explain three factors that are crucial in deciding the outcome of politics of social divisions
I want proper ans..orelse will be reported
Answers
Answered by
3
There are three factors which are significant in deciding the outcome of politics of social divisions.
1. The most important identity of an individual is one his national identity. We are the citizens of India not not of Delhi or Tamil Nadu. Even our identity as Hindu, Muslim or Christians should overpower our national identity. If these identities start acquiring more primacy than our citizenship, politics will start exploiting them to secure vote banks.
2. To maintain a harmonious community, the demand of one community should be granted at the stake of another. This is exactly what happened in certain countries where the minority demands were totally negated. Constitutional framework of a country should determine the demands made by a community. Example –the demand for only Sinhala was at the cost of the interest and identity of Tamil community in Srilanka; in Yugoslavia also the ethnic communities presented their demands in such a way that these could not be accommodated within a single country.
3. It depends on how the govt. reacts to the demands of different groups. Example—In Belgium and Srilanka if the rulers are willing to share power & accommodate the reasonable demands of minority community, social divisions become less threatening for the country. But if they suppress such a demand in the name of national unity, the end result can be quite opposite & such a forced integration can sow the seeds of disintegration.
1. The most important identity of an individual is one his national identity. We are the citizens of India not not of Delhi or Tamil Nadu. Even our identity as Hindu, Muslim or Christians should overpower our national identity. If these identities start acquiring more primacy than our citizenship, politics will start exploiting them to secure vote banks.
2. To maintain a harmonious community, the demand of one community should be granted at the stake of another. This is exactly what happened in certain countries where the minority demands were totally negated. Constitutional framework of a country should determine the demands made by a community. Example –the demand for only Sinhala was at the cost of the interest and identity of Tamil community in Srilanka; in Yugoslavia also the ethnic communities presented their demands in such a way that these could not be accommodated within a single country.
3. It depends on how the govt. reacts to the demands of different groups. Example—In Belgium and Srilanka if the rulers are willing to share power & accommodate the reasonable demands of minority community, social divisions become less threatening for the country. But if they suppress such a demand in the name of national unity, the end result can be quite opposite & such a forced integration can sow the seeds of disintegration.
Similar questions