Mayawati wanted to carve out four states from UP. Why is the idea back?

Uttar Pradesh Minister and NDA ally Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party (SBSP) chief O P Rajbhar on Sunday ruffled feathers after claiming that the state would soon be divided into four parts and that one of the proposed regions — Purvanchal, or eastern Uttar Pradesh — would get a chief minister from his community.

The remarks have reignited an old political and administrative debate over whether Uttar Pradesh, the country’s most populous state, could be reorganised into smaller states.

According to officials, such a formulation generally refers to four broad regions — Western UP or Paschim Pradesh, Central UP or Awadh, Bundelkhand, and Purvanchal. “These are broad geographical and socio-cultural regions and do not represent officially demarcated boundaries for the proposed states,” an official said.

Rajbhar’s claim is not the first time leaders from Uttar Pradesh have spoken about reorganising the state.

Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) founder Ajit Singh was among the prominent leaders to demand a separate Western UP, while demands for a separate state of “Harit Pradesh”, carved out of the region, have also periodically surfaced in the state’s political discourse. However, the boundaries of “Harit Pradesh” have varied across different proposals.

Western UP’s sugarcane-based economy, agriculture, trade and manufacturing, as well as its proximity to Delhi, have often been cited in support of the statehood demand.

Mayawati’s move

The most concrete step towards dividing Uttar Pradesh came during the Mayawati-led BSP government in November 2011. Her government moved and passed a resolution in the Assembly proposing to divide the state into Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh.

The Mayawati government argued that Uttar Pradesh’s vast size made administration and development difficult and that smaller states could lead to better governance.

The resolution was sent to the Centre but was not pursued further by the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party (SP) government, which came to power in 2012.

Rough boundaries

Paschim Pradesh: The proposed state would comprise 28 districts and parts of several others, covering areas including Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Shamli, Baghpat, Meerut, Hapur, Bijnor, Moradabad, Rampur, Amroha, Bulandshahr, Sambhal, Bareilly, Badaun, Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur, Aligarh, Etah, Farrukhabad, Mathura, Hathras, Agra, Firozabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar and Ghaziabad, as well as parts of Kasganj, Kannauj and Mainpuri.

Awadh Pradesh: The central region of UP, comprising 17 districts — Lucknow, Unnao, Rae Bareli, Sitapur, Lakhimpur Kheri, Hardoi, Barabanki, Ayodhya, Sultanpur, Amethi, Bahraich, Shravasti, Gonda, Balrampur, Mainpuri and Etawah, along with parts of Kasganj — would make up the proposed state.

Lucknow, which has historically been an important political and administrative centre, lies at the heart of this region.

Bundelkhand: The proposed state would cover Jhansi, Jalaun, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Banda and Chitrakoot districts.

The region also extends into neighbouring Madhya Pradesh, making proposals for a separate Bundelkhand state more complicated.

Purvanchal: The proposed state would broadly cover 23 districts — Prayagraj, Varanasi, Jaunpur, Ghazipur, Ballia, Azamgarh, Mau, Gorakhpur, Deoria, Kushinagar, Maharajganj, Sant Kabir Nagar, Siddharthnagar, Basti, Ambedkar Nagar, Mirzapur, Sonbhadra, Chandauli, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Pratapgarh, Kanpur Dehat and Kanpur Nagar.

Pro-Purvanchal activists and organisations have often cited the region’s large population, economic disparities, migration and geographical distance from Lucknow to argue in favour of their demand.

Two sides of the demand

The argument for smaller states generally rests on administrative manageability and region-specific development.

Uttar Pradesh is geographically vast, and its regions differ considerably in their economic structures, geography, agricultural patterns, migration trends and historical identities. Advocates of reorganisation argue that smaller states could allow governments to focus more closely on regional concerns.

Opponents have questioned whether statehood alone would resolve development disparities and have pointed to the administrative, financial and institutional complications involved in creating new states.

What is the process?

Any move to divide Uttar Pradesh into new states would have to follow the procedure specified under Article 3 of the Constitution.

Article 3 provides that Parliament may by law form a new state by separating territory from an existing state, or by uniting two or more states or parts of states. It can also increase or diminish the area of a state, alter its boundaries or change its name.

A Bill for this purpose cannot be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President. If the proposal affects the area, boundaries or name of a state, the President must refer the Bill to the legislature of that state for expressing its views within a specified period. The President can also allow a further period for the state legislature to give its views.

Importantly, Article 3 requires the state legislature’s views to be sought, but not its consent. The final power to create a new state rests with Parliament.