Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati has disarmed her opponents, leaving them with no other option than saying "touché". The UP cabinet has endorsed a proposal for the division of UP into four smaller states: Poorvanchal (eastern UP), Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh (central UP) and Paschim Pradesh (western UP). 

This is being seen as her masterstroke to beat the anti-incumbency factor against her government. Like a skilful matador, Mayawati has turned the table on the Congress-led central government, while deflecting criticism of her government’s performance by Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi. While Mayawati loses nothing by proposing the division of UP, any delay could be blamed on the Congress which leads the government at the centre.

There is a lot of debate on the relationship (if any) between good governance and smaller states with majority, at least in political circles, favouring the idea of going smaller for efficacy. However, how come the US which is thrice the size of India in terms of area has just 50 states and has not felt need for further division in a long time? We, on the other hand, have already 28 states, six UTs and one national capital territory; while clamour is on for more states everywhere in the country.  

It is strange that a government wakes to the reality and need of a division of state on a fine morning after four-and-a-half-years in power. It sounds nothing more than a political tactic and that too an unethical one. Political game-plans are fine; game-changing stances are also okay, but every game must have rules. You can’t break the chessboard you play on, more so when the pawns never asked for it.

I have lived in UP for three decades and have travelled in most parts, both rural and urban. Other than political rallies and from mouths of politicians, I have never seen a citizen talking about the need for division of the state. In fact, their concerns could never go beyond power and water, which they never had enough, and crime, which they always had more than enough. They have seen sundry elections contested on promises of these. Then after so many years, the reality of a cold indifference sank in; they stopped talking about these too. That’s when — wasn’t it Edison who referred to necessity as the mother of invention? — politicians threw in the division-hype into the poll hoopla.

Maya’s masterstroke might have floored her opponents; it has little meaning for the people of the state, other than a little shock value. They are indeed not shocked like the animals in George Orwell’s Animal Farm when they look at pigs in suits and neckties walking on two feet around a dinner table in the last chapter of the iconic allegory. What they more likely have are just passing expressions of shock and indifference juxtaposed.