Chief Minister of Gujarat Vijay rupani on Saturday he resigned from office, more than a year before the state goes to the polls. It is unclear what sparked the development in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home state, where elections to the 182-member Assembly are due to take place in December next year.
“Enter AAP Uttrakhand, presents a robust and effective opposition to the ruling BJP. BJP was forced to withdraw his CM. AAP trespasses the BJP citadel, wins 27 seats in Surat, captures opposition space in Gujarat by dislodging the ineffective Congress. BJP forced to withdraw its CM, “AAP leader Raghav Chadha said in a tweet.
The AAP has made inroads into Gujarat politics, winning 27 seats in the Surat Municipal Corporation in February. While the BJP retained power by winning 93 seats in the 120-seat SMC, the AAP led by Arvind Kejriwal won the remaining 27 seats. Congress, which had won 36 seats in SMC last time, was reduced to zero seats.
The Indian Youth Congress said in a tweet in Hindi: “In the electoral states, the people have decided to change the government of the BJP, but they constantly change the chief minister to deceive the people. No matter how many senior ministers change, People have made the decision to change the BJP itself! ”
The reset button the BJP has pressed on governance in the wake of the Covid-19 wave, which also saw a major overhaul by Prime Minister Narendra Modi of his own cabinet, continues as Vijay Rupani became the fourth on Saturday. chief minister to leave.
As the party works to revamp its governance model, the decision to leave Rupani as the prime minister of Gujarat, after eliminating two top ministers in Uttarakhand and one in Karnataka in recent months, stands in stark contrast to its decision to remain inflexible. in endorsement of his boss. ministerial elections during Modi’s first term despite scathing voices against some of them.
Political observers believe the changes highlight the BJP leaders’ analysis of feedback on the ground and their willingness to address it, despite the fact that a final word on the shakeup can only be uttered in elections.