Electoral defeat of AAP is intwined in the duality of politics | Arun Srivastava

It might appear to be obnoxious but it is an impermeable reality that the people of Delhi did not say anything nor they scripted a thumping victory for BJP. Narendra Modi, as always, this time too is far from the truth when he says "The people of Delhi have ousted AAPda!” This election in true sense has brought “bipada” (curse) for the people of Delhi. The bare fact is Arvind Kejriwal became a victim to the great political gambling of Rajiv Kumar’s election commission. Mysterious deletion and addition of voters has played havoc.

A Congress hand is being traced in the defeat of AAP. Undeniably defeat of AAP was on the wish list of Rahul Gandhi. But it would purely be an exercise of naivety to think that Congress put its candidate only the aim to defeat the AAP. Congress desired to resurge and obviously contesting the election was the best mechanism. Nevertheless Godi media and some analysts hold that if the Congress had not been in the fray, AAP would have won 20 more seats, obviously forcing BJP lose the battle. It is also being said Rahul’s action was more of the nature of vengeance, but with a futuristic implication.

Ever since AAP was formed by Kejriwal, going against the wishes of RSS conveyed to him through his mentor Anna Hazare not to give a political institutional shape to the movement, Congress was his main target. It is not coincidence that both the leaders, Modi and Kejriwal have targeted Congress and Gandhi family as their rivals. Kejriwal ensured the defeat of the Congress in states where it was main rival to BJP. Whether it was Goa, Haryana or Rajasthan. It is a fact that AAP cut into the Congress vote bank and it lost in these states. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Kejriwal built AAP on the ruins of the Congress.

Though for the sake of his political survival, he participated at the meet of the opposition parties, a look into the proceedings of the meet would make it explicit that he consistently opposed the Congress initiatives. In December Kejriwal had urged the INDIA members to oust Congress from the alliance, if it does not take action against senior leader Ajay Maken for calling him anti national. It is strange Kejriwal the convenor of a national party should get hurt by the trivial statement and in retaliation press INDIA partners to oust Congress. He resorted to action fully aware of the fact that Congress was the main component of INDIA and opposition needed it. His demand permeated the message that he basically desired Rahul to be punished and degraded. His stance appears like blaming Rahul for instigating Makan to use this word against him.

True speaking his consistent opposition to Rahul, has provided the opportunity to Rahul’s adversaries to put the blame of AAP’s defeat on Congress. A multiplicity of regional parties has been a major stumbling block in the path of the emergence of Congress. Under Rahul, the main thrust obviously has been turning the electoral fight bipolar, a battle between Congress and BJP. An insight into Modi’s election campaign would make it clear that he had initiated this nature of politics, targeting Congress.
Yet another development that ought to be mentioned is well before the election was announced Kejriwal had ruled out any alliance and declared that AAP would go alone to the polls. This had happened before Makan called him anti-national. What made him to make this announcement is not unknown. His plan was to show Congress in poor light. In fact this was not unexpected. He has been planning against Congress and is scared of its resurgence. After the election results have been declared, some INDIA partners are blaming Rahul for not going to polls jointly with Kejriwal. In all fairness, these leaders should seek clarification from Kejriwal why he went solo and did not consult Rahul.

It is an open fact that Kejriwal nurses an inflated ego and is arrogant. Since he has been defeated from his own constituency, he must do some introspection; why the people turn their back? He must feel grateful to secular parties for accepting him as their ally even after being aware that he has been close to RSS and speaks the language of Modi. In the 2020 elections, Muslims had voted for him. But he did not speak for them when they were facing crisis of their survival. They were under attack from Amit Shah’s Delhi police. Even today after nearly four years of the Delhi riots, some Muslim student leaders and activists are languishing in Modi’s jails.

For Kejriwal, the Shaheen Bagh protest which was creating waves across the globe was a non-issue. It was sad that no leaders of AAP, which was born out of a movement were seen even in close proximity of the protest site. During the 37-day protest, Kejriwal did not visit the women sitting on dharna. Kejriwal maintained a deafening silence on CAA.

An impression is being created that AAP lost the election due to Congress fielding its candidates. Since Kejriwal has already announced to go solo, why Congress should not contest delhi assembly the election on its own. Nevertheless, the winning margin of BJP has been only two per cent. While this meagre shift helped BJP to shoot to 48 seats from 8 held in the last house, the AAP dropped from 62 to 22 this time. AAP lost 40 seats. If the experts are to be believed the AAP lost 20 seats due to the Congress. Then question arises why it lost the other 20 seats?

INDIA bloc was a unique experiment. But unfortunately, leaders like Mamata, Akhilesh Yadav and Kejriwal struck at its root and weakened it even before it could acquire an organisational shape. While Mamata and Akhilesh were scared of the Congress getting back its old supporters, Kejriwal followed his cunning politics and kept his distance from Congress. It is wrong to believe that Kejriwal and his AAP symbolise political phenomenon. It was absolutely a temporary political evolution. It was to happen. INDIA bloc would have provided a new ideological narrative to the communal narrative and rightist mode of hatred politics being introduced in the body politic by the saffron ecosystem.

I don’t think Kejriwal would succeed in convincing the people of his political relevance. The decline of Kejriwal also sends a strong message that the ideological divide of politics is complete and it is crystal clear that there is no scope for practising Kejriwal type politics. He either would have seek shelter with the BJP or do a complete volte-face and accept the secular principles and politics. There is no way out for him.

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee has made her stance clear—TMC doesn’t need the Congress or any other ally to win in Bengal. Addressing her party lawmakers she said “We will come to power with a two-thirds majority on our own. Congress does not have anything here. We will win on our own.” Mamata has genuine reasons for not sharing seats or entering into an alliance with the Congress. TMC consists of the Congressmen. They had left the party after getting disillusioned with the functioning of Priya Ranjan Das Munshi, the powerful Congress leader. It was alleged that he also had a very cordial relationship with the CPI(M). In those days younger Congress leaders like Mamata Banerjee, Pankaj Banerjee and others felt handicapped in fighting the left. They had in protest of DasMunshi left the Congress and had floated the TMC.

Mamata is aware of the fact that once she joins hand with Congress she would lose her freedom, she would have to work according to the high command culture. She will also bear the fear of her partymen going back to their original party. Nevertheless the future of TMC is not so bright as is seen in today’s backdrop. Once Mamata loses her grip on TMC, the party would disintegrate. TMC is an individual oriented party and does not have its independent ideology. The only strategic difference with Congress is its die hard stance against the left. This has been the reason that she was soft towards BJP.

It need to be mentioned that Congress leadership also did not like to rock her boat. Appointing Adhir Ranjan Choudhary, leader of CPP as the state chief of party was in fact a move to weaken the BJP. Being a seasoned politician Mamata is not unaware of this fact. Congress entering into alliance with CPI(M) in the last assembly election has eroded the support base of BJP. It is a fact that CPI(M) by shifting their loyalty have provided strength to the BJP. It would not have become so aggressive if the left cadres not joined it post Left defeat in 2011. In last assembly and later in Lok Sabha elections, these left cadres came to their original parties. BJP had to lose 12 per cent of its vote share due to this homecoming.

In Maharashtra, Uddhav Thackeray was in the scene to at least take care of Shiv Sena. But he too could not withstand the onslaught of BJP. It split vertically turning his party virtually irrelevant in the state politics. Usually this happens with every individual-centric party. Till the charisma of the leader exists, the party functions, but once it is lost the party ceases to have any impact. Samana the daily newspaper of Shiv Sena in its editorial, penned by Sanjay Raut, has pulled up both AAP and Congress: “The disunity and discord among opposition parties in Delhi and Maharashtra directly aided the BJP in its victory. In Delhi, both the AAP and the Congress fought to destroy each other, making the victory easier for the BJP. If this continues, why even form alliances? Just fight to your heart’s content… Just keep fighting among yourself.”

It is easier to say that Kejriwal should have put his differences aside, but in reality, this is a tough proposition. Politically AAP does not share the same ideological perspective that is hailed by Congress. From its birth AAP has been pursuing the Hindutva policy and philosophy though it preferred to practice centrist politics. As mentioned it joined INDIA for its political survival not for the sake of any kind of ideological compulsion. It was purely an opportunistic move. The alliance leaders blaming Congress for AAP’s defeat is unfair. Why they remained mum when Kejriwal long before had announced that he would go solo? They must have asked him not to commit hara-kiri.
Maintaining the façade of alliance inside Parliament is a political compulsion of the allies. For the sake of their survival, they intend to use the Parliament to keep BJP under check. It ought to be recalled the allies in states adopted their own strategies. Aam Aadmi Party did not have an alliance with Congress in Punjab.

Simply blaming Congress would not serve his brand of politics. TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav had extended support to Kejriwal, but this did not motivate the Muslims and Dalits to vote for him. Mamata and Akhilesh must put this question to self and try to find out the reason; why these people did not vote for Kejriwal and instead preferred Rahul? Nevertheless their posture sends a distinct message that they want Congress to be subservient to them. They are scared that a resurrected Congress would turn them irrelevant in their respective states. For preserving and protecting the interest of the allies, Rahul should sacrifice Congress. Strange.

People of India over these years have seen their ambivalent stand and approach towards BJP. They are not opposed to BJP. They have laurels for Atal Behari Vajpayee but oppose Modi. These leaders never publicly challenged the political narrative of hate politics propounded by Modi. People are yet to forget that some of the allies did not participate in the Bharat Jodo Yatra of Rahul. They kept their distance. The opposition leaders failed to muster the courage to oppose and fight Modi. They remained passive spectators to his destroying democracy and subverting the democratic functioning. Ironically some of them did not dare to speak against him even after the formation of INDIA bloc. The Bloc could be formed only after Congress and Nitish Kumar took the initiative.

Kejriwal must do some introspection about his future role, and decide whether he would like to be an object of suspicion and perceived as yet another protagonist of the politics of Hindutva, the philosophy being spread by the saffron ecosystem. It is his gibberish that has helped BJP improve its share of votes even in 2020 by 6 per cent on 32 per cent of 2015. This time around 8 per cent on AAP supporters shifted their allegiance to BJP. The other 2 per cent voted for Congress. His pendulum-like oscillation eroded his credibility. He ought to find out how the cracks have emerged within his core voter base who has drifted away to the BJP in addition to those who felt betrayed by the AAP and went to the Congress instead.

At a time when RSS and BJP have been engaged in a bitter fight for supremacy and emerge as the true harbinger of politics and philosophy of Hindutva, people would certainly not prefer to rally behind a secondary force espousing Hindutva. His letter to RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, just a week ahead of the polling day, once again endorsed the suspicion he was a believer of RSS political line and had conceded his defeat. The AAP leadership is fatigued. It needs reorientation and rejuvenation. But how to accomplish the task is the major challenge before Kejriwal.

Kejriwal made the people dream of fundamental change. He had promised to have new model of people-oriented politics, which he christened as “DelhiModel”, but his ten year rule exposes his failure to give it a shape. He was bereft of alternative and original idea. Like politicians of other regional and caste partis, the AAP leaders fell victim to charges of corruption instead of being the harbinger of change. It is quite natural. They have not undergone ideological exercise or orientation sessions. They have not been indoctrinated. Most of them are even unaware of the differences of the ideological commitment of various parties active in the Indian scenario. Simply parroting is not enough. In a country like Idia where even the Marxists are finding it tough to comprehend the nature of state and its political economy, how would any one imagine that the AAP cadres or its legislators would work for new order of politics. There is no need to do hair splitting about rampant corruption in AAP and its rule. An ideologically bankrupt and non-committed bunch of leaders cannot be expected to bring about social and political revolution.

Defeat of AAP may have been heartbreaking for lakhs of people who had supported the AAP with the hope that the politics of the country will change one day. But it has not been unexpected. Politics of populism and not having a ideological base are prone to meeting this fate. Without a committed ideological determination India could not be made corruption free where politics will not be a dirty game. It is a fact that its supporters were getting disillusioned and lost hope in the party itself. Their political dilemma was clear from their resolve which was worked out post defeat that they would monitor infrastructure which they set up. RSS’s drawing rook meetings focussed to expose the myth of its practicing clean politics and claim to provide effective and pro people governance model. The meetings discussed corruption allegations and unfulfilled promises made by Kejriwal during his decade-long rule.

A look at the data of the last three elections shows that the rise of AAP in Delhi has been in consonant with the decline of the Congress. The AAP emerged on Delhi’s political scene in 2013 winning 28 seats with a vote share of 29.49%. The Congress tally in 2013 came down to 8 seats from 43 that it won in 2008. Its vote share also dipped from 40.31% in 2008 to 24.55% in 2013. The BJP on the other hand saw a marginal dip in vote share of around 3% but gained 8 seats taking its tally from 23 to 31 seats in 2013.

In 2015, Congress vote share declined 15 % while the AAP saw its support base rise by around 15%. The BJP vote share did not change much, registering a decline of just 1%. Clearly, this was an indication of Congress supporters moving towards AAP in a big way. In 2020, the Congress vote share declined further by almost half to 4.26%.