भाजपा को गुजरात में पटखनी देने की तैयारी में कांग्रेस, 2019 आम चुनाव से पहले बनाया यह प्लान

अहमदाबाद: भाजपा से निपटने के लिए कांग्रेस 2019 के आम चुनाव से पहले समूचे गुजरात में हर बूथ पर दो जनमित्र नियुक्त करेगी. पार्टी के इस कदम का उद्देश्य अपना आधार मजबूत करना है. गौरतलब है कि भाजपा की राज्य में बहुत मजबूत संगठनात्मक मौजूदगी है. कांग्रेस राज्य के शहरी इलाकों में अपनी संभावनाएं बेहतर करने के लिए एक विशेष प्रकोष्ठ भी खोलेगी. दरअसल, शहरी इलाका भाजपा का पारंपरिक गढ़ है. गुजरात कांग्रेस इकाई के नव नियुक्त प्रमुख अमित चावड़ा ने जन मित्र योजना की घोषणा करते हुए गुरुवार (5 अप्रैल) को कहा कि जनमित्र इन मतदान केंद्रों (बूथ) के दायरे में आने वाले इलाकों के लोगों की समस्याओं का भी हल करेंगे.

विधानसभा चुनाव में कांग्रेस ने दी थी भाजपा का टक्कर

गौरतलब है कि पिछले साल हुए गुजरात विधानसभा चुनाव में कांग्रेस ने भाजपा को कड़ी टक्कर दी थी. हालांकि, भाजपा एक बार फिर से सत्ता में आने में सफल रही लेकिन उसकी सीटें घट गई. कुल 182 सीटों में भाजपा ने 99 पर जीत दर्ज की, जबकि कांग्रेस ने 2012 के विधानसभा चुनाव की तुलना में अपना प्रदर्शन बेहतर करते हुए 77 सीटों पर जीत हासिल की. चावड़ा ने 14 अप्रैल को व्यापक स्तर पर डॉ भीम राव अंबेडकर की जयंती मनाने की पार्टी की योजना की भी घोषणा की.

Source:-Zee News

View More About Our Services:-Mobile Database number Provider and Digital Marketing 

Our Other Services:

Cheap & Dedicated Server Hosting

Best VPS Server Hosting

Rescue Nehru from his descendants, writes Ramachandra Guha

In his first speech after being sworn in as our new President, Ram Nath Kovind praised Patel, Ambedkar, Gandhi, and Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, but did not take the name of Jawaharlal Nehru. This provoked outrage in Congress circles, with the senior party leader Ghulam Nabi Azad terming it ‘unfortunate’ and ‘partisan’ that the President ‘did not mention Nehru who was the first prime minister of India and the architect of modern India. He was not just one of the PMs but the first PM of India who was known around the world for his vision’.

Whether one admires or dislikes him, or indeed has ambivalent feelings about him, it is indisputable that Jawaharlal Nehru had a colossal impact on independent India. I have spoken earlier of his contributions to nurturing democracy, pluralism, and science. Set against these major achievements are some notable failures, such as his indifference to private enterprise and to military preparedness, and his lack of emphasis on primary education.

In an essay in my book Patriots and Partisans I have provided an interim assessment of Nehru’s place in our history, juxtaposing his successes against his failures. I hope that a younger scholar—born, unlike me, well after Nehru’s death—will one day write a far more substantial assessment of the man, his times, and his legacy, based on solid work in the archives. But for such a book to merit the objective, dispassionate, reception it deserves, the Nehru-Gandhi family must retire from politics. It is overwhelmingly likely that the family—singly or collectively—cannot resurrect or revive the Congress Party. And it is absolutely certain that so long as his descendants remain in public life, nothing can resurrect or revive the reputation of Jawaharlal Nehru.

Source:-Hindustantimes

View more about our services:-Cloud Monitoring management services

Trump, Clinton campaign will be nasty—and that's good news

As the presidential election looks to be featuring two of the most polarizing candidates in modern American politics, we can expect a hard sell of potential stories and ads to try and make Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton more appealing. But the real deciding factor will once again be an avalanche of negative advertising, designed to tear down the policies and besmirch the personal behavior of the other side. Already, commentators are expecting an historical use of negative campaigning. And voters should be thankful for this.

Appropriately, negative ads and campaigns get a very bad rap. They turn off voters, demonize opponents for perfectly acceptable policy disputes and coarsen the political culture — all of these are legitimate complaints. But negative campaigns are still a breath of fresh air compared to the toxic potential of positive ads.

 Positive campaigns may be loved in theory, but in reality they are not idealized "Lincoln vs Douglas" debates, with each side courteously presenting their argument. They are instead frequently issue-free, focused on the perceived personal benefits of the candidate's previous career and sunny pictures of family.

By now, with a stream of embarrassing sex scandals hitting the papers—and with a grandfatherly former Speaker of the House now serving time due to his action related to sexual assaults—we should hope that voters won't buy into the tightly controlled stories about happy political families. But those stories, and the other inspirational pieces about rising from nothing to seek high office, are all part of the same problem of positive campaigns: They are really designed to tell as little as possible about a candidate's actual policy.



Even when they do manage to deal with issues, positive policy proposals are presented in a facile manner, frequently with untruths and a complete unwillingness to face up to the likelihood of success versus failure. Donald Trump's critics have loudly proclaimed that most of his ever-changing policy proclamations are impossible to carry out.

Trump and his supporters have said the same about some of his competitors' plans, and will undoubtedly try to use the same arguments against Clinton. The only way for voters to actually judge these arguments is negative campaigns. Positive ads will not expose the elisions. Only negative ones have any hope of blasting holes and exposing the policy weaknesses of a candidate's pie-in-the-sky plans.

But that is not the biggest benefit of negative ads. They are simply more truthful and fact-based than negative ones. Vanderbilt University Professor John Geer, the author of In "Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns," has noted that negative ads may be unpleasant but they end up presenting vastly more factual information—60 percent more on average—than the shiny happy positive variety.

What negative ads do is present a strong policy contrast for voters, giving them a chance to draw a real distinction between the two candidates. Negative ads distort information—context is always left out and they take the absolute worst possible interpretation of any action by an opponent. But they are usually very issue-based and much more precise and detailed than the positive and glowing ads in favor of a candidate.


Source: http://www.cnbc.com