Stage being set for fresh polls?

 ªÀÄwÛúÀ½î ªÀÄzÀ£À ªÉÆúÀ£À,    ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀQÃ0iÀÄ  ¸À®ºÉUÁgÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAPÀtPÁgÀgÀÄ

 zÀÆ ªÁ: 2374872 ªÉÆ: 94480-74872

Email: mathihallim@yahoo.co.in./  madan.mm@gmail.com

                                                       

                                                         

PÉAqÀ¸ÀA¦UÉ UÁV (14)

                              ºÉƸÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªuÉUÉ ªÉâPÉ ¸ÀeÁÓUÀÄwÛzÉAiÉÄÃ?À 

ºÀħâ½î, 26 ªÀiÁZÀð 2012

        EwÛÃa£À «zÀåªÀiÁ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹zÀgÉ, ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæ  ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀUËqÀgÀ ªÀÄAwæªÀÄAqÀ¼ÀzÀ PÀëtUÀt£É ±ÀÄgÀĪÁVzÉ. ºÉƸÀ  ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÉÆÃqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ QëwdªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ«AiÀĮĠ ±ÀÄgÀĪÀiÁrªÉ.  EzÀPÁÌV  MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð PÁAiÀÄĪÀ CUÀvÀå«®è. CzÀgÉƼÀUÉ £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ   J®è ¸ÁzsÀåvÉUÀ¼ÀÆ EªÉ.

        LzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ CªÀ¢ü ¥ÀÆtð PÀ¼ÉAiÀÄĪÀzÀgÀ M¼ÀUÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ £ÀqɸÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ C¤ªÁAiÀÄðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆlÖªÀgÀÄ «gÉÆÃzsÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÆ C®è.  gÁdå¥Á®gÁzÀ ºÀA¸ÀgÁd ¨sÁgÀzÁédgÀÆ C®è.  CzÀ£ÀÄß vÀAzÀªÀgÀÄ ¨sÁd¥ÀzÀªÀgÉÃ. ²¹ÛUÉ ºÉ¸ÀgÁzÀ ¥ÀPÀëªÉAzÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÁzÀ ¨sÁd¥ÀzÀ°è Cr¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄÄrAiÀÄ ªÀgÉUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ°è C²¸ÀÄÛ ªÁ妹zÉ. gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ¸ÉéÃZÁÒZÁgÀ vÀÄA© vÀļÀÄPÀÄwÛzÉÉ. ¨sÁd¥ÀPÉÌ CAn PÉÆArgÀĪÀ F gÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ ªÀÄgÀÄZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀzÉà gÁªÀĨÁtªÉ£ÀÄߪÀ «ZÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ªÀjµÀ×gÀ ªÀÄ£ÀzÀ°è §gÀvÉÆqÀVzÉ. EzÀ£ÀÄß ¸À»¹PÉÆAqÀgÉ 2014gÀ°è (CxÀªÁ CzÀgÉ M¼ÀUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀzÉà PÁ®zÀ°è §gÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ) £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀPÀëzÀ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ »vÀPÀÌ zsÀPÉÌAiÀiÁUÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JA§ aAvÉ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÁqÀÄwÛzÉ.

        D²¹ÛUÉ ªÀÄÆ® PÁgÀt, zÀQët ¨ÁgÀvÀzÀ°è, «AzsÁå ¥ÀªÀðvÁªÀ½UÀ¼À PɼÀV£À ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è ªÉÆzÀ® ¨Áj ¨sÀUÀªÁ zsÀédzÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëPÉÌ SÁåwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAzÀgÉA§ QÃwðUÉ ¨sÁd£ÀgÁzÀ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀ ªÀvÀð£É., CAzÀÄ ¨sÁd¥ÀPÉÌ D¹ÛAiÀiÁVzÀÝ  AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà EAzÀÄ  CzÉà ¥ÀPÀëPÉÌ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÉAiÀiÁVzÁÝgÉ.   ¥ÀPÀëzÀ ªÀÄUÀΰ£À ªÀÄļÀÄî  ªÀÄvÀÆÛ  ¥ÀPÀëzÀ PÉÆgÀ½UÉ ¸ÀÄwÛPÉÆArgÀĪÀ À PÀ¯ÁèV ¥Àjt«Ä¹zÁÝgÉ..

        EzÀPÉÌ PÁgÀt EwÛÃa£À AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀg ªÉÆAqÀ ºÀl. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ vÀªÀÄä ªÉÄð£À ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß QvÀÄÛºÁQzÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è  PÉÊvÀ¦àzÀ ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæ ¸ÁÜ£À vÀªÀÄUÉ wgÀÄV ¹UÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀlÄÖ »rzÀÄ PÀĽwzÁÝgÉ. vÀªÀÄä ºÀl ¸Á¢ü¸À®Ä vÁªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄlÖPÀÆÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ ¥ÀPÀ̪À£ÀÄß vÀåf¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ  JA§  zsÀªÀÄQAiÀÄ£ÀÆß ¥ÀPÀëzÀ ªÀjµÀ×jUÉ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ J£À߯ÁVzÉ.

`       CªÀgÀ F ¸Àé¨sÁªÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀjµÀ× ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ ºÉƸÀvÀ®è.  K¼ÀÄ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀz°è CPÀæªÀÄ UÀtÂUÁjPÉ AiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀ PÉʪÁqÀ«zÉ JAzÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀzÀvÁåUÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀzÁUÀ®Æ CªÀgÀÄ EzÉà ªÉÆAqÀĺÀl »rzÀÄ gÁf£ÁªÉÄ PÉÆqÀ®Ä M¥ÀàzÉà PÉ® ¢£ÀUÀ¼À «¼ÀA§ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀªÀÄÄPÀÛgÁzÀªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀjUÉ CªÀgÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀ½ ¤ÃqÀĪɪÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëªÀÅ ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸É PÉÆlÖ ªÉÄ¯É CªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀzÀvÁåUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. EzÁUÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß, vÀªÀÄä C¨sÀåyð - ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀ UËqÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀÄ PÀÄaðAiÀÄ PÀĽîgÀ¸ÀzÉà EgÀ°®è. J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ EwºÁ¸À.

        PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À »AzÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ«gÀĪÀ CPÀæªÀÄ UÀtÂ¥ÀæPÀgÀtz°è£À ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ½îºÁQzÀ £ÉªÀ ªÀiÁqÀPÉÆAqÀÄ, vÁªÀÅ zÀÆgÀ ªÀÄÄPÁægÁVgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ PÉÆlÖ D±Áé¸À£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉ ªÀjµÀ× ªÀÄAqÀ½ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæ ¥ÀzÀzÀ°è ªÀÄvÉÛ PÀĽîgÀ¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ElÄÖ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ ªÀjµÀ× ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÃaUÉ ¹®ÄQ¹zÁÝgÉ.

        §gÀ°gÀĪÀ   2014gÀ  ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÁ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è vÀªÀÄä JzÀÄgÁ½ PÁAUÉæ¸À£ÀÄß  ºÀtÂAiÀÄ®Ä, ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ C¸ÀÛç - ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ.   EAvÀºÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è  ¨sÀæµÁ×ZÁgÀzÀ PÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄļÀÄVgÀĪÀ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀAiÀiÁj®è. PÉÆlÖgÉ vÀªÀÄä C¸ÀÛçªÉà vÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É wgÀÄUÀĨÁtªÁV §gÀĪÀzÀÄ RArvÀ. vÀ£Àß gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ »vÁ¸ÀQæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁ¥ÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ°è K£ÁzÀgÀÆ vÉÆAzÀgÉUÀ¼ÁzÀgÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸À®Ä ¹zÀÞªÁVzÉ. ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÁ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄUÀĪÀ vÀ£ÀPÀ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀPÀëzÀ ªÀĺÀvÀézÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ½AzÀ zÀÆgÀ«qÀzÉà ¨sÁd¥ÀPÉÌ UÀvÀåAvÀgÀ«®è. DzÀgÉ C°èAiÀÄ vÀ£ÀPÀ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ vÁ¼Éä ¬ÄAzÀ EgÀĪÀAvÉ PÁtÄwÛ®è.

        EzÀgÀ°è E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ CA±ÀªÀÇ CqÀVzÉ. gÁdåzÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¤tðAiÀÄ¢AzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥À ªÀÄÄPÀæªÁVgÀĪÀªÉA§ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ¤®ÄªÉÄAiÀÄÄ §jà CzsÀð ¸ÀvÀåªÀiÁvÀæ . ¥ÀÆwð ¸ÀvÀåªÀ®è. KPÉAzÀgÉ CªÀj£ÀÆß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð zÉÆõÀªÀÄÄPÀÛgÁV®è. PÉ®ªÀÅ PÁAiÀÄzÉAiÀÄ°è£À vÁAwæPÀ £ÀÆå£ÀåvÉUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ  ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀgÀ¢ ºÉÆqÉzÀĺÁPÀ¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄà ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ  CªÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤dªÀ®èªÉAzÀÄ C®è. (CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ £ÀqÉzÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀ £ÀÆå£ÀvÉAiÀÄÆ E®èªÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁfà ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ ºÉUÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ). F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¥ÀÆwð vÉgÉ J¼É¢®è.  .GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß ±ÉæõÀ× £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥Àæ²ß¸ÀĪÀzÀPÉÌ CªÀPÁ±À«ªÉ. EzÀ®èzÉà zÉñÀzÀ ¸ÀªÉÇðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ £ÉëĹgÀĪÀ GZÀÝ ªÀÄlÖzÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ F «µÀAiÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥ÀªÁVzÉ. É. CzÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉ¢zÉ.  EzÀ®èzÉà CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ «gÀĪÀ ¨sÀƺÀUÀgÀt ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀæ «±ÉÃóµÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉ¢ªÉ.

         MAzÀĪÉüɠ F J®è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è MAzÁ£ÉÆAzÀÄ ¢£À zÉÆõÀªÀÄÄPÀægÁzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ, EªÀgÀ PÁ®zÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀªÀÅ ¨sÀæµÁ×ZÁgÀzÀ PÀÆ¥ÀªÁVzÉ,  ªÀÄAwÛªÀÄAqÀ¼ÀzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ªÁå¥ÀPÀªÁV ¨sÀæµÁ×ZÁgÀzÀ°è vÉÆqÀVzÁÝgÉ  J£ÀÄߪÀ PÀÄSÁåvÀ ºÀuÉ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß  AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ PÁAiÀÄÄA DV ºÉÆwÛgÀ¯ÉèÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.  EªÀjUÉ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀPÀëªÀÅ PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀAiÀiÁj®è. EªÀgÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß ©qÀ®Ä vÀAiÀiÁj®è. EAvÀºÀ ºÀUÀæ dUÁÎl«ÃUÀ £ÀqÉ¢zÉ.

        vÁªÀÅ  ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæ ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÄ£À: §gÀ¨ÉÃPÉA§ ¥ÀlÄÖ »r¢gÀĪÀ ªÀiÁf ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà. EzÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á¢ü¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ K£À£ÀÆß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄlÖPÀÆÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ JA§ J®è EAVvÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀàµÀתÁV w½¹zÁÝgÉ.  CzÀPÁÌV ¥ÀPÀëzÀ »vÀªÀ£ÀÄß §°PÉÆqÀ®Ä, , CzÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀPÀë ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÀ ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÁdåzÀ M¼ÀUÀÆ ºÉÆgÀUÀÆ ºÀgÁdÄ ºÁPÀ®Ä CªÀgÀÄ ¹zÀÞgÉAzÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ... vÁªÉà vÀªÀÄäªÀgÉAzÀÄ  D ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è PÀÆr¹zÀ ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀ UËqÀgÀ ªÉÄ¯É MªÀÄä¯É UÀgÀA DV CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PɼÀV½¸À®Ä ¥ÀtvÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. vÀªÀÄä ¸Àé gÁdQÃAiÀÄ »vÀ ¸ÁzsÀ£ÉUÁV §eÉl C¢üªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀPÀëzÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀPÉÌ CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §eÉl C¢üªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß §»µÀÌj¸ÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ vÀªÀÄä C£ÀÄAiÀiÁ¬Ä ±Á¸ÀPÀgÀ eÉÆvÀUÀÆr ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀ §½¬ÄjªÀ gɸÁlð MAzÀgÀ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁr £ÁAiÀÄPÀvÀé §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉUÉ MvÀÛqÀ vÀAzÀ PÀxÉ J®èjUÀÆ UÉÆwÛzÉ. ¥ÀPÀëzÀ ªÀjµÀ×gÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉUÉ ¸ÉÆ¥ÀÄà ºÁPÀzÀÝjAzÀ C¤ªÁðºÀªÁV §eÉl ªÀÄAqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ¢ªÀ¸À «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉUÉ ªÀÄgÀ½zÀgÀÄ.

        EzÀgÀ°è ºÉÆgÀºÉƪÀÄÄäªÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀĺÀvÀézÀ ¸ÀAUÀwAiÉÄAzÀgÉ  ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæ¥ÀzÀ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀåQÛvÀézÀ°è DzÀ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É.  C¢üPÁgÀzÀ zÁºÀ¢AzÀ CªÀgÀÄ «ªÉÃZÀ£É PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉÆà J£ÀÄߪÀ ªÀÄnÖUÉ CªÀgÀÄ §zÀ¯ÁVzÁÝgÉ. ¥ÀPÀëQÌAvÀ vÁªÀÅ zÉÆqÀتÀgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀ ¨sÁªÀ£É CªÀgÀ £ÀqÉ£ÀÄrUÀ¼À°è JzÀÄÝ PÁtÄwÛzÉ. vÁ«zÀÝgÉ ¥ÀPÀë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀ.  E®è¢zÀÝgÉ E®è ªÉ£ÀÄߪÀ ¨sÀæªÉĬÄAzÀ CªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¨ÉA§°UÀgÀÄ §¼À®ÄwÛgÀĪÀAvÉ PÁtÄvÀÛzÉ.

        zÀÄgÀAvÀªÉAzÀgÉ C¢üPÁgÀ »rAiÀÄĪÀ ¥Àj¥Ál°£À°è AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆg¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ vªÀÄä£ÀÄß vÁªÉà ¸tߪÀgÉ£ÁßV ªÀiÁqÀPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÁÝgÉ. £Á®ÄÌ ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉ CªÀgÀÄ C¢üPÁgÀ ¹éÃPÀj¹zÁUÀ  CªÀgÀÄ Erà PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ d£À ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄzÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀAwzÀÝgÀÄ CzÀgÀAvÉ CªÀjUÉ d£ÀgÀ ¨ÉA§®ªÀÇ ®©ü¹vÀÄÛ. gÁdQÃAiÀĪÁV CªÀgÉƧ⠥Àæ±ÁßwÃvÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÁVzÀÝgÀÄ. zsÀÄjÃtgÀ PÉÆgÀvɬÄAzÀ §¼À®ÄwÛzÀÝ  PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ gÁdÀQÃAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥Àæ±ÁßwÃvÀªÁzÀ KPÀªÉÄêÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÁVzÀÝgÀÄ. ¥Àæ¸ÀPÀÛÀªÁzÀ  CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ®èzÉà ªÀÄÄA¢£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ CªÀgÀÄ  ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæ ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjAiÀÄĪÀAvÀºÀ J®è CªÀPÁ±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀg£ÀÄß PÀgÉAiÀÄÄwÛvÀvÀÄÛ.

        C¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÀÄwÛ£À°è «ªÉÃZÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ  ¸ÀAAiÀĪÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ CªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ FUÀ §jà MAzÀÄ PÉÆëģÀ CAzÀgÉ °AUÁAiÀÄvÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÉAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÀÄlÖPÉÌ E½¢zÁÝgÉ. «ÃgÀ±ÉʪÀ ªÀÄoÁ¢üñÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ °AUÁAiÀÄvÀgÀ ¨ÉA§®¢AzÀ PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß wgÀÄV ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ºÀÄ£ÁßgÀzÀ°è EzÁÝgÉ. ¨sÁd¥ÀPÉÌ PÉ®ªÀÅ °AUÁAiÀÄvÀ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸É¼ÉAiÀÄĪÀ°è AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀıÀ¹éUÀ¼ÁVgÀ §ºÀÄzÀÄ DzÀgÉ ¨sÁd¥ÀPÉÌ  GvÀÛgÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ°è °AUÁAiÀÄvÀgÀ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ¨ÉA§® vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆlÖªÀgÀÄ ¢. gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀÚ ºÉUÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ. 1999gÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÆzÀ® ¨Áj ¨sÁd¥À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉUÀqÉAiÀÄgÀ  ¸ÀA. eÁ zÀ¼ÀzÀ ªÉÄÊwæ¬ÄAzÀ dAiÀĨsÉÃj ¬ÄAzÀ ±ÀÄgÀĪÁzÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄvÉÆqÀV, eÁ zÀ¼À MqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀA.eÁ zÀ¼À ªÀÄƯÉUÀÄA¥ÁzÁUÀ ¸ÀAeÁ zÀ¼ÀzÀ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ°è ¨sÁd¥ÀzÀ ªÀÄr®°è ©zÀÝzÀÄÝ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ EwºÁ¸À. EzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄgÉvÀÄ vÁªÀÅ °AUÁAiÀÄvÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÉAzÀÄ ©ÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. 2008gÀ°è  ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ C¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄzÀÄ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ ªÀÄvÀzÀ DzsÁgÀ¢AzÀ. eÁ zÀ¼ÀzÀ PÀĪÀiÁgÀ¸Áé«ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁw£ÀAvÉ £ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà vÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÁd¥ÀzÀ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ ºÀ¸ÁÜAvÀj¸À¢zÁÝUÀ §AzÀ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ C¯É (CzÀÄ §jà °AUÁAiÀÄvÀjUÉ ¹Ã«ÄvÀªÁUÀzÉà J®ègÀ°èAiÀÄÆ EvÀÄÛ.) AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ  CªÀgÀ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ UÀÄj ªÀÄÄlÖ®Ä ¸ÀºÁAiÀĪÁ¬ÄvÀÄ.  MAzÀÄ jÃw¬ÄAzÀ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ, AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä gÁdQÃAiÀÄ G£ÀßwUÉ PÀĪÀiÁgÀ¸Áé«ÄAiÀĪÀjUÉ G¥ÀPÀÈvÀgÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ C¢üPÁgÀ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉUÉ M¦àzÀÝgÉ,  d£ÀgÀ M®«£À vÀPÀÌr CAzÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ UÀ½¹zÀÝ PÀĪÀiÁgÀ¸Áé«ÄAiÀĪÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ«gÀÄwÛvÉÛà ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÁ®ÄwÛgÀ°®è. (DUÀ vÀªÀÄUÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁªÉà ¨sÁ«¹gÀĪÀ C£ÁåAiÀÄzÀ «gÀÄzÀÝzsÀ vÀªÀÄä C©üAiÀiÁ£ÀPÉÌ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ C¯ ¹UÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ  JAzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ¨Á«¹zÀÝgÉ CzÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¨sÀæªÉÄAiÀĵÉÖÃ.)

        EzÀ®èzÉà £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ°è EgÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ «±Áé¸ÁºÀðvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀA©PÉUÉ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆg¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ  JgÀªÁVzÁÝgÉ. CªÀgÀ D±Áé¸À£ÀUÀ½UÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß  d£ÀgÀÄ PÉÆqÀzÀAvÀºÀ ¥Àj¹ÜwUÉ CªÀgÀÄ vªÀÄä£ÀÄß vÁªÉà vÀAzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ. EAzÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ D±Áé¸À£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß  ªÀÄgÀÄ¢ªÀ¸À UÁ½UÉ vÀÆjzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ «gÀ¼ÀªÁV®è. EzÀgÀ C£ÀĨsÀªÀªÀÅ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ gÁ¶æöçÃAiÀÄ  zsÀÄjÃtjUÀÆ CjªÁVzÉ.

        ¨sÁd¥ÀzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀg ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAwæÛUÀ¼À ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀÄÆ AiÀiÁªÀ PÁ®zÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ¥PÀëzÀ WÀ£ÀvÉUÉ EA§ÄPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ¢®è. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 8-10 ªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀzÀ ¸ÀĽAiÀÄ°è ¹QÌzÀÝgÉ, PÉ®ªÀÅ ªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ C¢üªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ £ÀqÉzÁUÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ avÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉƨÉÊ®°è «ÃQë¸ÀĪÀzÀÄ J®ègÀÆ vÀ¯É vÀVθÀĪÀAvÉ DVzÉ. ±Á¸ÀPÀg®ègÀÆ ºÀtªÀiÁqÀĪÀzÀgÀ°è ªÀÄUÀßgÁV ¥ÀPÀëzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ÷Û d£ÀgÀ »vÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀqÉUÀt¹zÁÝgÉ. AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ UÀÄA¦£ÀªÀgÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ¯ÁzÀ ªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÀ ªÀvÀð£É ºÀzÀÄÝ «ÄÃjzÉ. ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §»gÀAUÀªÁV PÀqÉUÀt¸ÀĪÀzÀ®èzÉà CªÀgÀ §UÉÎ ®WÀĪÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ®Ä ±ÀÄgÀĪÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. »ÃUÁV ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzsÀ UËqÀgÀ £ÉÃvÀÈvÀézÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀªÀÅ MAzÀÄ C¥ÀºÁ¸ÀåzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛªÀ£ÁßV ±Á¸ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ.

        ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è£À F DAvÀjPÀ ©ü£ÀߪÀÄvÀzÀ ¸ÀĽAiÀÄ°è,  AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ MvÀÛqÀzÀ CqÀPÉÆwÛ£À°è ¹PÀÌ ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæ ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀ UËqÀgÀÄ CvÀAvÀægÁVzÁÝgÉ. DqÀ½vÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀgÀÄ UÀªÀÄ£À«j¸ÀzÀAvÀºÀ EgÀĸÀÄ ªÀÄÄgÀĹUÉ ¹®ÄQ ¢lÖ ¤zsÁðgÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ°è, ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸ÉAiÀÄ ºÉeÉÓ ºÁPÀĪ°è «¥sÀ®gÁVzÁÝgÉ. CªÀjVgÀĪÀ MAzÉà ¨ÉA§®ªÉAzÀgÉ ªÀjµÀ× ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ. DzÀgÉ ªÀjµÀ× ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÉ ¨ÉA§°UÀgÀ D²¸ÀÛ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ滸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀ PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊPÉƼÀÄîwÛ®è.

 C¤²ÑvÀvÉAiÀÄÄ »ÃUÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjzÀgÉ,  ªÀÄÄA¢£À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ vÀ£ÀPÀ  ¨sÁd¥ÀzÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄzsÁj¸ÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸ÉAiÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÆ PÁtÄwÛ®è.

        vÀªÀÄä°ègÀĪÀ PÀÄaðAiÀÄ §UÉUÉ £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ PÀZÁÑlªÀÅ d£ÀjUÉ ¨sÀæªÀĤgÀ¸À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀ JZÀÑjPÉ  UÀAmÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß  GqÀĦ-aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ  ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ EwÛÃaUÉ £ÀqÉzÀ G¥ÀZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è §ºÀ¼À ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV ¨Áj¹gÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ  ¥ÀPÀëzÀ ªÀjµÀ× ªÀÄAqÀAiÀÄÄ DvÀAPÀPÉÌ M¼ÀUÁVzÉ..

        GqÀĦ aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæ ªÀÅ PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ°è ¨sÁd¥ÀzÀ ¨sÀzÀæ PÉÆmÉUÀ¼À°è MAzÀÄ.  F ¨sÀzÀæ PÉÆÃmÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©gÀÄPÀÄ PÁt¹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀ  ¥ÀjuÁªÀĪÁV ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ F ¸Á£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÁ£ÁVAiÉÄà PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉ.  C°è PÁAUÉæ¸ÀÄ UÉÆÃ®Ä ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ°®è. ¨sÁd¥ÀªÉà vÀ£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ UÉÆÃ®Ä ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÁAUÉæ¹UÉ MAzÀÄ vÀmÉÖAiÀÄ ªÉÄ¯É «zsÀÄåPÀÛªÁV zÁ£ÀzÀ «Ã¼ÀåªÀ£ÀÄß PÁAUÉæ¹UÉ PÉÆnÖvÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ.

        2009gÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÁ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è  ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ  4.10 ®PÀë ªÀÄvÀUÀ½¹, 27,000 ªÀÄvÀUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß G½¹PÉÆArvÀÄæ.  CzÀgÉ CAzÀÄ dAiÀÄU½¹zÀ ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀ UËqÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå ªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÁV C°è  ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¥ÀæZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊPÉÆAqÀgÀÆ,  vÀ£ÀUÉ ¹PÀÌ ªÀÄvÀ ¨ÉA§®ªÀ£ÀÄß  ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ G½¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀ°®è. CzÀÄ  G½¢zÀÝgÉ C®à ªÀÄvÀzÀ CAvÀgÀ¢AzÁzÀgÀÆ, ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ UÉ®ÄèªÀzÀÄ ¸ÁzsÀå«vÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ CzÀÄ ºÁUÉ DUÀ°®è. ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ ¥ÀgÁdAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß C£ÀĨsÀ«¹zÀÄzÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀºÁQzÀªÀgÀ°è ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 10QÌAvÀ eÁ¹Û ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ 48,000  ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ PÀqÉUÉ «ªÀÄÄRgÁzÀÄzÀjAzÀ. 2008gÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉUÉ ºÉÆð¹zÀgÉ, ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ F £Á®ÄÌ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À°è C£ÀĨsÀ«¹zÀ SÉÆÃvÁ 57,000 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ. E°è §gÀĪÀ  JAlÄ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæzÀ°è CzÀÄ C£ÀĨsÀ«¹zÀ ¸ÀgÁ¸Àj 7000 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉ.  ¨sÁd¥ÀzÀ ¨sÀzÀæ PÉÆÃmÉAiÀÄ°è£À ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀ ªÀUÀðzÀ°è F §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀiÁzÀgÉ, G½zÀ PÉëÃvÀæUÀ¼À ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ°è JAvÀºÀ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ §A¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ G»¹zÀgÉ  §gÀ°gÀĪÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ JzÀÄj¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸ÀªÁ°£À CAzÁf£À PÀ®à£É §gÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ.

        ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀÄ°è E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀëöä §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ EAVvÀªÀ£À£ÀÄß GqÀĦ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀzÀ£ÀÄß C®Që¸ÀĪÀAw®è. ªÁrPÉAiÀiÁV 1999jAzÀ £ÀqÉzÀ 2008gÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉ   ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉUÀ¼À°è §gÀÄwÛzÀÝ ÝºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ/ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ  ¨ÉA§®ªÀÅ ¥ÀÆwðAiÀiÁV ¨sÁd¥ÀPÉÌ ®¨sÀåªÁVzÀÝjAzÀ ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀUÀ½PÉAiÀÄ°è PÁAUÉæ¸À£ÀÄß »AzÉ ¸Àj¹ MAzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÆzÀ® ¨Áj DPÀæ«Ä¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. DzÀgÉ  FUÀ £ÀqÉzÀ GqÀĦ aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆPÀ¸À¨sÉ G¥ÀZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÆzÀ® ¨Áj ¨sÁd¥ÀPÉÌ F ¯Á¨sÀ vÀ®Ä¥À°®è. 2009gÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuɬÄAzÀ  ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2012gÀ G¥ÀZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ºÉÆwÛUÉ  ºÉƸÀªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è 27,000 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ eÁ¹ÛAiÀiÁVzÀÝgÀÆ MAzÀÆ  ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ©Ã¼ÀzÉÃ, ¨sÁd¥ÀªÀÅ 48,000 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À SÉÆÃvÁªÀ£ÀÄß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸À¨ÉÃPÁ¬ÄvÀÄ.

        ªÀÄvÀUÀ½PÉAiÀÄ°è£À E½PÉAiÀÄ ºÉÆuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß  ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¥ÀæZÁgÀzÀ°è ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¹zÀ AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉUÀ°UÉ ºÉÆj¸À¨ÉÃPÉÆÃ, DxÀªÁ CzÀPÉÌ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆuÉAiÀÄ®è. CªÀgÀÄ ZÀÄ£ÀªÀuÉ ¥ÀæZÁgÀzÀ°è ¥Á®ÄUÉÆArzÀÝgÀÆ EzÀÄ DUÀÄvÀÛ¯Éà EvÉÆÛà J£ÀÄߪÀzÀÄ «ªÁzÀ¸ÀàzÀ «µÀAiÀÄ. AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæZÁgÀ¢AzÀ zÀÆgÀªÀŽ¢gÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ »ÃUÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÁ¢¸ÀĪÀªÀgÀÄ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ¥Àæ±ÉßAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄj¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. GqÀĦAiÀÄ°è AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ«®èzÉà 90% ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÁd¥ÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ, AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¨sÁd¥ÀPÉÌ C¤ªÁAiÀÄðªÉãÀÆ C®è. CªÀjzÀÝgÀÆ E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÉà §gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. §ºÀıÀ: F ¥Àæ±Éß GzÀ㫹ÃvÉAzÉà AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ CzÀPÉÌ PÁgÀtgÀ®èªÉA§ RįÁ¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀAvÉ PÁt¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

        AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀÄvÀÛ®Æ  ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛwÛgÀĪÀ ¨sÁd¥ÀzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ°è£À ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÁd¥À ªÀjµÀ× ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ vÀ¯É¨ÉÃ£É vÀA¢gÀĪÀzÀÄ ¤d. AiÀÄqÉAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ¨ÉA§°UÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ滸À®Ä ªÀjµÀ× ªÀÄAqÀ½ «ÄãÀªÉÄõÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀzÀÄ CªÀgÀ C¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ zÉÆåÃvÀPÀªÁVzÉ. vÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃUÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀĸÉåAiÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀzÀÄ ¯ÉøÀÄ JA§ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄPÉÌ  ¨sÁd¥ÀzÀ ªÀjµÀ× ªÀÄAqÀ½ §AzÀgÉ  CzÀÄ  vÀ¥ÀÄà JAzÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀzÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉÃUÉ?

        (ªÀÄÄV¬ÄvÀÄ) 07.42 UÀAÀÄ  26.03.12À.

           

Lessons from Udupi bye poll

ªÀÄwÛúÀ½î ªÀÄzÀ£À ªÉÆúÀ£À,    ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀQÃ0iÀÄ  ¸À®ºÉUÁgÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAPÀtPÁgÀgÀÄ

 zÀÆ ªÁ: 2374872 ªÉÆ: 94480-74872

Email  madan.mm@gmail.com /: mathihallim@yahoo.co.in.

For Churumuri

HUBLI, 21st  March 2012

            The defeat in the Udupi Chickmagalur by-election to loksabha has been the price the BJP has paid at last for making a mockery of the mandate it had received from Karnataka voters three years ago, and reiterated in the string of by-elections held of the assembly in the interregnum.

            The subtle changes in the voting pattern in the just concluded by poll can be ignored at their peril by the BJPs party strategists.  In a way the voting pattern is indicative of the mood of the people that their patience over the power tantrums of BJP may be running out.

            The BJPs fast rise to power in Karnataka especially in the past more than one decade is mainly attributed to the newly enrolled voters voting enmasse in its favour to the total exclusion of the two other contenders the Congress and the JD S . As a consequence in the 2008 assembly election, it could displace the Congress as the party with a biggest share of votes from the people.

            This vital trend has b been reversed this time. In Udupi Chikmagalur constituency, an additional 24,000 voters had been freshly enrolled. Not a single vote has gone to the BJP this time in a constituency, which all along was considered as one of its bastions in Karnataka.

            To make the matters worse, the BJP could not even retain the vote base.  It has suffered erosion to the tune of over 48,000 between the 2009 when the parliament elections were held and in the bye election held now. In 2009 itself, the erosion in the vote base was marginal to the extent of little more than 9,000 over the 2008 assembly polls in the concerned segments.  Between 2008 and 2012, the party has lost more than 57,000 voters.

            The only redeeming factor however is that of the more than four lakh voters who had reposed confidence in the party in 2009, only ten percent chose to change their political loyalty, while the bulk of the voters chose to remain steady with the party, despite the plethora of scams, which have plagued the party and deep rooted schism coming out in the open.

            This may be comforting thought for the BJP leaders but one of them, Mr Yeddyurappa who is going all out to rehabilitate him, is certainly not going to be happy. This is one election, where the Yeddyurappa openly said that he would not campaign for the party.While the party was battling here, Yeddyurappa was on a sojourn around the temples seeking divine intervention to realise his ambition.

            If Yeddyurappas absence can be one of the contributing factors for the loss of 40,000 votes, then his image as the main vote catcher for the party, and his status as the mass leader of the BJP in Karnataka gets a serious dent.

                        This was one election, which nobody seriously expected Congress to win. But it did not on its own volition but by default as it appears.  For the BJPs loss of votes in the by-election, has not been a gain for the Congress. The Congress as the poll figures could reveal could only rake up an additional 24,000 votes to its 2009 tally, which it has lost by a margin of 27000 votes.

            The biggest gainer however for the record sake happens to be JDS, which could get  more than 72,000 votes this time, while it had left the seat uncontested last time.

            Another interesting feature has been that the poll turn out in 2009 general election and the present by election, has almost been identical – a little more than 68%. And the only change in the scenario has been that over 28,000 new voters had been added to the electoral list.   And the increase in the poll turn out has been around 18,000. While all the new voters are expected not to miss the maiden opportunity to cast vote, obviously around 10,000 established voters who had voted last time obviously stayed way.

            And this scenario offered an ideal setting for discerning the response of the voters to the ugly happenings in BJP in general and to the internecine quarrels in particular.

            Ultimately it so happened that while the Congress could increase its vote share by little more than 18,000 votes, the BJP had lost to the tune of  48,000 votes, and the JDS which had stayed away from contest three years ago, raked up support of  whopping  72,000 votes.  There has been a considerable decline in the number of apolitical voters, who would prefer voting “others” to any of the established parties. The number of such voters   which was around 55,000 last time had got reduced to little more than 28,000.   Bulk of them appeared to have supported JDS.

            The moot question is why did the JDS, which had skipped contesting in 2009 chose to be in the arena this time, where it had not got a ghost of chance of winning.  And who was the ultimate beneficiary?

The Congress spokesmen had gone on record to say that move was to keep the secular votes in the constituency (a euphemism for the votes polled by the CPI last time) from going to Congress.

            Did the presence of the JDS help Congress to win or prevented BJP from winning? Ones guess is as good as another.

             

           

             

             

            ,

             

             

				Udupi Parliamentary By-election 2012
			A	B		C
			2008A	2009P	Diff	2012	diff
			a	b	b-a		C-B
	Elec		1207959	1224335		1252390
					16376		28055
	Polled		889996	834728		852954
					-55268		18226
	Cong		334824	374423		398723
					39599		24300
	BJP		410675	401441		352999
					-9234		-48442
	JDS			0		72086
							72086
	Others			55718		28146

2008A stand for assembly elections in2008

2009P stands for the parliamentary election held in 2009

(Source: Election Commission) 

Lessons from Udupi bye poll

ªÀÄwÛúÀ½î ªÀÄzÀ£À ªÉÆúÀ£À,    ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀQÃ0iÀÄ  ¸À®ºÉUÁgÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAPÀtPÁgÀgÀÄ

 zÀÆ ªÁ: 2374872 ªÉÆ: 94480-74872

Email  madan.mm@gmail.com /: mathihallim@yahoo.co.in.

HUBLI, 21st  March 2012

            The defeat in the Udupi Chickmagalur by-election to loksabha has been the price the BJP has paid at last for making a mockery of the mandate it had received from Karnataka voters three years ago, and reiterated in the string of by-elections held of the assembly in the interregnum.

            The subtle changes in the voting pattern in the just concluded by poll can be ignored at their peril by the BJPs party strategists.  In a way the voting pattern is indicative of the mood of the people that their patience over the power tantrums of BJP may be running out.

            The BJPs fast rise to power in Karnataka especially in the past more than one decade is mainly attributed to the newly enrolled voters voting enmasse in its favour to the total exclusion of the two other contenders the Congress and the JD S . As a consequence in the 2008 assembly election, it could displace the Congress as the party with a biggest share of votes from the people.

            This vital trend has b been reversed this time. In Udupi Chikmagalur constituency, an additional 24,000 voters had been freshly enrolled. Not a single vote has gone to the BJP this time in a constituency, which all along was considered as one of its bastions in Karnataka.

            To make the matters worse, the BJP could not even retain the vote base.  It has suffered erosion to the tune of over 48,000 between the 2009 when the parliament elections were held and in the bye election held now. In 2009 itself, the erosion in the vote base was marginal to the extent of little more than 9,000 over the 2008 assembly polls in the concerned segments.  Between 2008 and 2012, the party has lost more than 57,000 voters.

            The only redeeming factor however is that of the more than four lakh voters who had reposed confidence in the party in 2009, only ten percent chose to change their political loyalty, while the bulk of the voters chose to remain steady with the party, despite the plethora of scams, which have plagued the party and deep rooted schism coming out in the open.

            This may be comforting thought for the BJP leaders but one of them, Mr Yeddyurappa who is going all out to rehabilitate him, is certainly not going to be happy. This is one election, where the Yeddyurappa openly said that he would not campaign for the party.While the party was battling here, Yeddyurappa was on a sojourn around the temples seeking divine intervention to realise his ambition.

            If Yeddyurappas absence can be one of the contributing factors for the loss of 40,000 votes, then his image as the main vote catcher for the party, and his status as the mass leader of the BJP in Karnataka gets a serious dent.

                        This was one election, which nobody seriously expected Congress to win. But it did not on its own volition but by default as it appears.  For the BJPs loss of votes in the by-election, has not been a gain for the Congress. The Congress as the poll figures could reveal could only rake up an additional 24,000 votes to its 2009 tally, which it has lost by a margin of 27000 votes.

            The biggest gainer however for the record sake happens to be JDS, which could get  more than 72,000 votes this time, while it had left the seat uncontested last time.

            Another interesting feature has been that the poll turn out in 2009 general election and the present by election, has almost been identical – a little more than 68%. And the only change in the scenario has been that over 28,000 new voters had been added to the electoral list.   And the increase in the poll turn out has been around 18,000. While all the new voters are expected not to miss the maiden opportunity to cast vote, obviously around 10,000 established voters who had voted last time obviously stayed way.

            And this scenario offered an ideal setting for discerning the response of the voters to the ugly happenings in BJP in general and to the internecine quarrels in particular.

            Ultimately it so happened that while the Congress could increase its vote share by little more than 18,000 votes, the BJP had lost to the tune of  48,000 votes, and the JDS which had stayed away from contest three years ago, raked up support of  whopping  72,000 votes.  There has been a considerable decline in the number of apolitical voters, who would prefer voting “others” to any of the established parties. The number of such voters   which was around 55,000 last time had got reduced to little more than 28,000.   Bulk of them appeared to have supported JDS.

            The moot question is why did the JDS, which had skipped contesting in 2009 chose to be in the arena this time, where it had not got a ghost of chance of winning.  And who was the ultimate beneficiary?

The Congress spokesmen had gone on record to say that move was to keep the secular votes in the constituency (a euphemism for the votes polled by the CPI last time) from going to Congress.

            Did the presence of the JDS help Congress to win or prevented BJP from winning? Ones guess is as good as another.

             

           

             

             

            ,

             

             

				Udupi Parliamentary By-election 2012
			A	B		C
			2008A	2009P	Diff	2012	diff
			a	b	b-a		C-B
	Elec		1207959	1224335		1252390
					16376		28055
	Polled		889996	834728		852954
					-55268		18226
	Cong		334824	374423		398723
					39599		24300
	BJP		410675	401441		352999
					-9234		-48442
	JDS			0		72086
							72086
	Others			55718		28146

2008A stand for assembly elections in2008

2009P stands for the parliamentary election held in 2009

(Source: Election Commission) 

New voters do the trick once again

Mathihalli Madan Mohan

Senior Journalist and Columnist

Hubli

                                       New voters do the trick once again.

HUBLI, 13^th March 2012

            UP has proved once again the trend discerned in the assembly elections held in  West Bengal and Tamilnadu, that the political changes are wrought mostly by the new voters than the  old voters.

            The essential difference between the UP and the WB and Tamilnadu patterns is that while in the two latter states, the new voters enmasse had plumped for the leading opposition party, in UP the new voters had distributed their largesse among the main contestants and the Samajvadi party proved to be biggest benefactor.

            A study of the electoral behaviour in the  country has proved  one thing in rather conclusive terms that that the parties in the poll mostly hold on to their  bases generally  and the shift of the political loyalty is a very rare indeed. And the shift any in such case too takes place marginally, while the bulk remain loyal to the party they have voted before.

            Under the circumstances,  the  political changes that have taken in states depends essentially on the new voters. They comprise of two categories, namely the newly enrolled voters and those who besides being voters had not noted before and come to exercise votes for the first time.  In Karnataka, it is the newly enrolled voters, who have regularly voted for the BJP in the past three elections, to catapult the party to power in 2008.  It had happened in West Bengal too, where the turned enmasse in support of the Trinamool Congress last time. In Tamilnadu however the latter category namely, the voters on the exercise their right for the first time sent  packing home the Karunanidhi government of the DMK and put the crown on  Jayalalitaa of the AIADMK.

            It has  happened once again Uttar Pradesh elections too, where the Samajvadi party led by the father and son duo Mulaylaym Singh and Akhilesh Singh, had turned ina stunning performanance to displace  BSP government of Mayavati and regain the power after a gap in a very convincing matter.

            The Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, it may be incidentally noted here witnessed a higher turn out for a state, which has a track record of low poll percentages  all these years. For the first time nearly 60% of the voters had turned up at the booths, which is perhaps a record for the state. It marked a more than 14% increase in the poll turn out and reports said that the womens turn out was appreciably higher this time.

            In terms of  numbers, the increase in poll turn out, meant that more than 2.35 crore voters had cast their votes. This included the around 1.38 crores voters who had enrolled themselves as voters for the first time and  remaining chunk being the voters though registered long ago, had exercised their right for the first time. All these  votes incidentally politically unattached votes,  and were making the choice of the parties for the first time.

              Of the total of 2.35 crore new votes waiting to be shared, the SP, was able to corner a whopping 88 lakhs, to win  224 seats as against 97 of 2007 and earned right to rule the biggest state in India by its own right. This appeared to be direct offshoot of the social engineering done by the SP in the allotment of tickets , the aggressive campaign done by Akhilesh Singh and rising disenchantment with the Mayavati Governement of the BSP .

            The  ruling BSP which could not match with the superior election campaign of the father and son duo of Mulayam and Akhilesh and lost the race  to retain power. Its only consolation has been that despite all the antipropaganda unleashed against it, it did receive an additional vote support to the extent of 37.74 lakhs. . But this was not enough to retain the power and stem the tide of support that SP had  been able to mop up.  It lost 126 seats to end up with only 80 in a house of 403  but emerge as the main opposition party in the sprawling state.

            The Congress, which run a spirited campaign under the leadership of  Rahul Gandhi projected as the Prime Minister in waiting  had the next highest share  to the extent of 42 lakhs votes;. In terms of the seats, it meant an additional six seats to its previous tally of 22. What is however significant is that its share in the polled votes had reached the double digit bracket  perhaps for the first time, though it has still a long way to go in quest of power in the state, by taking on the two well entrenched parties, the  SP and the BSP. All those, who had written off Rahul Gandhi’s campaign as a failure appears to be overlooked a significant fact that the campaign had brought  an increase in the base of the Congress. This trend had  also been noticed in Bihar too, where also the campaign was managed by Rahul Gandhi. .

            The BJP, which regarded the present poll as something of a  runup to the parliamentary polls scheduled in 2014, had quite a disappointing performanance. Though it did receive an additional votes to the extent of  25.19 lakhs,  it lost four seats . Its share in the polled votes showed a decline with the party receiving 15.01% as against  16.96 % of the previous poll.

            Another interesting factor is that there had been considerable reduction in the number of voters and seats going to the other splinter parties.  The four main parties between themselves could bag 376 seats in 403 member house, and capture more than 81% of the votes.

            From a national point of view in the context of the  coming parliamentary elections in about two years of time (if not earlier), the prognosis is not good at all for the top two national parties, the Congress and the BJP, whose disconnect with the voters at large has shown no signs of receding. Of the 2.35 crores of additional voters who exercised their right, in UP,  the share of  the two national parties, was a  mere 68 lakhs, while a marked higher chunk of votes went in favour of the regional satraps, the Mulayam Singh and the Mayavati, who between theselves had received a combined support  to the tune of  1.25 crores of votes. Going by the present mood, it is unlikely that the either the Congress or the BJP is able to show any improvement in the days preceding the next poll.

	U P Assembly Elections : Comparitive Study
			2012		2007
				diff
	Elec		127229780		113541350
				13688430
	Valid votes		75717070		52163147
	%		59.51	23553923	45.94
	BSP		19647549		15872561
				3774988
	%E		15.44		13.97
	%V		25.94		30.42
	seats		80		206
	SP		22107241		13267674
				8839567
	%E		17.37		11.68
	%V		29.19		25.43
	seats		224		97
	BJP		11371027		8851199
				2519828
	%E		8.93		7.79
	%V		15.01		16.96
	seats		47		51
	Cong		8816092		4489234
				4326858
	%E		6.92		3.95
	%V		11.64		8.6
	seats		28		22
	Performanance of the four parties
	seats secured			376	347
	votes polled		61941909	37991434
			81.81	72.83%
	Others
	seats		27	34
	votes		13775161	14171713

                                    (source CEO Uttar Pradesh)

Eom      09.19hrs. 13.03.2012.