Kejriwal has everything for everyone, even for those with contrasting worldviews. Utpal Kumar looks at the AAP phenomenon and why it is doomed to fail sooner than later
Arvind Kejriwal has finally agreed to form the Government in Delhi. He, however, isn’t too happy about it. If sources are to be believed, he would have liked to sit in the Opposition, more so after the kind of verdict the people of Delhi have given this time. With the BJP getting 32 seats, the AAP 28 and the Congress eight, it would be a crown of thorns for the one heading the Delhi durbar. The Opposition, on the other hand, would have enough wherewithal to assert itself time and again — something which would have suited Kejriwal and his brand of politics better. But then he was bowled by the Congress’ googly of ‘unconditional support’ for the AAP. The BJP, too, played it well when it decided not to stake claim to form a Government, despite being so close to the simple majority mark. In the light of the anti-corruption sentiment in the country, no one wanted to be seen as corrupt. And any attempt by the BJP to garner four additional votes needed to form the Government wouldn’t have gone down well with the electorate.
There would have been another reason why Kejriwal wasn’t too keen in forming the Government. He could see the contradiction within the AAP. The party began as a middle class movement against the wrongdoings of the UPA regime. But as it turned political, it needed to go beyond the educated class and thus adopted populist postures. It promised the poor to bring down power tariff by half, provide free water supply to households that consume less than 700 litres of water a day, regularise unauthorised colonies within a year, and so on. To the credit of Kejriwal, even when the AAP was witnessing rapid transformation, it managed to hold on to the middle class, positioning itself as a party that shared its core values vis-à-vis politics and corruption. It could, thus, project itself as an alternative to the existing political order, widely perceived as corrupt and manipulative.
In Opposition, Kejriwal could have continued to lead this uneasy alliance of the middle and the subaltern classes. He could have successfully accommodated his populist vision with his strong, uncompromising stand on corruption. But in power, this is not going to be easy, as these two classes have different, if not contrasting, worldviews. Appeasing one would end up annoying the other. The AAP, for example, opposes privatisation, expects the Government to play a bigger role in the economic sphere, wants the rich and the middle class to pay more taxes, and supports greater subsidy for food, water and power. But these are the very things that the middle class abhors. How is Kejriwal going to manage the two contrasting ends meet will be the biggest challenge.
The middle class per se is a fickle entity. It roots for change the moment it finds an opportunity. It was the first to side with the BJP during the Ayodhya movement, expecting an alternative to the decadent Nehruvian order. It supported Manmohan Singh during the 2009 lok Sabha elections for his firm stand on the India-US nuclear deal. Today, the Congress is at the receiving end as a large section of the middle class sees the Modi model as a national alternative to the corrupt, status quoist UPA regime.
In Delhi, Kejriwal could get the bulk of the middle class votes because he sold himself well as an alternative to the Congress’ 15-year-old regime. But is there any guarantee that this vote-bank will remain with the AAP six months down the line when Kejriwal would be seen as a part of the establishment, when his stand on corruption would be partly diluted, when his economic policies would start hurting the middle classIJ
This also explains why the AAP, in the long term, can become a bigger threat to the Congress than the BJP. The latter, in fact, may gain from Kejriwal as he may dent the Congress’ traditional vote-banks for a long time.
When it’s argued that the AAP’s stand on the issue of corruption will soon be diluted, it has historical connotations. Historically, corruption and crony capitalism become a menace when the state attempts to play the mai-baap role, when it starts overstretching its limits, when it gets into the business of running industries, drilling oil and gas, and providing sops to the poor. The record of the UPA-II vindicates this claim. The more the Manmohan Singh Government adopted what is now derisively called ‘Sonianomics’, the more the cases of corruption appeared in the public domain. Ironically, the AAP is trying to fight the menace by turning into a bigger menace.
Moreover, subsidies are not just bad economics, they also breed corruption. If an object is available in market for Rs 20 and the state provides it to a section of society for Rs 5, then it is bound to invite corruption. There would always be someone who would try to sell it in the black market for greater profit. This writer has seen in Bihar even the poor selling their portion of rice and oil in the open. So, why go back to the beaten trackIJ The country has had enough of the licence-quota raj for most part of its post-Independence history, and it has seen how the ‘pro-poor’, socialist policies have kept a large majority of people poor.
An analysis of Kejriwal’s personality can reveal some of the contradictions within the AAP. Kejriwal’s policies are mostly left-oriented, but he hates being called a ‘leftie’. Most of his associates, past and present, are a confusing mix of Right and left. Some want a referendum in Jammu & Kashmir, some whole-heartedly shout Vande Mataram, some are Maoist sympathisers, while a few would never get tired of invoking Bharat Mata in their discourses.
This isn’t accidental. Kejriwal has always wanted it that way — an escape route if something doesn’t go his way. look at his encounter with Baba Ramdev. Just before Anna Hazare started his anti-corruption agitation in Delhi in 2011, it was Kejriwal who went all the way to Uttarakhand to persuade the yoga guru to participate in a joint anti-corruption rally in the Capital. Kejriwal was then not sure of how the people of Delhi would take to Anna’s agitation, and wanted Ramdev’s followers to come out in large numbers to support the cause. Some of Kejriwal’s close associates then complained him of sidelining well-known activists in favour of ‘celebrities’ like Ramdev. But when Kejriwal sensed growing support for Anna, he began to distance himself from the yoga guru.
The AAP’s political ideology shows a similar trajectory. It started with the support of the middle class on the issue of corruption, but soon went on to take up the plank of roti, bijli, pani. Today, the party is the amalgamation of the two contrasting worldviews. One wonders how long the two worlds can remain together, particularly when the AAP won’t have an establishment to target, when the party itself would become the establishment.