Every now and then we are told how important to the politics of the country Uttar Pradesh is. It sends the maximum number of MPs to the lok Sabha. But how seriously do our politicans take the State’s developmentIJ
The other day, an American journalist friend asked why a backward State like Uttar Pradesh is so important for Indian elections. I started the rhetoric about Uttar Pradesh electing maximum 80 members of Parliament on the virtue of its population and that no Government could be formed at the Centre without winning Uttar Pradesh. My friend cut me short and asked what role did Uttar Pradesh play in the formation of the last two UPA Governments at the Centre. The Congress had just 22 MPs in 2009 election and four Ministers from Uttar Pradesh in the last Government. I was stumped. He was right. The Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party had supported the UPA from outside but in Government formation at the Centre, they did not have a stellar role.
So, the aphorism of the road to Delhi passing through lucknow is passé. Can the Governments now be formed at the Centre without any major contribution from Uttar PradeshIJ The answer is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. If the political players in Uttar Pradesh share an almost equal number of seats, not giving any party a sweeping majority, Uttar Pradesh will lose the tag of ‘king-maker’ State. This happened in 2009 when the SP (21), the BSP (21) and the Congress (22) won almost identical seats. The BJP had won 10 seats. The Congress formed the Government without direct support of the BSP and the SP.
Despite what happened in the last two Government formations, Uttar Pradesh is still very important in Indian politics because of the number of lawmakers its sends to Parliament. Imagine this: If either BSP supremo Mayawati or SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav win 40-plus seats in Uttar Pradesh, can anyone ignore themIJ Obviously not. Mr Yadav is vocal in saying that if his party gets 40-plus seats he will be the next Prime Minister of the country. Any party which gets that many seats in Uttar Pradesh is bound to be the king-maker in the political dispensation that will form the Government. If the stakes are so high in one State the election campaign is bound to be aggressive and sometimes acutely personal.
look at the political scenario of Uttar Pradesh which is gearing up for the battle of ballots. Presidents of two national parties — the Congress and the BJP — are in the fray. UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi will contest from Rae Bareli while BJP president Rajnath Singh will try his luck from lucknow. Mr Yadav will be contesting from two seats of Mainpuri and Azamgarh, while Ms Mayawati has claimed that she will spend 90 per cent of electioneering time in Uttar Pradesh. Beside,s four prime ministerial aspirants — Narendra Modi (BJP), Rahul Gandhi (Congress), Mulayam Singh Yadav (Samajwadi Party) and Mayawati (Bahujan Samaj Party) are from Uttar Pradesh. Three of them — barring Ms Mayawati — are contesting the election from Uttar Pradesh. This shows how important the State is for all political parties.
What makes elections in Uttar Pradesh interesting is the emphasis of all the political parties to win maximum seats from that State. If Ms Mayawati wants to become the ‘balancing power’ in the Centre post-lok Sabha election, she will have to sweep the election in Uttar Pradesh. Mr Yadav nurtures an ambition to head a Third Front Government, and it is possible only if his party wins more than 40 seats in the State. Interestingly, both the BSP and the SP have stakes only in Uttar Pradesh and have a negligible presence in other parts of the country. Even for the BJP, Uttar Pradesh is crucial. And, therefore, its prime ministerial candidate Mr Modi is contesting from Varanasi to bolster his pan-India image. With so many leaders having prime ministerial ambitions, Uttar Pradesh is bound to be critical.
Because of its size Uttar Pradesh has been the crucible of political experiments. Caste emerged as a political force, pushing the issues of development on the back seat. The seeds of caste politics were sown in the 1950s when backward castes used to dominate the political scenario. Ram Manohar lohia mobilised the backwards and advocated for 60 per cent reservation for Muslims, backward class and SC/STs. Charan Singh in the 1960s promoted the Jats and the Yadavs. The Mandal panel recommendations and its implementation in 1989 gave a new twist to caste politics. Suddenly, many caste-based leaders have emerged from the social churning. In the last two decades, caste politics has played an increasingly crucial role in Uttar Pradesh. There has been a spurt in caste rallies over the years.
When the caste system was-well entrenched in the political establishment of Uttar Pradesh, the Ram Janmabhoomi issue kindled the political landscape of this Gangetic belt. It was aimed to counter the Mandal effect, and in no time jargons like ‘Mandal’ and ‘Kamandal’ became commonplace. In the 1990s when the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation was at its peak ,the Hindutva wave had obliterated the caste lines. No one was Dalit, Ahir, Thakur, Brahmin or bania — everyone was a Hindu and he proudly carried that tagline on his sleeves. Even in the BJP, leaders like Mr Kalyan Singh, Ms Uma Bharti and Mr Vinay Katiyar, who were backward caste leaders, became Hindu mascots. They were no longer just lodh or Kurmi but Hindus for certain. Caste and religion continued to affect the political scenario. The elections, be it of panchayat or Parliament, are afflicted with these two syndromes.
Uttar Pradesh might have given a new political direction to the country, but where does the State itself stand nowIJ It is one of the most backward States of the country where people still die with every change of season. And if they survive the natural calamities they often die in communal strife. Many villages still crave for electricity and drinking water. The roads are full of potholes. Doctors are missing from State-run hospitals, and the level of education is poor.
Industrialists are not willing to invest here because of the poor infrastructure and the bad law and order situation. The result is that the youth of Uttar Pradesh are migrating to developed States like Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat to earn their livelihood. Even the poor credit-deposit ratio of Uttar Pradesh shows the flight of the State’s savings in developed States like Gujarat where private investors are investing money and nationalised banks are willingly clearing their projects.
Is this the price Uttar Pradesh should pay for electing 80 lawmakers in a lok Sabha electionIJ Has not caste and religion-based politics vitiated the development environment in the StateIJ Ultimately, it is the people of Uttar Pradesh who have to pay the price for lack of development here. It is the poor people of this State who fall prey to the gullible promises of their leaders and vote on narrow considerations.