AAP And The Politics Of Hypocrisy
By Basharat Ali
22 January, 2014
Countercurrents.org
Sometimes protesters are not shot at. Internet is not banned. Army doesn’t stage a flag march. Sometimes an agitation, a well scripted drama, is a metaphor for change. And yet, sometimes, death is just an event.
Tunisian street vendor Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire and Ben Ali fled Tunisia. Egyptian cyber activists hash-tagged their "day of rage" as Jan25. What followed thereafter in the Arab World was hijacked by a misleading catchphrase called ‘Arab Spring’. These uprisings were not an attempt by the Arab masses to necessarily introduce democracy as it is traditionally understood — despite the genuine need for democracy by some of them — but rather an attempt to get rid of regimes that are considered to be corrupt and authoritarian.
Two years before the Arab World erupted against the authoritarian regimes, in 2008, a similar, however contextually different, spate of street protests erupted in Kashmir. The public outrage, especially from the youth, was massive and unrelenting. August 11, 2008 marked an Egypt-like political transformation in Kashmir when thousands of people marched towards Muzzafarabad, defying perilous curfew. Exactly after eleven days, the numbers reached more than a million on August 22 when people gathered for Friday prayers in Srinagar’s Eidgah grounds.
Protests which rocked the streets in Middle East found an overwhelming popularity in media, pop culture and academia. On the contrary, those in Kashmir, were systematically construed as ‘violence by misguided youth’. The people’s movement in Kashmir did not last for long. It steamed out in less than three years without bringing any significant political change. However, it introduced a new form of resistance in Kashmir which continues to be inspired by the youth led movements in Egypt and Palestine.
India, which prides itself as the world’s largest democracy, joined popular street protests movement after a series of corruption scandals and scams were unearthed. The issue boiled down to how strong Indian democracy is, after having displayed it with full power in Kashmir, Manipur, Gujarat and recently in Muzzafarnagar. Delhi, being the national capital, became the hub of these protests. Anna Hazare led movement in New Delhi against corruption and for Lokpal gathered massive support and created a new political debate in India. The movement shaped itself into a political party, albeit minus Team Anna. Arvind Kejriwal led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), stormed into the Delhi Assembly elections on December 8 keeping both Congress and Bharitya Janta Party (BJP) from forming the government and finally deciding to from a minority government with support from the Congress. Critics argue that AAP is a creation of television. Aarwind Kejriwal ‘occupied’ more than the deserved air space on Indian hyper-nationalist, nation-wants-to-know type of TV channels. He thus became a house hold name who is thought to be a saviour.
The AAP win in Delhi is understood to provide a new alternative away from BJP and Congress by some political analysts. However, a critical examination of AAP does not provide any immediate hope. The appropriation of AAP movement as initiation of political transformation in India is as misleading as the catchphrase ‘Arab Spring’. Both are significant phenomena in their own right, and described as epoch-making. A similar movement in any other state of India would not have come this far in terms of its recognition and support. The social media, internet, and some significant events that rocked Delhi in the last year or so played a key role in shaping the trajectory of AAP. The December 16 (2012) rape and murder of a young girl in a moving bus in Delhi provided impetus to the growing anxiety among youth to unleash their anger and outrage. The stage was set for someone to tap the emotional outrage and Arvind Kejriwal hit the rod at the most opportune time.
The problem with AAP, particularly with its convener Arvind Kejriwal, is shying away from responsibility. According to AAP decisions whatsoever shall be taken by aam aadmi. But who is this aam aadmi, Delhi’s urban middle-class, and hang-the-corrupt hang-the-rapist youth. Also, AAP’s manifesto is too populist and therefore well-neigh rhetorical. After the elections and a dream debut by AAP, Arvind Kejriwal had declared to a jubilant crowd to a thundering applause that under no circumstance would his party form government with support from Congress or BJP; calling both parties corrupt and full of scamesters. Three times Chief Minister and Delhi Congress Chief Sheila Dixit calls the promises made by AAP ‘unrealistic’. Kejriwal’s politics is neither Machiavellian nor Gandhian. He represents a kind of politics which can be put on the spectrum between opportunistic and reactionary. AAP rides on the hope of a disgruntled population who have suddenly found optimism in one man’s hypothetical solutions to problems that are diverse and multi-layered. Kejriwal’s answers to some of the basic governance matters, in which tested politicians have become predictable, may sound appealing to the people sick and tired of dynastic and communal politics. But, let people face the reality. He has no ready-made answers. He is just another politician who fights for power.
The sentiment that connects these disparate protests from Egypt, Kashmir and Delhi is the general will of the people who yearn for change. Middle East is in the middle of a crisis. Internal instability coupled with external forces is keeping the pot boiling in many countries in the Arab World. Kashmir’s fight for right to self-determination is under a constant crack down by 7 lakh Indian troops. In Delhi, an activist turned Chief Minister is ‘demanding’ police to be brought under his control and the Union Government is watching the capital come to a standstill. The regular street theatrics are a clear manifestation that Arvind Kejriwal still is in an activist mode and far away from being an effective administrator ready to govern people he has given high hopes. That he can disrupt the metro and paralyse life and still get away scot free speaks about the flexibility of Democracy when it is played out in states which are not ‘disturbed areas’ where AFSPA is needed to bring peace.
Author is pursuing Masters in Conflict Analysis and Peace Building at Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi and can be mailed at [email protected]
Comments are moderated