Amid deteriorating law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh that has witnessed the rape and murder of women besides political murders that include three BJP leaders in the past fortnight, the union home ministry is mulling a proposal to divide the state into two for better governance.

According to a report published in The Economic Times, the union home ministry appears to be veering towards the idea that the state in its present size is “ungovernable” and should be divided. (You can read the article here)

Demands are also being raised from sections of the BJP’s ranks to impose president rule in the state. In 2000, UP was bifurcated to carve out Uttarakhand along with the birth of two more states - Jharkhand from Bihar and Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh. Except for Chhattisgrah, which saw considerable improvement in governance, both Jharkhand and Uttarakhand have not been able to take off on the right course yet.

In 2011, former UP CM and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Mayawati had proposed to split UP into four smaller states - Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh, which many called a populist move just before the 2012 assembly elections in the state.

Lately, Telangana too has been carved out of Andhra Pradesh for socio-political reasons.

Don’t you think a development ‘vision’ rather than sentiments should define the decisions taken by our leaders in bifurcating states? And a decision gone wrong on such a serious issue of dividing the geographies may lead to the creation of ‘unviable’ states? In this context, do you think dividing the state or imposing a president rule will solve UP’s law and order problems? Or do you think the Centre should exercise pressure on the Samajwadi Party (SP) regime under chief minister Akhilesh Yadav and ask it to get its act together?