AAP KEJRIWAL chance for the outsiders

The ideology which Lutyens’ Delhi today represents is fundamentally at odds with an India which is growing accustomed to the idea of participatory democracy

Had Raj Thackeray been a ‘manoos’ from Lutyens’ Delhi, he would be facing an existential crisis. A strange wind is blowing across the corridors of Lutyens’ Delhi’ high-walled barbed gates, which metaphorically and physically remain out of bounds for 99 per cent of the population.

Ever since the British moved the capital from Calcutta to Delhi, central Delhi has become synonymous with power and prestige. After Edwin Lutyens radically redrew the capital, power was given a shape and symbol. And those who were fortunate enough to find themselves a space in Delhi’s vicinity invariably became the agents of change in independent India.

From there began an incestuous cycle of power where residents of the ‘chosen land’ dominated the country affairs, either directly or through proxy. Barring the inconsequential tenure of H.D. Deve Gowda, almost all Prime Ministers nourished their national political careers in one of the red sandstone buildings of the capital. For a large part of the last century and until recently, if one did not shape his or her public life under this dome-shaped edifice, he or she would be seen as lacking national appeal.

But now there is a discernible shift in the national mood. India is going for an election where its main political protagonists do not portray the look and feel of the conventional ‘Delhi-based leader.’ On the contrary, a common thread underlying the three key candidates — Narendra Modi, Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi — to Delhi’s throne is their sequestered relationship to capital politics.

Emergence of the exceptions

Mr. Modi pitches his candidature as the ‘external redeemer’ who will clean the mess in Lutyens’ Delhi. The last time Mr. Modi lived in the capital was in the late 1990’s when he worked in the party’s headquarters. Though he did play a crucial behind-the-scene role in the party, it is the time he served in Gujarat which has significantly added to his credentials as a suitable leader for the top job. Expectedly, his campaign and aides are not restricted to Delhi, which represents a point of departure for the party’s electoral strategy.

Mr. Gandhi, of late, has been trying his best to rub off the ‘elite stains’ of being a Lutyens’ resident. He projects himself as a mere observer and not actor to all that has unfolded in South block in the last 10 years. Such is the national rage against all those who inhabit the grandiose building of the capital that Mr. Gandhi is making every attempt to break away from this image. His remark — that he would tear up the controversial ordinance that aimed at protecting convicted law makers — was viewed as such an attempt.

Mr. Kejriwal casts himself as the ‘eternal outsider.’ A resident of Ghaziabad, he chooses Lutyens’ Delhi as his preferred choice for protest. Considering the ideology of his politics, given a chance, he may even demolish the lofty monuments built by Edwin Lutyens and replace them with more aam aadmi-like structures.

Delhi: the hub of power

For more than half a century, Lutyens’ Delhi was venerated with both respect and fear. If one wanted to build a career in national politics, it was ‘the place’ to network and mingle. Other than a few exceptions, in the Congress scheme of things, it was the ‘Delhi-based observers’ who would anoint Chief Minsters for States from places as far-flung from Delhi as Kerala and Nagaland.

In our flawed federal structure, it was deemed impossible for one to make the logical and sequential transition from sarpanch to Member of the Legislative Assembly to Member of Parliament and then to Prime Minster. The concentration of power in Lutyens’ Delhi perpetuated a potent cocktail of nepotism and malfeasance. Today, for many, Lutyens’ Delhi symbolises a closed system which defies meritocracy and capability. It is a construct reserved exclusively for the bureaucratic or political elite. For many, it is this concentration of power which is the root cause of India’s corruption problems.

The ideology which Lutyens’ Delhi today represents is fundamentally at odds with an India which is growing accustomed to the idea of participatory democracy. This is not an idea propagated exclusively by the Aam Aadmi Party but is being increasingly adopted by all political parties. Mr. Modi too, through his maxim ‘minimum government, maximum governance,’ is calling for greater involvement of citizens in politics. Even Mr. Gandhi is making an attempt to write his party’s manifesto outside Delhi — a first of its kind for the Congress.

As a pluralistic and regionally assertive India progresses toward modernity, it is becoming clear that the country needs not one single solution but a gamut of localised solutions to problems in the country. An active citizenry, which demands closer physical access to power, is changing the definition of ‘national politics.’ This is evident from a closer analysis of election turnouts.

Between 1989 and 2009, the turnout for the Lok Sabha elections has remained constant at around 60 per cent. Interestingly, the turnout for State elections continues to surge, even while incumbents are voted back to power. The States that went to polls last December saw an average increase of six percentage points in voter turnout compared to the 2008 Assembly elections. This trend could be emblematic of the fact that voters believe they have a larger role to play in affairs to which they have closer physical access.

If this divergence in voter turnout continues, India could produce many more Narendra Modis in the coming years as it will become much easier for a Shivraj Singh Chouhan or a Jayalalithaa to prove their national credentials by performing in their State, rather than trying to emerge from Delhi’s rat race.

The emergence of any of the above three leaders this summer could mark a paradigm shift in Indian polity — AAP making an impressive national debut, Mr. Gandhi rejuvenating the Congress in his new avatar or Mr. Modi becoming Prime Minster. It would make the dream for many to occupy Lutyens’ Delhi seem less distant; the road to the capital can now pass through Gandhinagar, Gangtok or Goa.

(Siddharth Mazumdar is founder of Citizens for Accountable Governance.)

Mr. Kejriwal delhi protest on bill

“If the Jan Lokpal Bill is not passed then….I would quit as the Chief Minister of Delhi.”

“If power politics is not sorted out in Delhi, Kejriwal will quit his CM office and sit on a Dharna”

“If the police officials will not obey his orders, Delhi CM will quit from his primary duties and will stage protests.”

By now we have got used to such dramatic headlines. The man-turned-messiah will QUIT if issues like bijli, pani, corruption, fuel and so on are not sorted out instantly. Now my reaction or rather a question to him as a citizen of the country would be that if you would keep quitting as the chief minister of Delhi for every damn reason, could you please explain how do you plan to change the entire system? I am sure an ex-IIT working in a highly paid job in some MNC certainly can’t. Neither can an employee of Indian Revenue Services do so. We gave you this post to utilize the power to bring about the change which we were looking forward to, since last so many years. And all we get after a couple of months are your threatening dramas to quit. If you had to quit then why did you actually contest for the elections, in the first place?

It is not an individual but a chair which holds the authority. You lose the chair, you lose the authority! Haven’t you heard of the grandma stories in which the fairy gave a magic wand to the little boy but also took a primes that he will never misuse it?  Since our childhood we have known that in order to kill the ghost we need a magic wand but the rider was that we could not misuse it.

When we grew up, we came to terms with the reality that the magic wand which our grandmother spoke about was nothing but the authority we earn in order to do justice to the system. You cleared the entrance examination of one of the prestigious engineering institutes; obviously it would not have been an easy task. Had you quit at that point of time would you be standing where you do today?

Your idea behind threatening (personally I would call it black-mailing) the system to either comply to your orders or you would resign is born out of the fact that in these 65 odd years after the independence the political parties or babus per se with all their ill-intentions and deeds have led us to believe that the politicians crave for glamour and money which are the byproducts once you win the elections.

Do you also believe in this notion, dear CM? If not then why do you keep harping the same old tune of quitting if this does not happen if that does not happen. It just dawned on me that if a few issues concerning a single city can compel you to leave your post and go back home, then how do you plan to take charge of 28 states and seven union territories?  I seriously shudder at the thought of having a Prime Minister who sits on dharnas to change the system instead of diligently making use of the power to do away with corruption and lawlessness.

Mr Kejriwal, I am sure you know that system is not a switch which can be turned on and off as per your or our wishes. There is a certain procedure which has to be followed for anything to take the shape of a law. If you feel you really have the guts enough then why don’t you make use of your intellect and your authority which the people gave you to bring about the change all of us are looking forward to?

The long forgotten home-spun ‘Gandhi cap’ which you and your party workers wear would appear nothing more than a bait to draw our attention towards a party which is here to reinforce the ideology of the Father of our Nation. But the great man who we fondly refer as ‘bapu’ just refused to give up! QUIT was the word which never existed in his dictionary. Rather he advocated and gave his blood and sweat to show the British, the exit door in his Quit India Movement.

One can well imagine the kind of protests Gandhi would have had to face to do away with issues like poverty, expanding women’s rights, building religious and ethnic amity, ending untouchability-when he had to fight not just with the ruling British Raj but more importantly with the stringent and rotten system of our society which just could not accept the change Bapu wanted to bring in. But today we are an independent nation with proper laws and the strength of educated and open minded citizens who are there to back the leader who promises to make diligent use of his power. So what is the need to quit at the drop of a hat?

The term Satyagraha was coined during Mahatma Gandhi’s fight for independence which means protesting in a peaceful manner. This word has been misinterpreted by our political leaders now-a-days. A single issue crops up and they are ready to leave their prime job and are out on streets to protest!

“Satyagraha” is a Tatpuruṣa compound of the Sanskrit words satya (meaning “truth”) and Agraha(“insistence”, or “holding firmly to a view”). Satyagraha was an intelligent move to instill a feeling of democracy amongst people and to keep the evil intentions of the British at bay, without causing any loss to human life or property.  Fighting violently against a system which was festooned not just with arms and ammunitions but with stringent laws resulted in our heroes like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev and the likes sacrificing their lives for our freedom.

I am not at all against the extremists. We have just heard the stories of the freedom struggle, just read the anecdotes, just saw our actors reliving their lives but certainly we were not a part of that era which witnessed blood-shed everywhere. The scene was totally different, anarchy prevailed, there was total chaos and lawlessness which led these young and brave freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh to take the law in their hands.

But today the scene is totally different. We do not have ‘Viceroy’s of India’ who were once permitted to indict all sort of atrocities on the populace. Today we have an elected member representing on behalf of the people, there is a proper system in place. Everyone-be it our PM or some Ambani or some Bachchan, all need to adhere to a certain laid down principals of living in a developed society. So where and how does the need to go on a strike or a dharna or quitting the office, arise from?

Today, Mr Kejriwal you are sitting on the chair of a CM and you have all the media attention, so you can very conveniently keep endorsing your ‘good gesture’ of quitting from your post but go and ask a fragile five-year-old child fighting cancer in some hospital, go and ask the athlete participating with a broken limb in this winter Olympics, go and ask a CEO of a company which is suffering losses due to modernization of machinery and low cost goods from China, go and ask the widow of a soldier who has three kids to take care of all on her own-they will tell you that if they QUIT they will die. They will exist no more, if they even dare to quit!

So from next time if you plan to quit from your job if some police officials or jal nigam or bijli vibhag employees are not acting as per your commands then I have a suggestion that you could resume with your previous job, as there is no room for quitters-on the battle field at least! 

- See more at: http://www.theindianrepublic.com/tbp/mr-kejriwal-enough-quit-drama-100026694.html#sthash.w03dpTyM.dpuf