``While
it is known that the country is ruled by proponents of majoritarian
politics, what has baffled many is the eloquent silence of Delhi chief
minister Arvind Kejriwal who rode to power espousing the cause of the
Common Man. People elected him for a third time reposing faith on his
developmental track record but the Delhi CM has terribly disappointed
his supporters and well-wishers. Martin Luther King once said: “There
comes a time when silence is betrayal. In the end, we will remember not
the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Kejriwal’s
silence is betrayal.''
...................
KEJRIWAL’S TRUE COLOURS
When Delhi was burning, the CM’s silence was deafening. Whose side is he on?
JS Adoor
All those who love India are deeply concerned about the violence unleashed in Delhi. A government’s primary role is to ensure safety and security of the lives and property of citizens and ensuring equal right to live with dignity and freedom. Those in power have failed to do so.
While it is known that the country is ruled by proponents of majoritarian politics, what has baffled many is the eloquent silence of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal who rode to power espousing the cause of the Common Man. People elected him for a third time reposing faith on his developmental track record but the Delhi CM has terribly disappointed his supporters and well-wishers. Martin Luther King once said: “There comes a time when silence is betrayal. In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Kejriwal’s silence is betrayal.
When communal goons attacked students of Jamia Millia University, Kejriwal kept mum. He didn’t bother to condemn communal hooliganism nor visited the victims of violence. Ditto on the attack on the students and teachers of Jawaharlal Nehru University. He didn’t raise a word against the perpetrators of violence.
When Kapil Mishra, a former minister in Kejriwal’s cabinet, and now a BJP leader, issued an ultimatum to the Delhi police to get the roads cleared of anti-CAA protesters, again the Delhi CM buttoned up. Kejriwal is not only the chief minister but also the head of the ruling party with thousands of members and 62 MLAs. But he chose not to use his hold over his party to diffuse the situation. When Delhi burned and people were getting killed, he was busy praying at Mahatma Gandhi’s samadhi. Such an action personified the height of hypocrisy. When Calcutta was burning, Gandhi did not hide himself -- instead, as a true Satyagrahi, he walked into the midst of violence to restore peace.
I met Kejriwal 20 years ago as a fellow civil society activist. He was a young, enthusiastic man, more or less my age. I met him in an advocacy workshop on right to information. Much before he came to the scene, we were all active in a national campaign for right to information. I was involved in providing research and advocacy support to the campaign, which was led by Aruna Roy and many others. Kejriwal joined us in 2002-03. It is at that point that a few friends in civil society expressed concerns over his political inclinations. A few even doubted whether he had been part of the anti-reservation movement. What propelled a Delhi-centric activist such as Kejriwal into the national limelight was the India Against Corruption Campaign which began in 2011.
The campaign was organised by a 24-member committee, led by Anna Hazare, Baba Ramdev, and Kejriwal. Later, Kiran Bedi too joined the movement. Though they demanded for a strong Lokpal Bill to curb corruption, in reality, it was a strategy campaign which was explicitly and implicitly supported by the Sangh Parivar.
While the campaign enthused lots of youngsters, and the middle class, serious concerns were raised about its politics. The Parivar strategists and donors of the campaign tried to rope in credible civil rights activists such as Yogendra Yadav and Prasanth Bhushan. Many of us who were close to Yogendra Yadav discussed with him the communal upper caste agenda behind the campaign. But he reasoned that unusual situations required unusual responses. Recognizing the agenda behind the campaign, Gandhian activists like P V Rajagopal and Rajendra Singh quit the movement.
I was persuaded to join the party but I refused. Reasons? Firstly, despite Kejriwal’s anticorruption stand, I was not convinced about his political ideology. Even Yogendra Yadav claimed the party was beyond ideology. But the fact of the matter was that many active members of the party had clear links with Sangh Parivar. Kumar Viswas was one such wellknown party member. So was Kapil Mishra.
Many of my friends joined the party as they believed that though it featured people with multiple ideological inclinations, it will be an alternative. However, as soon as Kejriwal came to power, the party got rid of Yogendra Yadav, Prasanth Bhushan and many others. It is true that Kejriwal’s government performed well in areas of education and health. And of course, it also adopted several welfare measures.
But the eloquent silence of Kejriwal amidst communal violence bares the fact that the party adopts a politics of convenience as distinct from a politics of conviction. Political ideology is about political ethics that inform political perspectives, communication and responses in terms of social, economic and political issues. When it is only about acquiring and maintaining power, it is no longer an expression of aspirations for an alternative politics.
One hoped for an alternative politics in the AAP experiment. However, once it grabbed power, it has transformed into any other leadercentric political party with the sole agenda of winning elections and maintaining power. Silence too is politics by other means.
(The writer is a former senior UN official and was closely associated with Arvind Kejriwal during their RTI activism days)
...................
KEJRIWAL’S TRUE COLOURS
When Delhi was burning, the CM’s silence was deafening. Whose side is he on?
JS Adoor
All those who love India are deeply concerned about the violence unleashed in Delhi. A government’s primary role is to ensure safety and security of the lives and property of citizens and ensuring equal right to live with dignity and freedom. Those in power have failed to do so.
While it is known that the country is ruled by proponents of majoritarian politics, what has baffled many is the eloquent silence of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal who rode to power espousing the cause of the Common Man. People elected him for a third time reposing faith on his developmental track record but the Delhi CM has terribly disappointed his supporters and well-wishers. Martin Luther King once said: “There comes a time when silence is betrayal. In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Kejriwal’s silence is betrayal.
When communal goons attacked students of Jamia Millia University, Kejriwal kept mum. He didn’t bother to condemn communal hooliganism nor visited the victims of violence. Ditto on the attack on the students and teachers of Jawaharlal Nehru University. He didn’t raise a word against the perpetrators of violence.
When Kapil Mishra, a former minister in Kejriwal’s cabinet, and now a BJP leader, issued an ultimatum to the Delhi police to get the roads cleared of anti-CAA protesters, again the Delhi CM buttoned up. Kejriwal is not only the chief minister but also the head of the ruling party with thousands of members and 62 MLAs. But he chose not to use his hold over his party to diffuse the situation. When Delhi burned and people were getting killed, he was busy praying at Mahatma Gandhi’s samadhi. Such an action personified the height of hypocrisy. When Calcutta was burning, Gandhi did not hide himself -- instead, as a true Satyagrahi, he walked into the midst of violence to restore peace.
I met Kejriwal 20 years ago as a fellow civil society activist. He was a young, enthusiastic man, more or less my age. I met him in an advocacy workshop on right to information. Much before he came to the scene, we were all active in a national campaign for right to information. I was involved in providing research and advocacy support to the campaign, which was led by Aruna Roy and many others. Kejriwal joined us in 2002-03. It is at that point that a few friends in civil society expressed concerns over his political inclinations. A few even doubted whether he had been part of the anti-reservation movement. What propelled a Delhi-centric activist such as Kejriwal into the national limelight was the India Against Corruption Campaign which began in 2011.
The campaign was organised by a 24-member committee, led by Anna Hazare, Baba Ramdev, and Kejriwal. Later, Kiran Bedi too joined the movement. Though they demanded for a strong Lokpal Bill to curb corruption, in reality, it was a strategy campaign which was explicitly and implicitly supported by the Sangh Parivar.
While the campaign enthused lots of youngsters, and the middle class, serious concerns were raised about its politics. The Parivar strategists and donors of the campaign tried to rope in credible civil rights activists such as Yogendra Yadav and Prasanth Bhushan. Many of us who were close to Yogendra Yadav discussed with him the communal upper caste agenda behind the campaign. But he reasoned that unusual situations required unusual responses. Recognizing the agenda behind the campaign, Gandhian activists like P V Rajagopal and Rajendra Singh quit the movement.
I was persuaded to join the party but I refused. Reasons? Firstly, despite Kejriwal’s anticorruption stand, I was not convinced about his political ideology. Even Yogendra Yadav claimed the party was beyond ideology. But the fact of the matter was that many active members of the party had clear links with Sangh Parivar. Kumar Viswas was one such wellknown party member. So was Kapil Mishra.
Many of my friends joined the party as they believed that though it featured people with multiple ideological inclinations, it will be an alternative. However, as soon as Kejriwal came to power, the party got rid of Yogendra Yadav, Prasanth Bhushan and many others. It is true that Kejriwal’s government performed well in areas of education and health. And of course, it also adopted several welfare measures.
But the eloquent silence of Kejriwal amidst communal violence bares the fact that the party adopts a politics of convenience as distinct from a politics of conviction. Political ideology is about political ethics that inform political perspectives, communication and responses in terms of social, economic and political issues. When it is only about acquiring and maintaining power, it is no longer an expression of aspirations for an alternative politics.
One hoped for an alternative politics in the AAP experiment. However, once it grabbed power, it has transformed into any other leadercentric political party with the sole agenda of winning elections and maintaining power. Silence too is politics by other means.
(The writer is a former senior UN official and was closely associated with Arvind Kejriwal during their RTI activism days)
No comments:
Post a Comment