Arvind Kejriwal is finally acknowledging that he may have made a mistake in Delhi - but he thinks it is about what he didn't communicate, and not what he did.

As Arvind Kejriwal comes to terms with the real prospect of diminished popularity in Delhi, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader seems to have done some introspection about why he is where he is today.

But it is a schizophrenic – and possibly delusional - Kejriwal we hear in an interview with The Economic Times, where an acknowledgement of his biggest political blunder – quitting as Delhi Chief Minister in February without a strong reason - is balanced by a refusal to see his other blunders. And even the acknowledgement of one blunder is masked by a rationalisation: it was a failure to communicate that was the problem, not the decision itself.

He said his decision to form the government and quit were right, but the problem was with the people, who refused to understand it. Here’s what he says (read the full interview here): “The mistake we made was to assume that the people will celebrate our decision to quit on principle....There was a communication gap and that gap was filled by BJP and Congress who told people that we ran away from responsibility.”

This line, we-did-the-right-thing-but-didn’t-communicate-well, is used by all political parties when they screw up. Most recently, the Congress has been doing it. Several UPA ministers have blamed Manmohan Singh’s failure to communicate for the Congress impending defeat in the next elections (Read here and here).

What politicians really mean when they talk of a “communication gap” is this: the people are too dumb to understand our holy intentions. Kejriwal indirectly says as much: “We thought that people would understand our reasons on their own. But it did not happen.” Now he has to explain it to those dimwits who want to vote for Modi.

While it will always be true that better communication with the people is useful, the assumption that people are not clever enough to understand what political parties stand for is silly. Did India Shining fail in 2004 because the BJP failed to communicate? Is Congress slipping this time just because it did not speak about the good things it has done – when scams, corruption and price rise are there for everyone to see and experience. Communication does not always need erudite explanation and language. Your actions are communication too.

Coming back to Kejriwal, the fact is not that people didn’t understand his decision, but they understood it only too well. Everyone understood that he was in a hurry to resign – and just needed an excuse. Even before he resigned over his failure to table the Jan Lokpal Bill, he was claiming as far back as in January (watch this NDTV interview) that Congress would regret supporting him as he planned to go after Sheila Dikshit and Congress scams. He was hinting that he would like the Congress to withdraw support so that he could go out a martyr – but that didn’t happen.

His ministers were in a rush, too, to show they could deliver something before they resigned. Hence the pursuit of vigilante justice against African women in midnight raids by Law Minister Somnath Bharati.

The truth is Kejriwal was trapped, first, by his own supporters, who asked him to take up the job through a referendum, and later by the need to govern, when his instincts wanted to play anti-establishment protester. This is what led to his infamous dharna, which saw his stock fall and he felt compelled to exit quickly to avoid further conflicts between image and responsibility.

The honest thing for him to do was to resign, but to say he was doing to in order to get a better mandate. He lost support because he claimed he was forced to resign – which was manifestly not the case. It was not a failure to communicate, but his inability to hide the apparent truth that cost him his halo.

In fact, the real reason why voters felt let down may have had nothing to do with his resignation at all – for opinion polls done around that time showed him winning hands down. What voters saw was what he did after resigning. Suddenly he was on a different trip. His goal was not to win the next Delhi election (that was to come to him by right), but to become a national player, chasing Narendra Modi in Gujarat and Varanasi.

Kejriwal’s loss of traction in Delhi came from the voter’s acute sense of abandonment. How much will you care for a company whose product you bought if it suddenly stints on after-sales service and abandons you?

The problem clearly was not what Kejriwal failed to communicate, but what his actions actually did to his voters. They are angry because they think he used them as a stepping stone to become a star on the national stage.

The second point Kejriwal makes in his interview rings truer. He tells ET that two categories of people were disappointed in him – his staunch supporters (presumably the people in the jhuggis and the lower middle class) and those who wanted him only as Delhi CM, with Narendra Modi as PM. He rightly concludes that those who wanted Modi as PM did not take kindly to his decision to challenge the Gujarat CM – and this is apparent from the anger in the BJP camp, which is more palpable than in the Congress camp, which is muted.

Politically, Kejriwal had two choices: he could have chosen to go quiet on Modi, and collect the anti-incumbent vote in the Delhi election, while allowing Modi to take the centre. The other option was to take on the BJP and Modi and go soft on the Congress.

By not taking on Modi, Kejriwal could have won – possibly won big – in Delhi. But the Delhi victory apparently stoked his greed. He probably felt if he could win Delhi so easily, maybe the whole of India may be his for the asking too.

Again, we find two Kejriwals speaking. First he wants to say all parties are the same – Congress, BJP and Third Front and only he is different. “He (Modi) is not any different from Manmohan Singh, “ Kejriwal says. “The third front is not different either.” But then he recoils on Modi: “Modi is more dangerous than other leaders in the electoral fray because of his history with Gujarat riots. But that's a known fact. I speak more often about his development record because the supposed Modi wave is because of that. I want to bust that myth.”

But Kejriwal is not just trying to bust Modi’s myth. That needed him to stay in Gujarat, but he is contesting against Modi in Varanasi – which is not needed if you want to bust his myths. So why is he doing this?

Quite clearly, Kejriwal believes that the Congress is about to implode, and to take the Congress’ political space, he needs to position himself against Modi. He wants to contest to make a point, not necessarily to win. This is also why he maintains two contradictory propositions: that it does not matter how many seats AAP wins, and yet that Modi and Rahul will surely be defeated by AAP in Varanasi and Amethi.

Some of his statements thus appear delusional. When he claims he will win Varanasi, has he considered how this is possible? The contest involves the Congress and Samajwadi Party and Kejriwal, and if they split the anti-Modi vote, he can hardly hope to win. Kejriwal is also betting that the BJP will “get less than 180 seats” and “Mr Modi is definitely not becoming PM.”

He concludes: “2014 will throw up a fractured mandate and we will have re-elections in a year.”

It suits Kejriwal to have another election in 2015. This is not acute analysis, but wishful thinking masquerading as electoral wisdom.

Kejriwal’s interview suggests that he is coming to down to earth, but brief visits to Planet Earth are not enough. He needs to truly introspect.

(Read The Economic Times interview here)