When discussing the true yardstick of a state’s development, one inevitably recalls Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, who introduced Indian politics to the philosophy of Antyodaya decades ago. He believed that the success of any policy, programme, or government should not be judged by what it delivers to those at the top of society. Rather, it should be measured by what reaches the last person standing at the end of the line. This philosophy of Integral Humanism embodies the essence of genuine development. Likewise, the success of political leadership depends on whether its vision is confined to the development of the capital alone or extends to every citizen living in the farthest corner of the state.
This question is not without reason. It naturally arises from the recent press conferences of Samajwadi Party National President Akhilesh Yadav. While highlighting the achievements of his government, he repeatedly cites projects such as the Gomti Riverfront, Janeshwar Mishra Park, and JPNIC. Viewed through the lens of Antyodaya, these projects may embellish the capital, but they make no mention of the last person standing at the other end of the queue, the farmer in Purvanchal, the labourer in Bundelkhand, or the tribal family in the Terai.
The geography of Uttar Pradesh stretches from the paddy fields of Purvanchal to the rocky terrain of Bundelkhand, from the forests of the Terai to the sugarcane belt of western Uttar Pradesh. Yet, when a leader recounts the accomplishments of a five-year tenure and fails to mention places such as Gorakhpur, Varanasi, Prayagraj, Jhansi, Bareilly, Meerut, Gonda, or Balrampur, it reflects a mindset that equates the capital with the entire state.
In stark contrast stands the development model under the leadership of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, which symbolizes a comprehensive approach inspired by the spirit of Antyodaya. This model extends beyond roads and buildings, resting instead on three pillars, economic empowerment, social justice, and security.
The establishment of AIIMS in Gorakhpur, the revival of the fertilizer plant there, the Purvanchal and Bundelkhand Expressways, the transformation of Kashi and Ayodhya, and the Ganga Expressway all testify to geographically balanced development. Equally significant is the One District One Product (ODOP) initiative, which can be described as the practical embodiment of Antyodaya.
Whether it is the carpets of Bhadohi, the brassware of Moradabad, the Banarasi sarees of Varanasi, or the glass industry of Firozabad, ODOP has sought to demonstrate that development should not revolve around a single city but should build upon the unique identity and potential of every district. Its guiding principle is simple: opportunities must reach the last person.
The same approach is evident in women’s empowerment. During the Samajwadi Party government, insecurity had become an unfortunate reality for many women. Girls often hesitated to step outside their homes after sunset. The Yogi government has not only strengthened women’s sense of security through Fast Track Courts, speedy trials under the POCSO Act, and stringent legal action, but has also created pathways for their economic independence.
Under Mission Shakti, lakhs of Self-Help Groups have been formed. Initiatives such as Banking Correspondent Sakhis, Bijli Sakhis, and Prerna Canteens have enabled rural women to step beyond the confines of their homes and participate in economic decision-making. Today, village women handle banking transactions, collect electricity bills, and earn regular incomes by operating small canteens. The objective of initiatives like Lakhpati Didi is to transform women from beneficiaries into entrepreneurs capable of generating sustainable incomes.
This brings us to a deeper ideological debate. Socialism fundamentally advocates equality and inclusiveness, while Antyodaya also emphasizes reaching the last person in society. In many ways, the goals of both philosophies converge. The difference lies in their implementation.
When a political party claiming to represent socialist ideals overlooks vast regions of the state while recounting its achievements, it contradicts its own foundational principles. If the youth of Purvanchal are forced to migrate to metropolitan cities in search of employment, if farmers in Bundelkhand continue to struggle for every drop of water, or if women in many districts remain excluded from economic decision-making, then what purpose do glittering roads and grand riverfronts in Lucknow truly serve? That cannot be considered the benchmark of real development.
Every political party has the right to criticise its opponents. But criticism gains credibility only when the critic has himself stood the test of the same standards. Respect for the people’s mandate demands nothing less.
The development of a state capital is undoubtedly essential. As the administrative and economic centre, every capital deserves investment. However, when the developmental gap between the capital and the rest of the state becomes excessively wide, dissatisfaction naturally follows. For years, many districts of Uttar Pradesh felt that both power and development were confined to Lucknow.
Today, however, if one asks citizens to identify the state’s biggest development projects of recent years, they are unlikely to name only one city. Some will mention the Jewar International Airport; others the Defence Corridor; many will point to Ayodhya, the Kashi Vishwanath Dham, the Bundelkhand, Ganga, or Purvanchal Expressways. Others will recall initiatives that have created self-employment opportunities for women and youth. This diversity itself illustrates what the geography of development ought to look like, and the Yogi government cannot be denied credit for it.
Symbols carry immense significance in politics, and those symbols are established through action. If a leader’s achievements are represented only by projects located in the capital, his priorities become self-evident. But when the symbols of development are visible across the length and breadth of the state, citizens naturally feel that they are stakeholders in that journey of progress. Such public participation and confidence constitute the greatest strength of a democracy.
That is why the focus of political discourse has changed. People are no longer concerned merely with how much a government has accomplished in the capital. Every government undertakes projects there. What truly matters to citizens is a far simpler question: How much has my district changed?
Under the leadership of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, many people in Uttar Pradesh believe they have found an answer to that question. They increasingly feel that development is no longer the privilege of a few select cities but the right of every citizen. And when political leadership is evaluated, one question naturally arises: Should a Chief Minister be the Chief Minister of Lucknow alone or of the entire state of Uttar Pradesh?
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
