dna edit: Violence- A metaphor of politics

What is it about the persona of Arvind Kejriwal that makes him a sitting duck for his assailants, who are multiplying by the day? The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief’s critics blame Kejriwal for provoking such ambush upon himself — if only by stubbornly refusing to wall himself up with layers of security. Outlandish conspiracy theories too are doing the rounds. Such an explanatory framework automatically transfers much of the onus for the violence on to the victim himself. Implicit in such reasoning is the justification for politicians to cordon themselves off from the hoi polloi — even if it is in their name that they seek to perpetuate their power. In other words, it has become part of contemporary political praxis for elected representatives to ‘protect’ themselves from direct contact with the masses. The mass contact programmes — once an essential strategy for renewing engagement with voters — have long since been consigned to the archives.

The attacks on Kejriwal have touched off the usual hand-wringing over political/electoral violence. The veracity of such an argument is not in question. The culture of impunity has indeed emboldened politicians to transact politics through violence — overt and covert. That is a trend well known by now.

The more interesting aspect, however, is exploring what Kejriwal represents to the electorate. What impelled the auto-driver — who presumably never dared to strike any other ‘big-time’ political leader — to hit the AAP chief? Arguably, Kejriwal’s aam aadmi politics has ‘empowered’ voters to turn their ire on none other than the progenitor of alternative politics. On several levels, the politics propagated by Kejriwal has broken down the construct of a quintessential political leader — unapproachable, aloof — in contemporary Indian politics. This would be the politician who derives his power from his aloofness, in being shielded by his security personnel from supporters or adversaries.

In the on-going election campaign, Kejriwal has been punched, slapped and inked by his attackers. Not once, multiple times and on multiple occasions. His car has been smashed and eggs have been hurled at him in Varanasi where he takes on Narendra Modi in this election’s most high profile face-off. Not just Kejriwal, his other colleagues too, have been targets of violence — mostly by their opponents — sometimes also recalcitrant supporters.

In the course of the campaign, Kejriwal has become his adversaries’ favourite punching bag. An irate auto driver, ‘betrayed’ by Kejriwal, has no compunction about giving him a black eye, in full public glare.

Instead of prosecuting him, Kejriwal meets his assailant at his home, trying to understand the reasons behind the attack. Extraordinary situations lead to extraordinary gestures.

Angry voters are known to want to punish their elected representatives — and not always in a civilised manner. That isn’t a new phenomenon in a representative democracy. Yet thankfully, rarely do this disgruntled lot, act on their violent impulses. We have rarely heard of top leaders of heavyweight, established political parties being punched in full public view. An exception to that rule is found in Mamata Banerjee, the Trinamool Congress chief, subjected to multiple murderous attacks by the CPI(M) cadres for three decades and more.

The recent attacks on the AAP chief raise several questions. Like Banerjee, is it Kejriwal’s approachable and non-elitist persona that has rendered him vulnerable to physical assaults? Are the stakes too high in the 2014 elections to conduct a civilised, non-violent campaign? Or does the mere entry of a disruptor and challenger like Kejriwal, breaking traditional rules of politics, make him an easy target?