Kejriwal must instead focus on full statehood
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal may claim that he called off his dharna after the Union Government ‘partially' agreed to his demands, but the fact is that he had to wind up the 10-day protest in less than 48 hours because of the massive outrage that his action invited from the public, the media and a vast majority of political parties. The crowd that had gathered at the protest site near Rail Bhavan comprised largely the Aam Aadmi Party workers, Ministers and MlAs, with only a small sprinkling of the common man in whose name Mr Kejriwal had sat on the dharna. Clearly, the people by and large were not convinced by his disruptionist conduct. His chest-thumping over the ‘victory' of the ‘people of Delhi' is a mere stunt to camouflage the abject failure of his dharna. The failure is because he chose the wrong issue and the wrong method of protest. The general perception — largely accurate — is that Mr Kejriwal precipitated a crisis because he wanted to defend his law Minister Somnath Bharti and see that the police officials who had refused to heed Mr Bharti's directives, are punished. In the first place, the Minister was in the wrong. But even assuming that he was right, Mr Kejriwal's response to the supposed slight was completely out of proportion. It cannot be that the entire might of a Government led by the Chief Minister should be unleashed to teach police officers a lesson. Instead of making the Somnath Bharti case the focal point, the Aam Aadmi Party's regime should have concentrated on the larger issue of full-fledged statehood for Delhi. If Delhi attains full statehood, the State's police would come under the Delhi Government's jurisdiction. Mr Kejriwal and his party have been aiming at that, after all. It is true that Mr Kejriwal has been talking in favour of full statehood, but then there is a constitutional way to proceed with the idea. He ought to discuss the nitty-gritty with experts and nudge and persuade the Union Government and the opposition parties to seriously deliberate on the issue. That way, he can make a tangible beginning to the process. And for doing this, he and his people need not have had to sit on the streets, protest vociferously by using foul language, and inconvenience the very same aam aadmi in whose name they do politics. There is a constitutional mechanism which the Delhi Government needs to adopt to take the matter ahead. Had Mr Kejriwal made full statehood the core demand, he would have received the support of leaders from other political parties and the people.
Of course, there are many ifs and buts that accompany the proposal to accord full statehood to Delhi. The first and foremost would be the issue of revenue. As a State, Delhi would have to largely depend on its own means to raise revenue; it now survives on generous funding from the Centre. It is not a heavily industrialised State, nor is it agriculture-driven. Delhi is not also a technology hub. Given the situation, the means to tap revenues to meet the needs of a full-fledged State are limited. Delhi Police’s budget, which is met by the Union Government, is close to Rs 4,600 crore. Still, the demand for full statehood for Delhi is legitimate, and Mr Kejriwal and his Government will do well to pursue the issue doggedly, but always by adopting consitutional means.