Most Indian parties have roots in the political system that evolved in the course of the national movement. This is true even of parties like the BJP whose ancestors weren’t a part of the freedom struggle. Much like the Communist parties, the BJP and Sangh Parivar have their origins in 20th century political thought despite pursuing ideologies and practices antithetical to the Indian National Congress. Across states, most parties are rooted in this ecosystem, and their leaders mostly full-time politicians. The many descendants of the Lohia school of political thought have roots in the Congress Socialist Party, and regional parties in Tamil Nadu emerged out of the Self-Respect Movement. The number of leaders who came from outside the system and became successful can be counted on one’s fingertips. Among these “outsiders” who left a mark are N.T. Rama Rao, Bal Thackeray and Kanshi Ram. Unfortunately, all were eventually co-opted by the system, either due to fallibility or because the system had the capacity to neutralise their romanticism. Each such “outsider” was driven by ambition to alter the rules of the game, but after some inroads started adhering to the same norms.
For decades after Independence, politicians came from elitist backgrounds and middle-class professionals were largely unable to break the glass ceiling. Members of the intelligentsia could enter only by genuflecting before the established leadership or when leaders considered their intellect worthy of use. Thus, several were inducted by bosses and became “national” leaders by taking the Rajya Sabha route. Those unwilling to align with any party had no opportunity to join forces and pose an alternative. This changed after the Emergency, when the civil society space expanded, enabling partnerships on diverse issues ranging from human rights, gender discrimination, environmental protection and anti-communal campaigns. Bolstered by the success of their joint action after Delhi’s 1984 anti-Sikh riots — when the nature of violence was investigated and relief and long-term rehab support was provided — a concerted bid was made to transform the spontaneous association into a political platform. As civil society still didn’t have the experience of activism, and as divergences outweighed synergies, the efforts to intervene politically failed and professionals who united for a common “apolitical” cause went back to their routine. Those who remained were either confirmed jholawallahs, “NGO types” or new recruits. They gathered periodically to protest over “lost causes” in neo-liberal India. Activists had major successes, such as the Right to Information and Right to Education being enshrined, but these groups did not have any overarching presence in the political field.
The 2011 anti-corruption agitation ignited several hopes among incensed urbanites dwelling on the fringes. People who had never participated in any political activity — petty traders, minor job holders and homemakers — felt the movement had the potential of extricating them from the stranglehold of a corrupt system. Students and middle-class professionals saw in the movement the possibility of transformative action. In the backdrop of the Arab Spring, the potential of intervention from outside the political system appeared immense. Despite the Baba Ramdev-led effort to channelise the anti-corruption movement into support for the BJP, the middle-class leaders overcame self-doubts, political divergences and reservations about each other to establish the Aam Aadmi Party. Anna Hazare’s decision not to play ball had little impact on the future of a movement that morphed into a political party. Arvind Kejriwal becoming Delhi’s CM showed lateral entries from outside the system were possible.
Due to its imperfect beginnings, fault lines were evident. In his first stint as CM, Mr Kejriwal avoided taking responsibility for his actions and passed the buck. He used questionable methods to evaluate the public mood and passed it off as an example of the AAP’s commitment to participative decision-making. He got a second chance in the electoral battle because of several self-goals by the BJP; and this resulted in the unprecedented mandate of February 2015. In the 18 months since assuming office, however, the AAP appears to have imploded, and seems beset with problems no different from that ailing all other parties. In its formative period, the AAP had vowed to adhere to financial transparency, internal democracy and internal vigilance of leaders, legislators and office-bearers. It didn’t need an Anna Hazare to note that in hindsight it was evident the party hadn’t conducted a proper check of those it nominated to contest elections. Within weeks in 2013-14, the Somnath Bharati and Rakhi Birla incidents showed that the party hadn’t adequately politicised those who had overnight become legislators. The fact that three ministers were forced to quit for diverse reasons suggests the party hadn’t institutionalised a system of checks and balances to ensure legislators don’t become liabilities.
Every controversial episode that embroiled Mr Kejriwal — the conflict and parting of ways with Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan and others now spearheading Swaraj Abhiyan — shows that after breaking into the political system, he displayed no intention of changing the basic rules of the game and is indeed playing according to them. Thus, appointing a disproportionately large number of MLAs as parliamentary secretaries was justified by citing cases of other parties handing out similar doles to legislators. The shabby way in which Adm. L. Ramdas, the party’s ombudsman, was ejected underscored the distaste for internal vigilance. Without stabilising its Delhi set-up, Mr Kejriwal, like every other over-ambitious leader, first tried to mark a presence in Bihar and later attempted to take the lead in forging a non-Congress, anti-BJP front. The AAP is making a serious bid in Punjab to emerge as a significant force. But every move it has made, including the latest one of a pact with Jagmeet Singh Brar, shows it is no different from any other party.
For a party that had raised hopes of altering the terms of engagement, the AAP is now committed to being a replica of other parties. Expectations of Mr Kejriwal being truly secular have been dashed again, given his response to the denigration of the legislature by the Haryana government that allowed Jain monk Tarun Sagar to deliver a sermon to MLAs. Whether it is searing political ambition, response to corruption, background of important functionaries of his party or formulating political strategy, Mr Kejriwal is a pale shadow of what he promised. In the long run, he may still emerge as an alternative to Narendra Modi but his model will not be much different. Arun Shourie called the Modi government the Congress plus cow. Mr Kejriwal’s regime will soon be labelled as the Congress plus BJP plus Janata Parivar Plus....
