Now we know how the voting went at the AAP’s National Executive meeting which saw two founding members, Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan being sent packing; 11 to 8 with three abstentions, those being the votes of Kumar Vishwas, Mayank Gandhi and Krishnakant Sevada. Staying one's hand when the chips are down implies several things: dismay at the very idea of the resolution, fear of voting either way or plain simply, uncertain where they stand.
AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal. PTI
Only Mayank Gandhi has just gone public, breaking the gag order, as to why he abstained. In his blog, he writes, "I was taken aback by the resolution of removing them publicly, especially as they themselves were willing to leave. Also, this decision to sack them was against the overwhelming sentiments of volunteers from all over the world. So, while I agreed that they can step down from the PAC, the manner and intention behind the resolution was not acceptable. Hence, the decision to abstain."
That shows nuanced difference of opinion of one of the trio while we await their reasoning as to why the other two too abstained. If they — with Gandhi — had not abstained but voted against the Manish Sisodia resolution showing Yadav and Bhushan the door, it would have been a close call for Arvind Kejriwal. Add the three abstentions to the nay-sayers and it would have been 11-11. No doubt it was Kejriwal's idea to keep the dissenters out and the miscalculated arithmetic has led the leadership to a possible, even intractable stand-off. He should think about this narrow escape.
By this single event, the party has lost much sheen, of being a democratic party to one which seeks compliance to a single individual, something the public may never have anticipated would transpire. How a party runs — or is run — is as important as how a government run. A party devoid of different hues of opinion within which have to lead to consensus cannot run a government, especially of the cabinet system which is of collective responsibility. Dissent would be expectedly a feature there.
also see
There is a Marathi saying which merits being recalled here. Nindakachegharasaveshejari (The critic should be the next door neighbour) underlining the significance of differing views in organising or reorganising one’s life. It has the same force in the context of the AAP and questions could arise in the minds of those who voted in favour of the duo’s retention in the Political Affairs Committee as to how they would be treated in future in an avowedly democratic party.
The iconic status of Kejriwal is indisputable in a movement of the common man asserting himself to displace the professional politician and crony capitalism with all the attendant ills. The very fact that the people have had enough of it — where else is it on show than in Delhi? — led to such a massive mandate in the Assembly polls. The outcome of the polls should not be the reason why the party should diminish with a fracture of the core leadership, one which infused it with ideas, and even conveyed it to the world.
I was often chided on social media and in comments on my writings here in Firstpost, for being an AAPtard, a variation of a pejorative commonly used in anger, but it remains that the idea of AAP is an idea whose time has come. It is not specific to Arvind Kejriwal and the argument I often proffered is that Kejriwals may or may not be in the movement but as long as someone marshals the energies of the common man, the idea would survive, and even bloom.
That this should have happened in a new party now in charge of a fledgling government which does not have entire resources required to run the quasi-state, where the Centre is controlled by an inimical party, unlikely to cooperate with AAP but try to weaken it in ways abundant, is a matter of concern. Things had not stabilised enough for a power struggle to have started and the demand was for a cleaner approach than hitherto in practice. A party like AAP is not expected to settle to calling itself democratic simply because the two were sacked by a vote.
Power struggle against Kejriwal is bound to fail and such likelihood may not have escaped the attention of both Yadav and Bhushan. They have sought correctives, and they failed to get the party to heed to it, but neither is of the fabric which would see them go into a sulk and inactivity. Chances are they would keep at it in one form or the other, and keep the issue alive. After all, their contentions are to refine the party’s claim of being different from others. This Kejriwal has refused to understand.
0 comments:
Post a Comment