Bundelkhand trended on Twitter briefly on Thursday.

Starving people, dying cattle and looming famine had failed to ignite interest in the drought ravaging the region that stretches across Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

But politics over a "water train" did the trick.

On Wednesday, reports appeared in the media that the Centre was sending a train to Bundelkhand with wagons filled with water. The next morning, a train with 10 wagons docked at Jhansi station.

The Samajwadi Party government in Uttar Pradesh swiftly declared it did not need the water. It tweeted images of reservoirs in various parts of Bundelkhand, brimming with water.

The Union Minister of Water Resources, Uma Bharati, who has been elected from Lalitpur in Bundelkhand, dismissed the claims of Uttar Pradesh government. She said the train had been dispatched in response to reports from fellow MPs of an acute water scarcity in the region. Advising the Uttar Pradesh government to shed its arrogance, she said: "Either provide water to the people, or welcome the arrangements made by the central government."

By evening, the debate took a curious turn. Chief minister Akhilesh Yadav asked the district magistrate of Jhansi to verify whether the train was actually carrying water.

Evidently, it was not.

So the Centre had sent an empty water train to Bundelkhand?

An official of the railways clarified that the wagons, which had come from Madhya Pradesh, were available for use by Uttar Pradesh government. It could fill water from its reservoirs and transport them to places where water was scarce.

The Latur model

This is not dissimilar from what happened in Maharashtra.

Last month, on the request of the state government, the railway ministry deployed a train to deliver water to Latur in Marathwada. The wagons came from Rajasthan. But the water was filled and transported from Sangli, a district in Western Maharashtra, more than 300 kilometres away.

Would it make sense to transport water by train over much shorter distances in Bundelkhand?

Aren't tankers enough?

Shouldn't the Centre have discussed the train's utility with the state government before dispatching it?

On its part, shouldn't the state have considered the train's utility before rejecting it?

These questions would hold if the aim of the governments was to ameliorate distress.

Neither the Centre nor the state have distinguished themselves so far on that front.

Callous governments

In a year in which the rural economy has collapsed, and people are struggling to find food and work, the Centre has callously held back funds meant for workers under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.

The Uttar Pradesh government implemented the National Food Security Act, but failed to get ration cards to people on time, depriving them of their subsidised food rations.

By squabbling over a water train, the governments have confirmed that they are more focused on the optics, rather than the real task of drought relief.

The Narendra Modi government knows the water train is a powerful symbol. Not only does it cast the Centre as saviour of the people of the region, it generates compelling images for television audiences across the country.

That explains why the Uttar Pradesh sought to debunk the idea by emphasising that the train was empty.

But it isn't just the governments that have been callous towards the suffering of hundreds of millions of drought-affected people.

As Yogendra Yadav pointed out in The Hindu, the only time that the public interest litigation in the Supreme Court on the government's failures to implement drought-relief measures made headlines was when the court confirmed the stay on IPL matches.

It is tragic if urban Indians pay attention to distress in the countryside only when it is entwined with entertainment, whether in the form of cancelled cricket matches, or bickering politicians.