Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

U.P. & Indian politics

This refers to the article “Should we allow U.P. to hijack Indian politics?” (Aug. 2) It is wrong to surmise that the State with the highest number of Lok Sabha seats will necessarily dominate the Centre. In a parliamentary system of government, what matters is the number of seats won by the constituent parties of the governing coalition. In the present UPA dispensation, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, and Maharashtra carry more weight than U.P. despite the fact that the UPA chairperson was elected from Uttar Pradesh. Bifurcation of a State must be justified on considerations other than the mere apprehension that it will dominate the Indian political scene or that leaders hailing from the State have undue advantage over others.

Dharmana S. Naidu,
Visakhapatnam

If the past is an indicator, reducing the size of a State does not do much to solve the problems faced by it. The division of Bihar is a case in point. All it did was add to the administrative expenses. As for the five Ms, two of them, money and muscle-power, have now become a pan-Indian phenomenon. It is debatable if the Mandir issue had anything to do with the size of U.P., and whether it would not have arisen if the temple had been situated in a small State.

Nisha Agrawal,

New Delhi

Casteism is a factor to reckon with everywhere. Tamil Nadu has 69 per cent reservation despite the Supreme Court specifying an upper limit of 50 per cent. Poverty exists in well governed States too — Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh have reported thousands of farmer suicides. In West Bengal, many districts have a high concentration of people living below the poverty line despite 30 years of good governance.

It is the attitude, not U.P., that needs to change. When there are floods in Mumbai, there is live media coverage but when hundreds of children die due to Japanese encephalitis in eastern U.P., the nation hardly gets to know of it.

Amit Mehrotra,
Moradabad

The argument that U.P. is hijacking Indian politics and should therefore be bifurcated is amusing and illogical. Our federation is not based on equality of States. It is based on popular sovereignty. U.P. has more people, so it sends more MPs to the Lok Sabha. What is wrong in it and how is it a threat to democracy? All demands for bifurcation of the State come from those sections that have so far cornered all political and economic power and are unable to digest the ascendancy of suppressed sections.

Varikuti Ramakrishna,
Hyderabad

The article smacks of caste prejudice. For centuries, the upper castes have produced some ideas to serve their purpose. Since independence, nobody has thought of bifurcating U.P. for the reasons the author has mentioned. Anti-progressive elements which have not been able to digest the thumping victory of Ms. Mayawati seem to be worried about the BSP’s prospects in the 2009 general elections. The article reflects the intolerance and frustration of the author as well as the community he represents.

Ramudu Sripathi,
New Delhi

It was the stature of leaders such as Nehru and Indira Gandhi that made U.P. influential, not hijacking of politics. There have been Prime Ministers from other States too. If muscle power and money are deciding factors, Ms. Mayawati would not have come to power.

T.V. Naarayana,
Nellore

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

India, ASEAN and maritime security
Cutting through congestion
Turkey and Iran look beyond energy ties
A guide to the provisions of the 123 agreement
Beijing’s billboards brought down
Corrections and clarifications
Glaring inadequacies
Mumbai blasts verdict
Haneef’s release
U.P. & Indian politics

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu