BY MOHAMMAD TARIQUE SALEEM
The political climate in Uttar Pradesh is heating up ahead of the assembly by-elections, with party leaders ramping up their rhetoric. A recent exchange between Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Akhilesh Yadav and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has intensified the atmosphere, with Yadav taking a pointed jab at Adityanath’s recent comments. CM Yogi’s statement, “If we divide, we will be cut,” aimed at promoting unity within Hindu society, has stirred reactions across the political spectrum. Akhilesh Yadav, however, has taken issue with Yogi’s message, labeling it as divisive and drawing a comparison to the colonial era. Yadav’s comment, “The British left and left these people behind,” was a direct taunt, accusing Yogi of perpetuating a divisive mindset.
The context for this confrontation centers on Yogi Adityanath’s speeches, where he’s been emphasizing unity to counter perceived threats to Hindu society. His “If we divide, we will be cut” comment is a call to prevent internal fragmentation. Following his speeches, BJP leaders across Lucknow erected posters echoing Yogi’s message, underscoring the call for unity among supporters. Yet, Akhilesh Yadav has dismissed these comments, framing them as divisive rhetoric rather than a true call for unity.
In response, the Samajwadi Party has launched its own counter-campaign, releasing posters with slogans such as “Neither will we divide, nor will we be cut; the head of the party will be shaken from power.” These slogans directly challenge the BJP’s messaging, suggesting that the party’s influence is at risk due to its divisive approach. The SP has also been promoting slogans like “PDA will unite and win,” emphasizing the coalition of backward, Dalit, and minority communities. Yadav’s focus on inclusivity aims to highlight SP’s commitment to a broad alliance against what he sees as the BJP’s polarizing tactics.
Yadav’s critique of Yogi Adityanath’s message is not new but has gained renewed significance given the by-elections. His reference to colonial times suggests that certain political forces, in his view, have taken on roles similar to those of the British in dividing Indian society. By invoking the memory of colonial oppression, Yadav is attempting to draw a parallel between the divisive strategies employed by the British and the rhetoric he attributes to the current government. According to Yadav, Indian society should reject such “slogans” and instead focus on building a more inclusive and united nation.
The BJP, for its part, has defended CM Yogi’s stance as one that encourages unity rather than division. They argue that Yogi’s call to “stay united” is a protective measure for Hindu society, fostering a sense of collective identity in a politically complex landscape. However, critics like Yadav view this as a tactic to consolidate a particular voter base rather than as a genuine appeal for unity.
With assembly by-elections approaching, both parties are striving to secure their voter bases, resorting to not only verbal sparring but also a “poster war” that plays out in public spaces. These symbolic and rhetorical battles reflect the broader struggle for influence over the state’s electorate.
Akhilesh Yadav’s sharp criticism of CM Yogi Adityanath’s “If we divide, we will be cut” message represents the heightened tensions in Uttar Pradesh’s political arena. Yadav’s comparison of Yogi’s tactics to those of the British seeks to frame the BJP as a force perpetuating social divisions, while his own campaign underscores SP’s commitment to inclusivity. As the by-elections near, this back-and-forth between the SP and BJP serves as a microcosm of the larger political battles shaping Uttar Pradesh.
