP is in urgent need of development, its glorius run as THE state is fading away...btw that india picture of fb shows a small Purvanchal state, it is presumed to be bigger than Awadh :p. If it were divided then Awadh Pradesh will have Lucknow as capital, Bundelkhand -->> Jhansi, Harit (or Paschim) Pradesh as (i don't know what) & Purvanchal -->> Allahabad or Varanasi (though I think Allahabad is bigger and more populous & its Civil Lines area makes me wonder sometimes whether im in a developed christian city or what but u never know).
 
^coz we indians are highly religious/superstitious people. the constitution makers must have had this in mind. thats why secularism bullshit comes into picture coz they assumed that indian people can be 'easily' misguided on religion. people will not follow rational thinking instead they will go n light up n pray for god to make their life awesome. they have mixed up too much into one book. everyday one hears freedom of speech with reasonable restrictions :lol: ...what is the restriction has not been clarified yet.

Not only religion... states based on languages, requirement of the caste column in everything related to the government..etc.
When people of different languages can live normally in big cities say bombay or hyderbad.. why cant it be so every where. Why divide based on languages.
Just like its hard for any one to learn something new (like a new language) as they age on... its same for a society or a country. We should have been directed by the constitution to live together without differences.. when the nation was still young, the nationalistic feelings due to the Freedom struggle would have helped us in achieving that goal.
But instead of that they wanted us to live together with differences such as languages, caste etc...they also encouraged it more than the idea of one nation..
Instead of removing the idea of untouchability... they implemented rules make it into a different kind of problem. And instead of the idea of single nation with states only to facilitate better administration by dividing equally... encouraged the differences.. causing differences between people like North-south,Indian- NE ,hindi-non hindi etc...
The politicians added to the list of differences for their polotical gains and now we have a nation where there are lot of things you can see as defference between you and the person next to you... even when he is your best friend.
 
Top Bottom