Arvind Kejriwal

Anna Hazare

Prashant Bhushan

India Against Corruption

Asaduddin Owaisi

Imran Khan

BY RADHIKA RAMASESHANNothing, except that like other hard-headed politicos, he’s cracked that morality and ideology don’t mix with statecraftis not a conundrum so there’s no need to puzzle over his conduct since he won for himself a third term as Delhi’s chief minister. He’s acutely aware that he is on top of the BJP’s – and Amit Shah’s – radar because Shah treated his party’s rout as a personal humiliation and is possibly waiting to pay back in spades. Kejriwal carps about the limited powers he exercises over a quasi state but his admirersturned-detractors are justified in asking why he did not venture into the violence-singed areas instead of paying a fleeting visit after a semblance of normalcy was restored, why the Delhi government remained tone deaf to the repeated entreaties for ambulances from the underserviced hospitals in the Muslimmajority areas and why a doctor, who graphically narrated the plight of the wounded to a senior Kejriwal associate, was brusquely told that the violence had also consumed a Hindu constable. The Aam Admi Party framed the violence as an evenly matched communal conflict – “50-50” as they say – with no aggressor or victim. Facts speak contrariwise. By now, it is meticulously documented that the Muslims were on the receiving end of the gunshots, bricks, stones and arson, with rare exceptions. But the AAP, which is jousting for the “Hindu political space” with the BJP, won’t see that.Anybody who watched Kejriwal’s career unfold will know that he never allowed ideology to govern his politics. His definition of morality was compatible with a Delhi resident welfare association’s disdain for the post-Mandal era “unwashed” politicians from the rural hinterland and supposed “zero tolerance” for political turpitude. He used an assortment of non-politicos to form a springboard for himself. Kejriwal’s miscellany had, a former military man who infamously used an army belt to flog inebriated villagers, Ramdev, whose entrepreneurship had not blossomed at that time, Kiran Bedi,and Bhaiyyu Maharaj, a spiritual guru from Indore who later shot himself dead. The RSS and the BJP supported the motley group that banded together under the banner of(IAC).Kejriwal’s “movement” – if it can be called that – took off when the UPA government’s integrity was seriously dented by allegations of corruption. The BJP tried hard to organise its own agitations against the Congress but when its efforts did not take off, it clambered on to the Kejriwal-Hazare bandwagon. Clearly, Kejriwal had no issues with getting the Sangh’s endorsement. Eventually, his political ambition transcended the larger solidarity he had forged with his associates, who he discarded, one by one. The IAC morphed into a Ghaziabad Boys’ Club, as a former Kejriwal colleague disparagingly called the AAP’s core team of Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and Gopal Rai.Kejriwal never concealed his weakness to patronise individuals from the Bania community, to which he belongs. However, on the aspect of religion, he maintained neutrality and avoided taking a pronounced stand on, say, Ayodhya, but supported the reading down of Article 370 in J&K, which was anyway not an issue with Delhi’s Muslims.When he embraced “soft” Hindutva – declared by a public recitation of the Hanuman Chalisa and a veneration of Hanuman – it was not a surprise given the backdrop. The minorities took Kejriwal’s Hanuman embrace in their stride although the Aap’s liberal backers displayed discomfort at the open manifestation of faith as a political instrument. What is dressed up as “soft” Hindutva is in fact a deadly instrument. From day one, the BJP and its precursor, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, made no bones about using Hindutva as the main tool to carry forward their politics. Hindutva does not recognise shades of hard and soft, as the Congress realised to its grief when Rajiv Gandhi tried to counter the Ram temple trope in his own bumbling way. Kejriwal’s play on Hanuman might have blunted the BJP’s Hindutva aggression a wee bit. The AAP was not voted on the back of Bajrangbali but the government’s tangible outputs in the social sector.Likewise with “nationalism”, over which the BJP has such jealous ownership that “nationalism” has become an alias for the party and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, overstepping conventional notions of patriotism. Today, to qualify as a “nationalist”, one must not question or challenge the central establishment. Therefore, Kejriwal’s “soft” nationalism means total acquiescence to the ruling order.Which politician is not a nationalist? The much-malignedretorted sharply when, Pakistan’s PM, had a stab on India’s treatment of its Muslims and asked him to mind his own business.The unvarnished reality is that Kejriwal doesn’t care for the shrinking constituency of “liberals” who had fervently hoped the AAP’s victory will be heralded with a visit from him to Shaheen Bagh and the JNU campus as a thematic counterpoint to the abuse of state power against the students and teachers of venerated institutions like Jamia and JNU. The Delhi election is five years away and the ongoing violence has effectively foiled his national aspirations. To him, survival is paramount and making peace with the RSS-BJP is the route to it.