Incidentally, the Planning Commission’s National Human Development Report provided human development index values for 15 major States in 2001. UP is 13th, followed by Assam and Bihar. The World Bank report rightly argues that poverty alleviation requires growth. In the 1990s, state domestic product growth in UP slowed down when compared to the 1980s. Given the high rate of population growth, the disparity in per capita growth is even starker. Growth requires liberalisation in agriculture and the World Bank identifies rural infrastructure (irrigation, roads), the regulatory environment (such as controls on marketing) and credit flows to poor farmers and micro-entrepreneurs as areas requiring reform. Outside agriculture, improvements in the investment climate and social and physical infrastructure are identified. There can be no quarrel with this agenda and efficiency of government expenditure does need improvement, by reallocating expenditure from subsidies to loss-making public sector units to social and physical infrastructure. However, government delivery is linked to the overall issue of governance. An issue the World Bank report does not address directly is whether UP (despite the bifurcation) is simply too large to be governed efficiently. In the early 1950s, both UP and Bihar would probably have been described as well-governed states. Today, there will be near unanimity that these are among the worst-governed. While the Bank’s recommendations are sound and are also not new, their implementation seems unlikely as long as the present administrative system continues. Breaking up UP is a necessary pre-condition.