A senior minister in the Uttar Pradesh government has sparked a significant political debate by claiming the state could soon be divided into four distinct entities: Purvanchal, Madhyanchal, Bundelkhand, and Harit Pradesh. Om Prakash Rajbhar, chief of the Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party (SBSP) and a UP Cabinet Minister, stated he discussed this directly with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who allegedly gave an assurance after an upcoming caste census.
Rajbhar Links Division to Caste Census
Addressing an event, Rajbhar asserted that PM Modi had acknowledged the justification for his demand, particularly in relation to the 27 percent reservation. He quoted the Prime Minister as saying, "I will conduct a caste census, and once we have counted the castes, there will be no difficulty." Rajbhar further claimed the state would be divided into four parts, suggesting that a Rajbhar's son could become the Chief Minister of the newly formed Purvanchal state. The nationwide caste census is expected to conclude by February 2027.
Proposed Divisions and Their Characteristics
The SBSP chief's proposal outlines four regions, each with unique characteristics and districts:
- Purvanchal: Covering 28 districts in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, this region is known for its high population density, unemployment, and migration concerns.
- Awadh Pradesh/Madhyanchal: Encompassing 17 districts in Central Uttar Pradesh, including administrative and economic hubs like Lucknow and Kanpur.
- Bundelkhand: A southern region covering 7 districts (Jhansi, Jalaun, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Banda, Chitrakoot), often facing drought and water infrastructure challenges. It also extends into Madhya Pradesh.
- Paschim Pradesh/Harit Pradesh: Comprising 23 districts in Western Uttar Pradesh, this area is critical for agricultural infrastructure and economic activity, with close proximity to the NCR region.
A Recurring Political Proposal
The idea of dividing Uttar Pradesh is not new. In 2011, then-Chief Minister Mayawati passed a resolution in the state assembly proposing the creation of four smaller states, arguing that UP's vast size made effective administration difficult. This proposal, sent to the Central government, was not pursued after the Samajwadi Party came to power in 2012.
Historically, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar also proposed splitting Uttar Pradesh into three smaller states in 1955 in his work "Thoughts on Linguistic States." He suggested a population size of approximately 2 crore for each new state, identifying Meerut, Kanpur, and Prayagraj as potential capital cities. Ambedkar argued that large administrative units could weaken public accountability and effective governance.
Mixed Reactions from Allies
While Rajbhar actively advocates for the state's division, his Cabinet colleague and Nishad Party chief, Dr. Sanjay Nishad, has voiced strong opposition. Dr. Nishad warned that division based on appeasement politics could lead to regions with concentrated demographics, potentially creating conditions akin to a "new Pakistan." He highlighted the state's rapid progress and special development funds allocated to regions like Bundelkhand and Purvanchal.
Conversely, two-time BJP MP Sanjeev Balyan supported Rajbhar's stance, stating, "We have long advocated for the division of Uttar Pradesh, and it would be a matter of great joy if separate states were created to improve the region." He suggested that division would facilitate the establishment of high courts and AIIMS facilities in all four states, benefiting the state's 25 crore residents with faster justice and accessible medical care.
The Constitutional Process for State Division
According to Article 3 of the Indian Constitution, the power to divide an existing state or create a new one rests entirely with the Parliament. A bill for such a purpose can only be introduced in Parliament upon the President's recommendation. Before recommending the bill, the President must refer it to the concerned state legislature to express its views within a specified timeframe. However, the state legislature's opinion is not binding on either the President or Parliament, who can proceed regardless of the state's agreement or disagreement. The bill must be passed by a simple majority in both houses of Parliament, not by a special constitutional amendment majority, before receiving the President's assent to become an Act.