Headlines
Why is Kejriwal always on the warpath?
By
By Amulya GanguliUnlike the customer, the voter is not always right. His choice can
sometimes be a recipe for disaster. One example was the election of Lalu
Yadav's party in Bihar in 1990 which led to 15 years of a nightmare of
rampant lawlessness.
More recently, Mamata Banerjee's promised
'parivartan' (change) in West Bengal hasn't made any difference to the
intimidating cadre raj of ruling parties which began when the Marxists
were in power. In both Bihar and West Bengal, the voters misread a
leader's capabilities or offered support because there was no
alternative.
The first possibility is seemingly responsible for
Arvind Kejriwal's election in Delhi. Yet, there have always been doubts
about his capabilities not only because he ran away from the battlefield
after a 49-day stint in power in 2013-14 but also because his penchant
for theatrics rather than for responsible governance has been evident
ever since he sat on a "dharna" when he was the chief minister earlier
and proudly declaring that he was "an anarchist".
Although his
first speech as chief minister after assuming office for the second time
indicated that he might have matured to some extent since he promised
to eschew arrogance and sought the Almighty's blessing to achieve this
objective, his innate hauteur soon made itself felt.
The result
was the hounding out of two leading members of the Aam Admi Party (AAP),
Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan, from the party and the
unceremonious ouster of the organization's internal Lokpal, Admiral L.
Ramdas. Evidently, Kejriwal was clearing the decks for the exercise of
untrammelled authority.
This desire for silencing all naysayers
was also evident in his announcement in favour of the public trial of
media personnel who crossed him. In 2013, too, Kejriwal had wanted to
send those associated with the Fourth Estate to jail for, according to
him, they were all "sold out" and rarely revealed the "true story" of
Gujarat.
It was only a question of time, therefore, before his
inborn intolerance found other targets like an IAS officer, whom he
publicly accused of being hand in glove with the power companies, and
Delhi's Lt Governor Najeeb Jung, who has been charged with being both
the Congress and the BJP's stooge at different times.
Irrespective
of the constitutional intricacies of the respective powers of the Lt.
Governor and the chief minister, the central point is why is Kejriwal
always on the warpath. Is it a personality kink, similar to the tantrums
of a spoilt child? Or, is he driven to take on all and sundry by a
sense of insecurity which makes him see conspirators everywhere? Or,
does his anarchic instincts make him incapable of accepting the rules
and regulations under which he has to work?
Whatever the
explanation, Kejriwal's conduct on two successive occasions as chief
minister has underlined his temperamental inadequacies for high office
notwithstanding the faith he inspires among the underprivileged about
his anti-corruption credentials.
But if he is really fighting for
Delhi's full statehood, he has done his own cause a disservice by his
querulous behaviour. Kejriwal's irresponsibility is the best reason why
the status quo in Delhi should not be disturbed.
The support he
has received from politicians like Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar may
have more to do with a desire to upstage the central government's
nominees in Raj Bhavans than an appreciation of the ground realities in
the national capital.
The constitutional provision, which puts
Delhi in a special category under the National Capital Territory Act of
1991, denying it full statehood, appears to have been based on an
unarticulated belief that the location of central establishments -
parliament, the Supreme Court, the offices and residences of the
president and the prime minister, and the various ministries and
embassies - cannot be under a dispensation which may have unsettling
political overtones.
The latest events have substantiated these
fears. Although other chief ministers of Delhi have also pleaded for
full statehood, their sobriety and maturity added weight to their
demand. But Kejriwal's conduct has reinforced the prevailing
apprehensions, especially in the context of bringing the police under
the Delhi government.
Memories are still fresh about how one of
Kejriwal's ministers during his 49 days in office wanted the police to
raid a house inhabited by Africans who, the minister suspected, were
guilty of immoral activities. The incident led to several African
ambassadors calling on the chief minister to protest.
It has been
suggested that the centre's jurisdiction over the national capital be
restricted basically to what is known colloquially as Lutyens' Delhi.
But misgivings will remain about handing over the policing powers to the
state government, while having two police forces, one under the centre
and the other under the state.
Although no party which is in
power at the centre is immune to the temptation of using the police (and
other institutions like the Central Bureau of Investigation) for its
own purposes, the ascent to the national level invariably invests a
party with an element of gravitas and a sense of responsibility.
Unfortunately,
this isn't always true at the state level. Public faith in the
impartiality of a state government is rarely absolute. In a way,
single-party dominance is worse than a coalition because of
authoritarian tendencies. The incarceration of a person who had posted a
cartoon on the Internet in West Bengal is only one example of many such
misuses of power. It is best, therefore, to leave Delhi alone for the
present.
(06.06.2015 - Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. The
views expressed are personal. He can be reached at
[email protected])