Ever since Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) triumphant sweep in the Delhi elections, it has been a beacon of hope, a bulwark of secularism, dedicated to the welfare of the people of Delhi with great promise as a party with a difference. But the events in the AAP National Council meeting of March 28 have given rise to confusion, and, in the case of opposing parties and individuals, condemnation. Arvind Kejriwal has been widely admired as a charismatic leader with a viable political instinct. This sad day, somehow, the AAP leadership got into ugly, factional fracas.
Firstly, it is necessary to note that the criticism and charges against Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav started in the Political Affairs Committee (PAC). It was only after the PAC decided the charges that the matter went to the National Executive (NE). The NE voting was 11 against Prashant and Yogen, with 8 supporting them and 3 abstentions. This shows that this was no command performance orchestrated by Kejriwal and his supporters. The next recourse was to go to the National Council (NC). But the AAP leadership gave time for reconciliation.
The reconciliation debate went on for days. Unfortunately, demands that were difficult to accept were rejected on both sides. If there had been a more realistic compromise, matters would have ended there. That, unfortunately, did not happen and, in between, discussions and comments made in the media worsened matters. In retrospect, perhaps, some of the leaders who had been through thick and thin since the Anna movement could have shown more realism and accommodation. But this is easier said than done.
This left the NC meeting on March 28 as the last resort with a known objective of punishing the dissenters. Meanwhile, the negotiators Prof Anand Kumar and Ajit Jha also joined the dissenting duo. The NC meeting was packed. Members had to give various proofs of their membership. Media speculation that outsiders would be brought in to skew the results against the AAP leadership turned out to be false.
In a passionate speech Arvind Kejriwal (AK) said that he could not work with the dissenters. He was willing to withdraw from all posts in that event. Obviously, that excited many in the audience and signatures were collected in support of the official resolution which was overwhelmingly in favour of AK, with some 8 against and 54 abstentions, most of whom left the hall along with the dissenters. They questioned why a secret ballot was not allowed. But the majority was against it. There were some physical threats and one delegate was hurt.
Outside the NC, Dharamvir Gandhi, MP from Patiala, said democracy within AAP had been murdered. Later, the Punjab unit of AAP and two other AAP MPs disassociated from Gandhi’s position. So, the dissenters’ claim that they were not allowed to speak appears to be true, but it is also true from the voting, that the die was cast. Unfortunately, since this matter had been publicly reported and widely discussed for over a month, most of the delegates were highly charged, which is why they booed Yadav when he rose to speak. So the claim that democracy had been murdered is a gross exaggeration. Of course, AAP will learn from this experience and try to avoid unseemly scenes in the NC.
It is necessary for us to remember that worse scenes have occurred in other political parties and even in Parliament. This is no justification for what did happen as that is both against AAP’s own measures of how important meetings should be conducted and the need to devise new methods to ensure the decorum. At the same time, what did happen, and has happened in a few cases, should not be generalised to the entire NC. This does not legitimise what happened, but it was an aberration in stark contrast to hundreds of AAP meetings during its existence. It seems, in retrospect, that AK’s passionate speech, followed by his walking out of the meeting acted as a spur to some of his more excitable supporters.
In all this, as many of us have warned, the media attention to what the AAP government was doing in the case of free potable water for the poor and middle class, trying to provide cheaper electricity, toilets in all Jhuggi Jhopri colonies, participatory budgeting etc. has been stalled and NDA government sought to dilute these efforts. In the motivated political criticism of the NC, other political parties have sharply criticised AAP for its allegedly anti-democratic behaviour.
AK has been sharply criticised as the dictatorial leader of AAP. In that vein, the Congress headed by the dynasty and other parties like the BJP which has pushed out old leaders like LK Advani and MM Joshi and others are in no position to give AAP lectures on democracy or popular participation.
Interested people will recall that there was much speculation over the fact whether the AAP could defeat the mighty BJP. The people answered. These people ranging from all strata of society, from poor to very rich, voted for the AAP and ensured the 67 to 3 victory. The first thing AK said after the sweeping victory was ‘beware of arrogance’. Unlike most politicians, the AAP MLAs are readily approachable, if not in their offices, then through the AAP local offices.
An aberration, the reasons for which have been explained, should not be blown up to indicate the end of the AAP, which people admire. Of course, the AAP is not perfect and constructive criticism is a vital input to methods and policies. We also regret the loss of our veteran leaders with whom we campaigned shoulder to shoulder in Delhi, Varanasi and elsewhere.
A word of caution. Whatever faults that AAP may commit in future, we should remember that it is a major secular democratic force which is seen as a bulwark against communalism, religious sectarianism and corrupt anti-people politics. The BJP, with its anti-minority policies and deceitful formulae like ghar wapsi and 'love jihad' will not be allowed to terrorise minorities of any kind. This will hold true for any party which seeks to fish in troubled waters.
It is time we look at the NC meeting in perspective and realise and accept that one NC meeting on March 28 is a small part of what AAP is. There are a series of initiatives undertaken by AAP, including Mohalla Sabhas and easy access to elected officials. Above all the AAP has emerged as a bulwark against anti-people forces, which peddle perversion of religion or unaffordable economics. This party for the underprivileged and jobless will live by what it says. It has shown what it can do. But, in the end, we are clear whatever we do will be judged by the people, and not only nor mainly during elections.
The author is professor in the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
This is the first of the two-part series on the developments within AAP