Uttar Pradesh as four states? How are states split, and what’s behind the demand in UP

The claim took many by surprise, but UP BJP sources brushed it off as pre-election posturing. “He perhaps wants to energise his cadre by making them believe that he can be Chief Minister and they can also get some posts,” said a state BJP insider who did not wish to be named.

But the demand did create ripples quite some time back, when Mayawati, as Chief Minister between 2007 and 2012, often called for a division of the state. It made sense for her in her heyday, but does not make sense for Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath today.

How is a state divided?

As per Article 3 of the Indian constitution, “Parliament may by law… form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State… provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.”

What is crucial here is that while the President must recommend such a Bill — thus showing the keen intent of the Centre — and the state Assembly must be consulted and given a finite time period to express its views, the latter’s views are not binding on Parliament.

And what is required to alter the boundaries of a state is just a simple majority of both Houses of Parliament, making it relatively easy for Parliament to alter boundaries of the state by ordinary legislation even without the consent of the state’s Assembly.

Why were there demands for UP’s division

In November 2011, the Mayawati government moved and passed a resolution in the Assembly proposing to divide the state into Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh. The state 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 Samajwadi Party (SP) government that came to power in 2012.

At her peak, the resolution seemed to work for Mayawati, as there was a sizable Dalit population, varying from roughly 16 to 28 %, in all four regions of the state. The SC population of UP is about 21-%. The division could have in its heyday made the BSP a force in four states, establishing it as a national party in the eyes of voters.

What further worked for Mayawati in 2011 was that the Yadav population in UP — the core of then arch-rival SP — was not evenly distributed in terms of its political heft.

It had two major belts — the Etah-Mainpuri-Etawah-Firozabad belt in the west, and the Yadav belt in east UP around Jaunpur, Azamgarh. Ghaziapur and Mau. The move could have divided the SP’s Yadav belts and pushed Muslims into voting for the BSP. However, the BSP declined over time and the proposal died before any of this could happen.

Ajit Singh of the RLD had also demanded a Harit Pradesh in west UP, as it would make Jats very influential in the new state, helping his political fortunes. The percentage of Jats in the new state would have been many times higher than their population in UP as a whole, as they aren’t found outside west UP.

Rajbhar’s bolt from blue may help none

While for the reasons mentioned above, the SP would not want UP to be divided, any such idea does not work for Yogi Adityanath as well. Right now, apart from his Hindutva image, what raises Adityanath’s national stature is that he has been CM of India’s most populous state. For that advantage to continue to accrue to him, UP must remain a single state.

For the BJP, too, the fact that it has won UP consistently — with a dip in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls — has added to its political heft over the years. Because of its size, its centrality to many Hindu cultural symbols and holy sites, and its being the core of the ‘Hindi heartland’, UP has had tremendous political heft in India, even if it has been economically a largely underdeveloped state.

It has been a cliche that the road to Delhi passes through Lucknow, as absolute majorities of any party — be it the BJP or the Congress before it — at the Centre have always come on the back of strong performances in UP. No party has ever won a Lok Sabha majority in India on its own after a poor showing in UP, though there have been instances of coalition governments coming to power after a modest showing in the state.

So, Rajbhar’s claim is not one that the BJP would want to back. In the event of UP splitting, Harit Pradesh or Paschim Pradesh may become demographically difficult for the BJP because of its significant Muslim population, particularly in the sugarcane belt and Rohilkhand region.

However, if UP were to ever get divided, some of the demographic angst of southern states — this comes up most prominently in the context of delimitation debates — may reduce, as any division would lead to smaller states not in a commanding political position.

However, it would perhaps deprive UP of its only capital — its size and population, which make it important politically.