conclusion of uttar pradesh
Answers
Answer:
kuch dino me anpadh aur poor ki strength jyada ho jayegi aur kuch nahi ho sakta Up ka ...
UP wale hai sab jante hai...
Answer:
Uttar Pradesh has always occupied an important position among
Indian states. It has evolved from one party dominant system to a multiparty
system. During 1990, UP has shown different pattern of mobilization. Voters
have been fragmented and mobilized around four major players in the state. In
1996 U.P. assembly election, two national and two state level parties were
engaged in fierce competition where voters were mobilized on the basis of
caste and religion. In UP identity politics gave rise to regional, communal and
caste politics. Post-Mandal political scenario showed political mobilization on
the basis of ethnic identities. Lower castes, which were targeted under
Congress system' have now found their emancipation in the caste based parties,
who promised to fight for their causes if they come in power.
Post Mandal politics witnessed a dramatic upsurge of caste based
politics. Mandalisation of U.P. politics provided backward caste with 27%
reservation in jobs and converted the OBCs into a polifical force. BJP
permanently an upper caste party, which was opposed to the Mandal politics
and scared of polarization of oBC votes for JD came up with mandir issue and
converted the lower caste movement into a Hindutva force. But Hindutvising
these groups did not help BJP for long, later they found place in their own caste
based parties because Sanskritization* was not a solution for them. They
wanted to preserve their own identity which was given to them by these caste
based parties, with a sense of dignity. This is borne out by the fact that in 1980,
Sanskritization is a term coined by M.N. Srinivas, to denote the process by which castes
placed lower in the caste hierarchy seek upward mobility by emulating the rituals and
practices of the upper or dominant castes.