Rulers or leaders?

The Aam Aadmi Party is in a serious credibility crisis in Punjab. It was yet to recover from the aftereffects of the Yadav-Bhushan episode, and has now compounded its credibility crisis by suspending two of its MPs, which is half of its strength in Parliament. A pattern is now evident in these apparently sporadic incidents of revolt and expulsion. Beginning with Yogendra Yadav to the suspension of Dharamvira Gandhi, the ones the party has found itself unable to tolerate — including Dr Daljit Singh and Prof Manjit Singh - are also those known to have an independent standing, mind and following. A party that was born with a passionate desire to change the ways of Indian politics, has now deployed the conventional ruse of ‘party discipline’ against vibrant voices within.

Apart from the vague charge of ‘anti-party activities’, AAP has been unable to frame a convincing charge sheet. The only ‘crime’ the rebels seem to have committed is that they have called the party leadership ‘dictators’. That gives us no hint as to what the specific points of divergence may be. A clash of ego is the only plausible reason for the complete breakdown of a functional structure. That would have a basis in the changing perceptions of what AAP is about. The apolitical intellectuals who joined the party at the start were attracted, among other things, by the cause of ‘swaraj’ that the founders espoused. Once in power in Delhi, the leadership seems to find it difficult to implement the ‘swaraj’ practices, whereas those in states continue to expect a free hand in their ‘territories’.

In Punjab, the reality may be even more prosaic. The party believes the cake is already baked and ready to eat. All that the leaders have to do is to rush in to cut out the largest slice. That would explain the stampede. But without all the components of the ideology the party was premised upon, forming the government would become a goal in itself. This provides no moral edge to AAP. There may be a perception that the voter in Punjab is looking for a third option, but the voter may change his mind if he is confronted with an unpalatable choice.