Exaggeration is not necessarily negative; if used properly, it can drive home a message that in ordinary circumstance may get missed. But, stretching a point has its own limitations. Aam Aadmi Party seems to have run into that stage – it has used exaggeration to awaken people to the ills of our political system but is now unable to take a nuanced view of what & how much to keep & what to throw away. In doing what it is doing, it runs the risk of becoming a prisoner of its own image.

Take its stand on vehicles with beacon lights. There would perhaps be no one in Delhi who hasn’t been brusquely pushed aside by a rushing cavalcade of some VIP – bigger VIPs also intimidate smaller VIPs by the way (some sadistic cheer for us ordinary people!). My route to office goes through the heart of Lutyen’s Delhi & I face this myself – almost on a daily basis. AAP and others have a valid point; cars with beacon lights are mostly a nuisance & are the most visible symptoms of our ‘VIP culture’.

But, is it right to outrightly reject them? Do I as a citizen have a problem with beacon cars or with their misuse? I certainly don’t want the beacon switched on when the CM’s kids go shopping (of course, no official car for personal use). But, personally, I don’t want select people to be wasting time in traffic jams listening to Lungi Dance (like me) when they have the responsibility of making life better for millions of citizens. But, that’s provided they are doing their work and are rushing about to make life better for us citizens. So, don’t throw away the beacons, regulate the use, set an example by using the facility judiciously – the Supreme Court has already done that and there is nothing that stops the legislature from going further. Let’s give them a chauffeur too so that they can use the time on the road to call/work on their laptops/think. There has to be sense of proportion of how much to give. Taking it all away need not be the best response.

A similar logic applies to official accommodation. It’s heart wrenching to see the expansive bungalows (sometimes with peacocks on their carpet green lawns) in the heart of Delhi. AAP is right; ministers don’t need such luxury to do their duties. But, they do need decent accommodation to carry out their work. I certainly do not want my neighbour MLA/MP in my DDA colony to meet hundreds of his party workers & constituency people in our neighbourhood. It is ok if they are given an office and/or a house to facilitate their interaction with people. Again, let’s get in a sense of proportion – not all official accommodation is bad. We have to figure out a better way of fixing these benefits for our law makers.

Refusing security altogether is another exaggerated position. State provides security so that people in office can fearlessly take unpleasant decisions in overall interest of the citizens. People have a problem when ‘VIPs’ use security as a status symbol and treat these personnel as their domestic helps. There is a set process of evaluating who faces what kind of threat based on professional inputs from security agencies. This process can be further insulted from discretionary decision making and can be professionalised. The Goa CM for instance – according to news reports – travels with minimum security & is even stopped by hotel private security guards for routine checks as he moves around with minimum fuss (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/guard-stops-goa-cm-parrikar-for-fifth-time-at-panaji-hotel/1/203960.html). So, there are people in office already – across parties – who don’t need and don’t have a big security set up.

So, to come back, exaggeration only works to a point. “Sab bhrasht hain’ worked to drive in the point that our mainline political parties increasingly prefer cosy deals to principled positions. But, even AAP knows that’s not always & entirely true; each party accused by AAP can come up with several examples. Nuance to the rhetoric will only help it come up with implementable solutions.

Follow Sumit Gulati on Twitter