Division of UP and its implications

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 12 Nov 2011 06:05

We are so for discussing the proposed SRC and the calls for division of UP state in Telangana Moniter. Any serious proposal to divide up with possible 35% to 40% populated muslim state just east of Delhi will have profound security implications. Small states in dry and expremely backward areas like Bundelkhand will have serious danger of becomming naxal dominated or dominated by one caste or gruop. Most of us know very little about various regions in UP and their economic and social composition.

In this background let us study this matter in detail.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 12 Nov 2011 10:04

Congress in a bind over dividing UP into smaller states

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 12 Nov 2011 10:32

x-post

darshhan wrote:Actually in this case most of the UP's population favors this division.The state is simply too big an unit to be governed effectively.And UP public is seeing the progress that neighbouring small states are making(eg. Haryana , Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh).And I doubt if smaller states would lead to unravelling of Sardar's dream atleast in UP's case. As someone whose family is based in UP I completely support the division of the state.

We would have to watch out for Islamists in western UP though. But then any hostility from them would also lead to unity between Hindus.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 12 Nov 2011 10:40

The question arises as to whether the people of UP are actually polarized on these precise geographic lines?

From my information it is people in Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, and Baghelkhand, who routinely complain of neglect from Lucknow. Much the same way as Uttarakhand used to. Geographically also Budelkhand and Baghelkhand are not part of the Gangetic plains but of the Central Indian Plateau. Therefore...

1) I would have Western and Central UP as one state with Lucknow as capital. Backward Purvanchal will develop separately.

2) Bundelkhand+Baghelkhand cannot be created without dividing Madhya Pradesh. Or they can be merged into Madhya Pradesh.....but will that help in their development?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 12 Nov 2011 12:57

Is the so called Harith Pradesh is going to the " Green" with 35 to 40 per cent of voters being Muslim? How does presence of Deoband impacts their voting and other social and religious behaviour?

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 12 Nov 2011 13:48

Airavat wrote:
The question arises as to whether the people of UP are actually polarized on these precise geographic lines?

From my information it is people in Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, and Baghelkhand, who routinely complain of neglect from Lucknow. Much the same way as Uttarakhand used to. Geographically also Budelkhand and Baghelkhand are not part of the Gangetic plains but of the Central Indian Plateau. Therefore...

1) I would have Western and Central UP as one state with Lucknow as capital. Backward Purvanchal will develop separately.

2) Bundelkhand+Baghelkhand cannot be created without dividing Madhya Pradesh. Or they can be merged into Madhya Pradesh.....but will that help in their development?

Airavat ji, The people of UP are not that emotionally polarized as is the case with Telangana issue or was in the case of uttarakhand.So actually the division of UP might prove to be much simpler and easy and may actually come sooner. People understand the need for smaller states.They can see the performance of smaller states around them.For eg. Haryana ,Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand.So actually the division of UP might prove to be much simpler and easy and may actually come sooner.

Also the needs of different parts of UP are very different.Western UP is probably one of the most prosperous regions of country both in Industry(Courtesy of being near to Delhi) and agriculture while Bundelkhand is extremely poor.Poorvanchal again is a different case altogether being highly dependent on Agriculture.

The division plan floated by Mayawati is good enough.It is better to have different states for western UP and Central UP instead of combining them.If anything the current Mayawati plan for dividing UP in four parts can be increased to more parts but not less.These four parts are an absolute minimum.

And yes Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand criscross both UP and MP.But for now let UP districts of these regions form as a separate state.If MP areas of these regions want to join the new states they can do so in future.

Will creation of new states result in faster development.I don't know.It all depends on the political leadership of these states.But currently the situation in UP is such that even a good leader wouldn't be able to change much.Atleast that will change.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 12 Nov 2011 14:15

Narayana Rao wrote:We are so for discussing the proposed SRC and the calls for division of UP state in Telangana Moniter. Any serious proposal to divide up with possible 35% to 40% populated muslim state just east of Delhi will have profound security implications. Small states in dry and expremely backward areas like Bundelkhand will have serious danger of becomming naxal dominated or dominated by one caste or gruop. Most of us know very little about various regions in UP and their economic and social composition.

In this background let us study this matter in detail.

Narayan Rao ji , First of all it is a mistake to compare Telangana with the proposed division of UP.Telangana has become an emotive issue for both the pro Telangana folks and those who are against it.Whereas this is not the case for the division of UP.Here people are not agitating for new states or for that matter against the division.But the need for division is understood from an administrative point of view.It will be more like MP-Chhattisgarh division.

Just because western UP will be 35% muslim doesn't mean that we eschew the path of development.Why are we so afraid of Islamists?Are they some kind of 10 feet tall super humans who do not bleed?I mean now will we take our decisions(which impact our well being) , keeping the percentage of muslim population in mind.If we are so afraid of 30-40% muslims we have already lost to the islamists.If they are 30% then Hindus are 70% and have more resources.Most of the hindu villages in UP including Western UP are armed and can inflict serious damage in case of any skirmish or struggle.Have faith in your fellow indics. I will give you a historical example.From mid 17th century to mid 18th century 15% Sikhs supported by another 15% or so Hindus were ruling over more than 70% muslims in large parts of Undivided Punjab.It is the courage and character of people which count and not the numbers.

As far as security implications are concerned they arise more from governance deficit rather than increased muslim population.This is true even today.

As far as Bundelkhand is concerned , if it continues to be a part of UP the definitely it will be a hotbed of naxals as development will never take place.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 12 Nov 2011 14:19

Narayana Rao wrote:Is the so called Harith Pradesh is going to the " Green" with 35 to 40 per cent of voters being Muslim? How does presence of Deoband impacts their voting and other social and religious behaviour?

Muslims will continue to vote in the same manner.That is they will vote for the candidate who is most likely to defeat the BJP candidate.As of now that is BSP.there is a chance however that they might float their own party just like MIM or the one floated by muslims in Assam.The presence of Deoband affects all the deobandis and not just the ones in West UP.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 13 Nov 2011 09:37

Planning Commission study on the remaining part of Bundelkhand in Madhya Pradesh (PDF file)

five districts of northern Madhya Pradesh: Chhatarpur, Datia, Panna, Satna and Tikamgarh are part of Bundelkhand (also called Vindhya Pradesh). Formed as a category “C” state, it commercially faced problems of food scarcity and lack of resources even to run the state administration, and was merged into Madhya Pradesh. In Bundelkhand, Panna is the only district which has the percentage of forest area over 50% with respect to its geographical area. Satna and Chhatarpur have forest cover between 20-30%, while Datia and Tikamgarh have it less than 20%. Bundelkhand, devoid of forest cover, looks like a barren land with naked mounds of hills. The problem of soil erosion, soil filling into the ponds making them useless, direct flow of rain-water into the rivers, depleting ground water resources and unproductivity of the land, all these are the emerging issues in Bundelkhand which have roots into the depletion of forest cover. traditional water resource management systems, including that of Chandeli ponds, are neglected.

Tikamgarh has poverty rate of 58.3% closely followed by district Satna with 55.5. Districts Datia and Panna also have the poverty rate indicating nearly half of its population below poverty line. Only Chhatarpur is relatively better in Bundelkhand, with the poverty rate of only 29.8%. Northern MP of which Bundelkhand and Bagelkhand are the parts, constitutes a very small proportion of tribal population but still district Panna has 14.90% tribal population while district Satna has 13.81% of it.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 13 Nov 2011 10:58

darshhan wrote:The division plan floated by Mayawati is good enough.It is better to have different states for western UP and Central UP instead of combining them.If anything the current Mayawati plan for dividing UP in four parts can be increased to more parts but not less.These four parts are an absolute minimum.

For economic and administrative reasons western+central can continue as Uttar Pradesh, because they have the same level of urbanization. The six major cities of UP (Kanpur, Lucknow, Agra, Varanasi, Meerut and Allahabad) are in these two regions and attract huge internal migration from the rural areas. Central UP without the western belt will be economically weak. It's wise to keep them together as "Uttar Pradesh", while the less urban Bundelkhand and Purvanchal are hived off. This will also remove the need to find a new capital for western UP and all its attendant costs.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 13 Nov 2011 11:27

Airavat wrote:For economic and administrative reasons western+central can continue as Uttar Pradesh, because they have the same level of urbanization. The six major cities of UP (Kanpur, Lucknow, Agra, Varanasi, Meerut and Allahabad) are in these two regions and attract huge internal migration from the rural areas. Central UP without the western belt will be economically weak. It's wise to keep them together as "Uttar Pradesh", while the less urban Bundelkhand and Purvanchal are hived off. This will also remove the need to find a new capital for western UP and all its attendant costs.

That's not quite right.

Allahabad and Varanasi are in Eastern UP (Poorvanchal)

Kanpur and Lucknow are in Central UP.

Agra and Meerut are in Western UP (Harit Pradesh)

So the big cities are distributed evenly among the proposed new states.

The new states and their capitals presumably could be:

Harit Pradesh (Western UP): Agra

Awadh (Central UP): Lucknow

Poorvanchal (Eastern UP): Allahabad

Bundelkahnd: Jhansi (If the MP part of Bundelkhand can be merged with UP Bundelkhand, then the capital of the combined Bundelkhand state should be Gwalior).

Apart from the demographic factor in Western UP, I believe the division is very much desirable. UP is huge (population-wise twice the size of Germany I believe). It is quite ungovernable in its present form. There was an argument made that there is no way a Chief minister can keep in close touch with all the district collectors in UP.

As for economic viability, Western UP is quite strong agriculturally and industrially, and will get stronger due to its proximity to Delhi.

Central UP will struggle but can be revived economically with good governance. Kanpur was a premier industrial city before and just after independence.

Poorvanchal and Bundelkhand are economically backward, and will require a lot of central help for development. But they have resources too. Allahabad was (is) a major center of learning. These two regions will need Chief Ministers like Nitish Kumar and Narendra Modi to bring them up.

All in all, I am in favour of dividing UP.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 13 Nov 2011 11:49

^^ +1.Division of UP is a necessity for development.The sooner the better.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 13 Nov 2011 11:50

Airavat wrote:
darshhan wrote:The division plan floated by Mayawati is good enough.It is better to have different states for western UP and Central UP instead of combining them.If anything the current Mayawati plan for dividing UP in four parts can be increased to more parts but not less.These four parts are an absolute minimum.
For economic and administrative reasons western+central can continue as Uttar Pradesh, because they have the same level of urbanization. The six major cities of UP (Kanpur, Lucknow, Agra, Varanasi, Meerut and Allahabad) are in these two regions and attract huge internal migration from the rural areas. Central UP without the western belt will be economically weak. It's wise to keep them together as "Uttar Pradesh", while the less urban Bundelkhand and Purvanchal are hived off. This will also remove the need to find a new capital for western UP and all its attendant costs.

Airavat ji , any particular reason why you want to keep central and western UP together?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 Nov 2011 12:51

What the Hack. Divide it and be done with it and lets move on.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 13 Nov 2011 14:47

chaanakya wrote:What the Hack. Divide it and be done with it and lets move on.

That's one of the most ignorant statements said here in a while. Any division of a state would have to be thought through well to benefit people and development. It can't be arbitrary just because the politics of UP are such a mess and in fact a bad division would hurt the common man. But like many people here on BRF, you must be a "madraassi" who doesn't know or give a shit about anyone or any other region of India.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 13 Nov 2011 15:36

Mort Walker wrote:
chaanakya wrote:What the Hack. Divide it and be done with it and lets move on.
That's one of the most ignorant statements said here in a while. Any division of a state would have to be thought through well to benefit people and development. It can't be arbitrary just because the politics of UP are such a mess and in fact a bad division would hurt the common man. But like many people here on BRF, you must be a "madraassi" who doesn't know or give a shit about anyone or any other region of India.

Mort Walker ji , This division actually makes sense.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 Nov 2011 17:54

Mort Walker wrote:
chaanakya wrote:What the Hack. Divide it and be done with it and lets move on.
That's one of the most ignorant statements said here in a while. Any division of a state would have to be thought through well to benefit people and development. It can't be arbitrary just because the politics of UP are such a mess and in fact a bad division would hurt the common man. But like many people here on BRF, you must be a "madraassi" who doesn't know or give a shit about anyone or any other region of India.

Do you really think I need to reply to this idiotic statement of yours??

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 13 Nov 2011 18:43

Everything should not be about today's situation and today's electoral calculations. There are ways to overcome the governance issues and the mantra for the wheelchair intellectuals and "toothless India destructors" these days is to divide the states. Genuine electoral reforms will bring in a good government and reforms at the statelevel by a good government will usher in good governance.

There is huge fancy theory of let India be divided to 50 or 100 states and then India will prosper. Not all states will be Punjab and Haryana (I still think this itself is a mistake. Punjab+Haryana+HP+JK would have made a lot difference to India strategically than what it is today. There will be several of them that will be like Jharkhand too. Then there is also a possibility of 50 regional outfits with no national vision blackmailing the nation.

All the small state GDP growth numbers are just spin (not cooked up). There was never a proper number before the divisions and just to trigger another split movement somewhere else these spins are being used.

Regarding crime and other law and order stuff, yes both Chattisgargh and Jharkhand are law and order nightmares inspite of their smallness. In terms of politics, Jharkhand is having some 8 parties splitting 80 seats almost equally. Until very recently there was a change of CM in Goa every six months. NE has most small states as compared other regions and yet it is also the most under developed and insurgent/crime infested area.

The entire small state bandwagon is a narrow minded approach started with a short term goal of let us reduce the reach of regional satraps. No one has modelled any futuristic situation with a bunch of small states other than rhetoric and spin.

skher · Post by **skher** » 13 Nov 2011 19:59

ChandraV wrote:Yep, divide it!!

http://www.helplinelaw.com/docs/THE%20U ... CT,%202000

Division is a bit unnecessary, if balanced development is the cause.. Preserve nominal union on linguistic lines.Allow devolving powers and reorganization. IMO, do not feel any division is necessary for UP - already a federated state.More teeth to, and creation of local bodies like noida in every district. Perhaps J&K and Red corridor states also need to be reorganized without splitting up.

for example, as follows:

1. Partyless SNTV elected 4 Chief Commissioners (with CM-appointed IAS officer Zonal Commissioner as deputy) of Development agency named Harit Pradesh, Dakshinkhand, Poorvanchal, Pashimanchal.+1 including Uttarakhand.Chief Commisioners to have proven track record in Program Implementation & Statistical Monitoring(or 5 years work exp. as superintendent/mayor)
2. 18 Chief Superintendents, in charge of divisions, nominated by Chief Commissioner and approved by Zonal Assembly.PCS officer is deputy as legally qualified Divisional Magistrate.
Lastly,
3. 71 directly elected mayors at the district level. PCS officer deputy as district magistrate.
4. Governor's rule can be imposed with advice of Chief Minister and approval of MHA.
5.Chief minister has power to review and veto decisions with Governor's approval.

Development Agency, divisions and districts to have regional assemblies with party-list proportional nomination (Standing Committee Vidhan Sabha) in accordance with state election results.All administrative elections held concurrently with winner takes all.

But first a shreeganesh through wikipedia of present situation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Uttar_Pradesh

Division Headquarters
Districts
Map

Agra division Agra

Agra
Firozabad
Mainpuri
Mathura

Aligarh division Aligarh

Aligarh
Etah
Mahamaya Nagar
Kanshiram Nagar

Allahabad division Allahabad

Allahabad
Fatehpur
Kaushambi
Pratapgarh

Azamgarh division Azamgarh

Azamgarh
Ballia
Mau

Bareilly division Bareilly

Badaun
Bareilly
Pilibhit
Shahjahanpur

Basti division Basti

Basti
Sant Kabir Nagar
Siddharthnagar

Chitrakoot division Chitrakoot

Banda
Chitrakoot
Hamirpur
Mahoba

Devipatan division Gonda

Bahraich
Balarampur
Gonda
Shravasti

Faizabad division Faizabad

Ambedkar Nagar
Barabanki
Faizabad
Sultanpur

Gorakhpur division Gorakhpur

Deoria
Gorakhpur
Kushinagar
Maharajganj

Jhansi division Jhansi

Jalaun
Jhansi
Lalitpur

Kanpur division Kanpur

Auraiya
Etawah
Farrukhabad
Kannauj
Kanpur Dehat
Kanpur Nagar

Lucknow division Lucknow

Hardoi
Lakhimpur Kheri
Lucknow
Raebareli
Sitapur
Unnao

Meerut division Meerut

Bagpat
Bulandshahr
Gautam Buddha Nagar
Ghaziabad
Meerut

Mirzapur division Mirzapur

Mirzapur
Sant Ravidas Nagar
Sonbhadra

Moradabad division Moradabad

Bijnor
Jyotiba Phule Nagar
Moradabad
Rampur

Saharanpur division Saharanpur

Muzaffarnagar
Saharanpur

Varanasi division Varanasi

Chandauli
Ghazipur
Jaunpur
Varanasi

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 Nov 2011 20:15

I don't know if such issues were raised when division of Madras Presidency took place or that of Punjab /haryana as those were much before internet days. But exercise that was taken by BJP in respect of newly formed states not much voice was raised against formation of smaller states when dividing UP/MP and Bihar.

States, in the scheme of constitution , is primarily a Political entity. Any region feels left out within the state there would always be demand for separate state. However, where people are politically mature they would not be emotive and understand the necessity or otherwise of merger/demerger of any state. That is why you would not see violent agitation for/against such issues in Nawrth.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 13 Nov 2011 21:29

It is a very good idea. Should have been done along with Uttarakhand but better late than never.
It is not a good idea to have 200 million people with a growth rate of 20% to be governed in a
single unit from development perspective. Also it will confine both Mayawati and Mulayam into
one of the four states allowing national parties to make a come back.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 13 Nov 2011 21:32

lage hatho, they should also split MH in Vidarbha and MH.. will be great upakaar on Rashtra and its revival prospects..

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 Nov 2011 21:39

Atri wrote:lage hatho, they should also split MH in Vidarbha and MH.. will be great upakaar on Rashtra and its revival prospects..

+1
Vidarbha farmers might get some respite from suicides as happens in CONgrass Raj

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 13 Nov 2011 21:52

ChandraV wrote:^^ On the contrary, your usage of "Madraassi" shows how much you know about other regions of India. Its 2011, not the 1970s - only someone wanting to make an utter ass out of himself uses the "Madrasi" word these days.

I agree that the state should be divided. It is the most underdeveloped, crime infested, overpopulated state in India. For more than 3 decades. It is a drag on the whole nation. My take is that it will be easier to administer if it were split up.

You tell me why you are against the split?

I never said I was against it, I responded to chaanakya, and it was necessary to use that word to provoke a response from people like yourself to make a point who have never spent time in that region.

UP can't be divided arbitrarily - nor can any state. Or lets resurrect the Telengana thread. UP needs to be divided to western UP and eastern UP, the four state division is unnecessary. The rail corridor from Jhansi, Gwalior, Agra to NCR is good and businesses use it. Unfortunately, division will be made on demographics and not take in to account what makes good financial sense. I would advocate western UP with the capital of Agra, but that won't happen since there is so much political influence in Lucknow. I would say the part of UP that includes Jhansi and Tikamgarh which juts in to MP, be made part of MP since this area is not that densely populated (relatively). MP itself needs vast wild life corridors to protect the big cats and other large mammals between the national parks - but that's another issue.

If nothing, I would settle for some sort of division between western and eastern UP. So politicians like Mayawati and Mulyam Singh can't use funds from western UP near the NCR to go on some sort of political/social agenda.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 13 Nov 2011 22:02

ChandraV wrote:^^ Yahbut, issue is that carving out Vidarbha out of Maharashtra will result in massive protests and violence. The MNS, Shiv Sena etc. will not let go.

Division of UP and MP will be relatively easy though.

dunno about MNS.. but if BJP-SS alliance stays, SS should not cry out loud more than it ought to, to maintain a dignified stance before downhill skiing.. If alliance stays, they will mostly get the power in Vidarbha. they cannot win in Western MH. The elitist 96-clanner party of west (NCP) might actually turn nationalistic at the best once vidarbha is separated. At worst they expose their hypocrisy and suffer. But before, the senior tiger and grand satrap have to make exit from world. the post satrap 96 clanner leadership in NCP is so inept that the OBC's might engulf NCP after "saaheb" makes exit. When that happens, aam abdul from 96-clans will see their elite leaders either follow their instincts (go to dilli darbar and ask for a job there) OR rebel (Shivaji 2.0). I have stocked popcorn in anticipation of bhaat happens neksht..

Much to dismay of some fascist sections of NCP, they will then understand the significance of Ramdas Swami..

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 Nov 2011 22:03

Ok as all agree on some sort of division so lets get on with it, now that "Madrassis" have spoken up .

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 13 Nov 2011 22:03

ChandraV wrote:^^ Yahbut, issue is that carving out Vidarbha out of Maharashtra will result in massive protests and violence. The MNS, Shiv Sena etc. will not let go.

Division of UP and MP will be relatively easy though.

Explain how it will be relatively easy? Many parts of central India from Maharshtra, MP, UP and Chhaatishgarh are vast open areas where there are several national parks that are important for the heritage of wildlife. Did you know the national parks in India are run by the state governments and not by the central government? The reason is, the buffer areas which are crucially important have many villages and peoples livelihood is dependent on the natural resources in the area. It was felt that the states could manage this, but in fact development has been going on in these buffer areas. Not necessarily illegally, but by splitting hairs on the definition of the law, and by developers making bribes to state elected officials. The parks and the buffer areas need to be administered by the center or at least more tightly regulated for wildlife to survive.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 13 Nov 2011 22:14

Mort Walker wrote:
ChandraV wrote:^^ Yahbut, issue is that carving out Vidarbha out of Maharashtra will result in massive protests and violence. The MNS, Shiv Sena etc. will not let go.

Division of UP and MP will be relatively easy though.

Explain how it will be relatively easy? Many parts of central India from Maharshtra, MP, UP and Chhaatishgarh are vast open areas where there are several national parks that are important for the heritage of wildlife. Did you know the national parks in India are run by the state governments and not by the central government? The reason is, the buffer areas which are crucially important have many villages and peoples livelihood is dependent on the natural resources in the area. It was felt that the states could manage this, but in fact development has been going on in these buffer areas. Not necessarily illegally, but by splitting hairs on the definition of the law, and by developers making bribes to state elected officials. The parks and the buffer areas need to be administered by the center or at least more tightly regulated for w ildlife to survive.

Mort dada,

dunno how good it is to discuss MH in thread dedicated to UP. I will wait until flying spaghetti adminullah waves his noodly appendage in abhay mudraa.. I would redirect you to a blog article written a while ago by your's truly. Please to read the article and check the comments too. They are utmost important and address few of your questions.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 13 Nov 2011 22:15

Atri wrote:
ChandraV wrote:^^ Yahbut, issue is that carving out Vidarbha out of Maharashtra will result in massive protests and violence. The MNS, Shiv Sena etc. will not let go.

Division of UP and MP will be relatively easy though.
dunno about MNS.. but if BJP-SS alliance stays, SS should not cry out loud more than it ought to, to maintain a dignified stance before downhill skiing.. If alliance stays, they will mostly get the power in Vidarbha. they cannot win in Western MH. The elitist 96-clanner party of west (NCP) might actually turn nationalistic at the best once vidarbha is separated. At worst they expose their hypocrisy and suffer. But before, the senior tiger and grand satrap have to make exit from world. the post satrap 96 clanner leadership in NCP is so inept that the OBC's might engulf NCP after "saaheb" makes exit. When that happens, aam abdul from 96-clans will see their elite leaders either follow their instincts (go to dilli darbar and ask for a job there) OR rebel (Shivaji 2.0). I have stocked popcorn in anticipation of bhaat happens neksht..

Much to dismay of some fascist sections of NCP, they will then understand the significance of Ramdas Swami..

Again see - It is all about political parties, NCP, SS, BJP and not about the entity without them. I am not sure of any futuristic models from all aspects.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 13 Nov 2011 23:25

IMHO, districts in Bundelkhand region should be carved out of both UP and MP to form a separate state of Bundelkhand. This would start as a poor, forested state with a large percentage of tribals. It has a separate history from the rest of the area, and its development would require a different model than the surrounding states. It may have to start out as a union territory as it would require several years of assistance from the centre.

This would also address Mortji's concern about protecting national parks as the contiguous union territory of Bundelkhand may get its forests protected by the Indian Forest Service, and develop tourism in a big way.

Just imagine, Gwalior, Jhansi, Shivpuri, and forests in Bundelkhand union territory. It could be a tourist magnet for tourists from rest of India and abroad.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 14 Nov 2011 00:02

Poorvanchal will be a disaster with all the mafias and goondas running the show. Let UP remain as it is. I think Poorvanchal will become like Bihar under Laloo.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 14 Nov 2011 00:24

Re. the possible 'Muslim domination' of a Harit Pradesh state, the history so far does not bear this out.

Western UP has always voted somewhat differently than the rest of the state. There have been politicians that have dominated this region. Chronologically they, and the group they belong to, are:

1. Charan Singh - Jat - Lok Dal
2. Kalyan Singh - Lodh Rajput - BJP
3. Mayawati - SC - BSP

After the Congress monopoly ended in the mid-sixties, It was Charan Singh and his Jat-dominated Lok Dal that dominated for a while. Then the OBCs and finally the SCs have asserted themselves at the voting booth. Throughout it all, the Muslim voters have aligned themselves with one or other Hindu group, often to defeat the BJP, but not voted in large numbers legislators from a separate Muslim party. All national and regional parties have fielded Muslim candidates in Muslim-dominated areas. Even BJP had Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi from this area.

So, I think the probability of Muslims aligning with Hindu politicians in national or regional parties, and thus sharing power, is more likely than a separate Muslim party getting all Muslim votes. A separate Muslim party will only consolidate the Hindu vote against it in the Muslim-dominated areas.

The politicians, both Hindu and Muslim, will have to be wise to not fan the flames of Muslim separatism.

As for Deoband domination, please remember that Bareilly is also either in Western UP or nearby. The Shia power center in Lucknow is also not too far away.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 14 Nov 2011 00:25

Chinmayanand wrote:Poorvanchal will be a disaster with all the mafias and goondas running the show. Let UP remain as it is. I think Poorvanchal will become like Bihar under Laloo.

Why can't it be like Bihar under Nitish Kumar?

At least that is the hope, isn't it?

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 14 Nov 2011 00:45

If you google the district wise religion map you will see that it is largely the North-West of Harit Pradesh which
has less than 80% Hindu population. So the case for religious separatism at this stage is overstated.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Nov 2011 02:13

ChandraV wrote:
By "relatively easy" I was referring to the emotions and sentiment among the people. The sentiments associated with Telangana, or those whipped up by the MNS/SS types will be either absent or very low in this case. There is a reason that MP, UP and Bihar were split in the past with little opposition, when compared to the shitstorm in Telangana and Gorkhaland. Try splitting North Karnataka tomorrow, or try making Mumbai a union territory. There will be an even more massive shitstorm.

As regards the national parks that you refer to - there is a huge contiguous forest range spanning border districts of Kerala, TN and Karnataka. You might not be aware of this, since this is pure "Madrasi territory". But my point is that a precedent exists. While the administrative details of such a split across new states will need to be worked out, and might tax our bureaucracy's skills, it is nothing that cannot be done. Precedents already exist.

Anyway, if you "settle for some sort of division between western and eastern UP" (in your own words), I don't understand what was the need for pouncing on someone with cries of "Madrasi, madrasi", just because he said, "What the Hack. Divide it and be done with it and lets move on."

I don't mean to belittle the forests of KL, TN and KA, as they are very important, but for tropical forests, the area is less than the forests of central India in MH, MP and CG. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Parks_of_India
Large cat and mammal migration is extremely important for these species to survive over time. It is possible to set this up in central India and would be difficult in other parts. The national parks cannot be islands of biodiversity. The question is, in the politics of all of this division, does anyone care? I doubt it including many members of this forum probably could care less too.

The "shitstorm" didn't happen in MP because administring CG was difficult from the state capital of MP in Bhopal. Plus everyone was generally the same in language and culture. Since people don't complain, then divide them again? For what purpose and does it make economic sense. For east and west UP the division has a legitimate argument of poor administration, lack of economic opportunity and overall poor governance. In this instance people won't complain. Anything more than this, you risk raising an unnecessary "shitstorm". If you simply want to divide for the sake of demographics, go ahead and then do MH and AP while you're at it.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Nov 2011 03:26

Atri,

That was a good article. If you recall, Nagpur was the capital of the old Central Province. If there is good road transport and communications in the interior between urban areas and forest villages - perhaps much of the Naxal problem could be solved. Not all, but IMO most.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 Nov 2011 10:28

Mort walker is unnecessarily getting mortified.
All it meant is to attach less significance to split thereby taking away the emotive factor and political mileage.
In North India , the state identity is not so prominent and as one moves from East to West or vice versa one can notice gradual shift in language/culture. Another reason could be the area was under Empire during ancient or medieval period and during British period there was consolidation of centralised power when capital of British India moved from Madras to Kolkata and then to Delhi. In fact Bihar and Odisha was carved out of Bengal Presidency in 1912.

In South , it is more of emotive and culture and identity issue and unscrupulous elements take advantage of these factors.

Split of a State is not a necessary or sufficient condition for Good governance and better development. We have examples of good and bad governed states in either category.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 14 Nov 2011 17:28

I think division of UP is a bad idea from the perspective of interest of people of UP. They are already target of gunda type leaders like Rahul Gandhi, Bal Thackery, etc and any further division of people of UP will reduce their ability to fight in an organized manner any injustices hurled at them.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 Nov 2011 19:08

They identify themselves more with Awadh , Brij, Kannauj , Allahabadi/Varanasi. Gorakhpuri, Mirjapuri etc rather than UPite hence no identity crisis for them. The idea of division has not yet matured to think seriously on this.

skher · Post by **skher** » 14 Nov 2011 23:45

chaanakya wrote:They identify themselves more with Awadh , Brij, Kannauj , Allahabadi/Varanasi. Gorakhpuri, Mirjapuri etc rather than UPite hence no identity crisis for them. The idea of division has not yet matured to think seriously on this.

IMHO, everyone identifies ,with equal vigour, the cities/districts where they grew up in,regardless of ethnicity - personally included.All Indians have multiple loyalities but family and country tend override others to a good degree.

Moreover, in that case, the people's very specific wishes ought to be considered their representatives by empowering local governance -RWAs, city and district administration to near chief ministerial powers or in the least panchayati powers (subject only to Governor's/High Court review) in a few subjects such as public health,police capacity, medical/educational infrastructure, roads, industrial quality control etc.; with a large elected assembly made of independent candidates.

New states are completely unnecessary. Personally, I would wish for a roll back of Jharkhand and Uttarakhand with directly elected Chief Commissioner, whose nominees must be approved by state Assembly, must be accepted if CC gets from supermajority in local assembly.

India needs another voice - 596 autonomous district-level developmental councils(as under Sixth Schedule) to implement and make policy recommendations in central schemes like NREGS, under a unitary state-level policy framework of 26 states(26 January). All councils to be largely self financed - this factor could help implement sharing of GST. The councils can be taxed by the state and minimum standards of public service can be enforced.

In UP's case,better to allow all 71 districts to an authority under UP Industrial Area Act,1976.UP/AP/MP/Mh/Raj are already federated states, which urgently need to devolve, not split up, responsibilities to third level of governance -local bodies.Exist in most other Westminister democracy.

A non-partisan/apolitical Mayor/CEO must have financial capacity to function like chief minister of that district/industrial area in terms of policy implementation/monitoring.

Best to divide all the way with comprehensive separation of powers,sharing responsibilities rather than the present half-baked states.