"Heartland" is usually synonymous with Uttar Pradesh [UP] in India, and their rule of UP will have a political advantage in the functions of the central government. However, for some time, Gujarat's elections became more controversial between the two state parties [the Congress and the People's Party]. The leaders of both sides participating in the Gujarat parliamentary elections [2017] reminded the people of all countries that Gujarat is important to both sides. However, what I am worried about is the difference or similarity between Gujarat and UP? Why is there a new leadership in Gujarat instead of UP? How does the state have doubts about the Muslims in the form of leadership?
The political situation in these two states is different from "doing or dying." For political survival. However, over time, Gujarat became the political center of BJP shaping and saving the political heritage of Hindus. Despite this, BJP reiterated that development is a new darling that they have overemphasized since 2014. On what basis we can see Gujarat as the heart of Indian politics. The similarities and differences between the two states can be understood through a political perspective.
The difference between UP and Gujarat can be regional political parties. In UP, there are three powerful regional parties [SP, BSP and RLD], while others have no influence. In Gujarat, the lack of strong regional parties and the fact that UP can be weakened or challenged to some extent have made the Gujarat election more interesting than the UP election year after year. However, BJP won the general election with a weak gap in the congressional party. At present, the political party image of the national party [the Congress Party and the People's Party] is different. The popularity maps of Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi have changed between elections [UP and Gujarat]. The reason for this is because the Congress Party has hired social media professionals to counter the People's Party. Of course, the consumption tax and deterioration may be another reason. Gujarat's industrial index is higher than UP, so it can be estimated that Gujarat's impact on goods and services tax and deterioration is greater than UP. During the UP elections, the effects of demonicization were especially open in small political groups, and some extensions also depended on the Congress Party. The similarities between the two countries: more than two decades of power in both states and efforts to regain access to these countries. However, BJP appears in the power of these two countries and experienced Hindu ideology at different scales of time to polarize voters in their field.
Unlike Hardik Patel, Jignesh Mehwani and Alpesh Thakor [HGA], why are there no Muslim leaders who have a social foundation and influence the Muslim masses? What has the community been eroded? Why does the release of independent India not produce single Muslim leaders who have a different mass base than Maulana Azad? Of course, there are also many Muslim leaders in the parliament and the legislative assembly, but their foundation is narrow and their influence is limited to specific boundaries. In fact, the location of Hardik Patel, Jignesh Mehwani and Alpesh Thakur is too restrictive, they are surrounded by Gujarat. Other reasons for the recent UP conference elections, but no leader can participate in media footage or people's attention. Are Muslims far from social issues or are they not involved in politics? Muslims are very politically important, but what other reasons are there for the community to form a single leader who can mobilize the community, including the Triple Tarak issue?
Before studying the possible causes, the problem is not a daily product, it is accompanied by a variety of social and cultural perspectives, in which Muslim society does not firmly support or can not negotiate with others at best. For me, this is not just operability. This view is important in every respect. It has many dimensions that attract problems that go beyond the boundaries of the space. But from what point of view, what is it for. The reason for this is that the emergence of such leadership has prompted the community to seriously think about it? However, at the same time, Muslims do not care in this regard? Can they leave without leadership or be seen as a sect blockade rather than a division? The emergence of this kind of leadership [HGA] is of course a cumulative product and the passage of time as time goes by. But why not stir up between Muslim communities? How long will it last? The following reasons may help this kind of leadership.
First, the political demands - the emergence of Gujarat [HGAs] long after Mahatama Gandhi and Sardar Patel made great contributions in the struggle for freedom. Of course, the 22-year rule of BJP caused the backward communities to be frustrated by the outbreak of [HGAs] leadership, who challenged the current government. Together with the Indian National Congress Party. Employment growth in backward communities [especially Patidars] and Dalits has ignited fires. In other words, the gap between rich and poor has increased over time.
In UP, there is no political anger of long-term political domination, but SP and BSP both play an active role in suppressing the emergence of Muslim leaders who can accept acceptable beyond the border, such as the acceptable HGA outside Gujarat.
Due to the size of the legislation, if the heart of UP is very strong, Gujarat will play a cruel role not far from the election to shape the politics of Muslims in the country.
Orignal From: There are no Muslim leaders in central India
No comments:
Post a Comment