Politicians, when they are bargaining for leverage, seldom mean exactly what they say. Statements then become moves in the negotiations; postures never reflect actual positions. Thus, there are good reasons not to accept at face value the statement of Ms Mayavati, the leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party, that her party would sit in the opposition in the newly formed assembly of Uttar Pradesh. The results of the assembly polls in India's largest state have thrown up a fractured verdict. No political party commands the numbers required to form a government on its own. There exists the possibility of a viable government if the Bharatiya Janata Party and the BSP can come together on the basis of some kind of understanding. There are two possible scenarios. One, the BJP forms the government and the BSP supports it from outside. The other is the opposite: the BSP forms the government with BJP support from outside. Forming the government would mean controlling the plum post of chief minister. The bargaining is about who will form the government and who will support it. Or to put it in another way, who will play the second fiddle? To borrow a term from international relations, the BJP and the BSP are playing at brinkmanship. Each party is waiting for the other to blink first and to back off. Ms Mayavati has informed the governor of UP, Mr Vishnu Kant Shastri, that her party has decided to sit in the ranks of the opposition. Her statement has a ring of finality about it. But it will be simpleminded to accept this statement as the BSP's final word on the subject. In the slippery world of UP politics, many such 'decisions'' have been abandoned by the wayside. It is perfectly reasonable that if the BJP accepts the terms set by the BSP, the latter will reverse its decision. It is important to remember that negotiations between the BJP and the BSP are not over principles but over terms. It is conceivable that Ms Mayavati has articulated a public position which is a few degrees stronger than her real position. Such a hypothesis makes perfect sense in the tortuous logic that informs haggling in the political market place. The existing impasse makes life difficult for Mr Shastri. As governor, he must decide how long he is willing to wait for the political parties to conclude their parleys. There is nothing in the Constitution to guide him in the matter. He has to use his common sense and also his sense of what is good for the political future of the state. Too long a wait may appear unfair in the eyes of those opposed to the BJP and the BSP, and an immediate decision might cut short ongoing negotiations. Mr Shastri will be justified if he thinks that he is caught between a rock and a hard place. However difficult the choice, he will have to make one since he cannot leave UP in political limbo for an indefinite period of time. The political future of UP remains uncertain. An understanding born out of a period of prolonged brinkmanship will inevitably be somewhat fragile. Decision-making and governance will be weak because of the perpetual fear of blackmail by the ally. If, of course, the brinkmanship continues indefinitely then UP will not have a government, and a vote-weary electorate will have to go to the polls again.