Letters To AAP: An Autopsy of an AAPocalypse

The King of PILs:

Prashant Bhushan is a good man. He is a patriot who has been engaged in fighting corruption in India. He does so by filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) that challenge corrupt practices. He has established himself as a King of PILs. Much like Dr. Subramanium Swamy, but unlike Swamy who has made tall claims, none of which have come to fruition, Bhushan has gone about filing PILs diligently. Unfortunately, the policies, processes and the laws of the country coupled with the Indian judicial system is either inefficient, inadequate or deficient in convicting people who engage in corrupt practices. Even those convicted are able to obtain bail while they appeal their case at a higher court. Furthermore, who you are and who you know plays a critical role in how a person is dealt with by the courts. Unlike Swamy who seems to have quieted down since he joined the Bharatiya Janata Party, Bhushan has been vocal about the practices and processes of the Aam Aadmi Party.

Bhushan’s arrival on the National Stage:

Prashant Bhushan vaulted into the National scene when he joined hands with Arvind Kejriwal. Initially they were inseparable appearing jointly at many press conferences and events. Somewhere along the way, differences arose between Kejriwal and Bhushan and they had a falling out. Bhushan being an idealist ran afoul with Kejriwal who is a pragmatist.

Bhushan’s major heartburns:

Bhushan mentioned three differences in issues he had with Kejriwal aside from the fact that he felt Kejriwal was dictatorial in his decision making. The first had to do with Kejriwal attempting to a form a government with the help of Congress after he resigned and after the Lok Sabha elections. The second was the Rs 2 crore donation to the party and thirdly the selection of candidates for the successful second Assembly election where the AAP won 67 of the 70 seats.

Issue with futile attempt to reform Dilli Assembly:

In hindsight even Kejriwal will admit that the attempt to form a government after resigning was a stupid move and an exercise in futility. It was like a kid who gave up his toy in a huff one day and ran to Papa asking for his toy back. It was clear that the Congress baited and played him. One could also point out that at the very beginning Kejriwal said the AAP will neither give nor take support in the Assembly. Reneging this statement was viewed by many as duplicity. But in politics one has to be pragmatic. All of this ran afoul of Bhushan’s idealistic principles.

The Rs. 2 crore issue:

Many donors are reluctant to donate because AAP publishes the name of the donor and amount. This pursuit of transparency has its is unintended consequence. Bhushan has made a big deal of the Rs. 2 crore donation that came in four checks of Rs. 50 Lakh each. While one may question the morality of the method, it was perfectly legal given the current laws. Donors can give anonymously to a legal entity (NGO, Trust, Company) by cash or check. The entity can then aggregates the money received and donates via a check to the party. It is not incumbent of the party to question the credentials of the donating party. This did not measure up to Bhushan’s idealistic litmus test. It is the responsibility of the tax authorities to investigate whether the donating entity has adhered to tax laws and conforms to established guidelines. The proper solution is to amend the election funding laws – good luck with that!

Candidate Selection Issue:

Candidates ought to be chosen based on their acceptability, credibility and win ability. Some of the candidates with questionable records were disqualified, but some of the candidates fielded did not measure up to Bhushan’s acceptability criteria. A number of people have cases against them because of some agitation they were involved in or some altercation with another person or the law. Unless a person is known to engage in criminal behaviour or corrupt practices, they should be given the go ahead. Winning 67 of the 70 seats proved beyond a doubt that the right candidates were selected. The stipulation remains that if the elected candidates engage in questionable behaviour they will be forced to resign and possibly dispelled from the party.

The Principled Dr.:

Yogendra Yadav was an academician and theoretician, until he emerged onto the National stage through his association with the Aam Aadmi Party. He too had a falling out with Kejriwal for reasons not very apparent, although he, Bhushan and others banded together in questioning the principles of the party.

The Perils of Personal Opinions:

In the past Bhushan has made many statements to the press and media¹ that had to be walked back by Kejriwal saying that Bhushan was making his personal views known and that his personal views did not reflect the party’s position. Being a founding member Bhushan was given enough latitude even though at times he was an embarrassment to the party. Yadav on the other hand, served as a good spokes person for the party.

Arrival of Storm Clouds:

Trouble started brewing when Bhushan expressed his differences with Kejriwal in a letter² to the party. It is one thing when the party acknowledges and makes such communications known in keeping with the principle of transparency. It is entirely another thing when a senior party member discusses the issues with the press and media citing Kejriwal’s dictatorial style. The appropriate response ought to have been that concerns have been noted and will be taken up by the appropriate committee.

The Topical Storm:

Internal issues surfaced over an article written by a reporter³, followed by Yadav’s response⁴. This resulted in their feud going public. Accusations started flying back and forth. Apparently Yadav too had joined the chorus critical of Kejriwal, albeit privately. Things started to unravel when Bhushan made personal statements while discussing his issues in public forums. Yadav and cohorts joined him in this endevour⁵. This was unbecoming of senior members of the party on both sides of the divide. Needless to say the feud became ugly, office bearers loyal to Kejriwal prevailed and this precipitated Bhushan and Yadav being removed from all party positions. The manner in which it was done reflected a lack of maturity and civility of the people concerned. But it was inevitable since both parties refused to back down and one side had to lose.

The first shoe drops:

Yadav too made some vitriolic comments⁶ on being removed as an office bearer. Bhushan fired off an open letter to Kejriwal⁷ and the rift just got wider. Yadav’s reference to George Orwell’s animal farm should have explained his predicament. Orwell’s message is simply that expecting equality in an organization is idealistic. Even if a group sets out as equals, a hierarchy gets established. Orwell termed it as some become “more equal” than others. Equal opportunity does not translate to equality. Animal Farm is a satire that makes fun of Communism and takes a swipe at the Socialistic ideology as well. In referring to Animal Farm it is clear that Yadav’s expectation was that he considered himself an equal to Kejriwal. It is evident that there was a clash of ideas and ganging up with Bhushan was his undoing. Both Bhushan and Yadav should read Animal Farm and understand its implication.

Unlike Kejriwal who is a self made man, Bhushan rode the coat tails of his father Shanti Bhushan to get to where he was until he hitched his wagon to Kejriwal. Bhushan is not the smartest bulb in the party. Nor is he an equal to Kejriwal when it comes to strategy and campaigning. His constant challenging of Kejriwal and taking it public was his undoing and he has paid the price for it.

AAP fires back:

In the midst of all this, Ashtosh writes letters⁸ to Bhushan and Yadav and gets them published as opinions. This action represents a low point in journalism. He follows up with another piece⁹ explaining the clash of ideas. True the party wants to shed the perception that it is “communist”, “anarchist”, “ultra leftist”, and true it has many members of that ilk, but it also has members who are centrist and rightist and of every shade in between. What was said could have been said without taking names and with humility.

The party’s ideology could be enunciated as balanced pro-people, pro-environment, pro-business (large, medium, small), pro-progress, pro-growth and resolutely anti-corruption and anti-Crony Capitalism. Most people in India understand “Money”, but they don’t understand “Capital”. Capital formation and Capital Investment is made with an expectation of a Return On Investment (ROI) that means there is a Profit component involved. This is a basic tenet of Capitalism. The Indian Constitution calls out Socialism and to most Indians Capitalism is a bad ideology. However, regulated Capitalism is essential for growth and progress. Unregulated Capitalism leads to Crony Capitalism which engages in dubious practices, flagrant violations of laws and tilts the playing field in favour of one party over others. Needless to say Capitalism has to be checked and regulated from creeping into Crony Capitalism.

Mutiny in the Party:

The final straw was when Bhushan along with Yadav and fellow senior members, the rebels, participated in the Swaraj Abhyan¹⁰ event which polled the participants whether they wished to form another party. This amounted to sedition and mutiny. These acts are grounds for dismissal from the party.

Summons Issued and responded to:

The rebels were sent show cause notices. Yadav responds by calling it a joke¹¹. Things got really juvenile.

Bhushan responded to the show cause notice¹² and drags in Ashish Ketan¹³ regarding his article about Essar in Tehelka¹⁴. Yogendra Yadav responded as well¹⁵. Bhushan’s public comments regarding Ketan amounts to defamation and it will be understandable if Ketan sues Bhushan over this. Unlike Bhushan who can survive under his father’s umbrella, Ketan is a self made man, he was an employee of Tehelka and even if it was a paid for and placed article he was doing his job. Any “coordination” with Essar was well within the scope of obtaining information for the article. The article is available for all to see and a defamation case would absolve one party or the other. Until then it is just conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion.

The other shoe drops:

With all this muck raking, attempted mutiny the party was left with no choice but to expel the rebels. Claims were made that this was all scripted and predetermined. That may have been the case. Any group has to function in harmony in order to be effective. The rebels brought it on themselves by slugging it out in the open.

Parting Shots:

Not to be outdone Ashutosh writes an opinion piece¹⁶ explaining why the rebels “were shown the door”. Humility is not his forte. The first three paragraphs could have been written with some sensitivity. Then everything beyond that is personal and counts as tongue wagging. In all fairness, he too should be removed from all party posts for indulging in muck raking¹⁷.

As a parting shot the rebels label AAP as a KHAAP Panchayat¹⁸.

The Chief speaks:

It appears Kejriwal who refrained from the public spat did not confront the rebels directly. This is a human failing where a person is reluctant to sideline someone with whom the person has a close friendship/relation with. It is easier to let someone else do it and Kejriwal had his lieutenants do his bidding. However, he made no bones about it at the National Council Meeting¹⁹.

At Ashutosh’s book launch Kejriwal responded when asked about this controversy²⁰.

The show must go on:

Despite criticism of either side, the fact of the matter is that AAP has ushered a new era of politics. The party is evolving and is undergoing growing pains. Kejriwal has to succeed in Dilli if the party has to have a future. As far as Dilli is concerned he is the CM, he is answerable to all of Dilli citizens, it is his neck on the chopping block and he has the privilege to call the shots. There will be constant threats and forces that will attempt to tear him down. Regarding the party there will be internal and external forces that will have tp be contended with.

Soul Matters:

The Constitution, Core Principles, Ideology, Strategy and Code of Conduct are pillars of the party that constitutes its soul. The Constitution defines the party structure, how it goes about electing office bearers, party rules and regulations. Core Principles are defined in Swaraj. Ideology is the party’s platform and manifesto. Strategy pertains to party initiatives, election participation and campaigning.

Swaraj does not mean anyone can say anything at any time to anybody.

Transparency does not mean everything is disclosed.

Policy discussions - YES.
Differences in Policy issues – YES.
Interpersonal issues – NO!
Strategy kept confidential and disclosed only when executed.

Democracy does not mean that every issue raised by any member gets heard at the top. Issues will get addressed at the level they are raised, with a clear escalation path if the issue remains unresolved.

All the pillars are open to discussion, questioning and debate. But they cannot always be decided upon in a fully democratic manner. Major decisions that may affect the party must be approved by the leader of the party. At the same time in the context of Swaraj it is incumbent of the leader to justify his/her rationale for weighing in. In Kejriwal’s defence he has publicly stated his opinion regarding candidate selection and the Rs 2 crore donation which were two of Bhushan’s major objections. Yadav it appears got caught up in wanting to play a major role in strategy and ideology, both of which ran afoul in the direction Kejriwal intends to take the party.

If Kejriwal is being accused of being autocratic, Bhushan and Yadav can be cast as being Mobocratic. Meetings that voice differences with the party should be conducted devoid of press coverage, unless authorized by the party.

Organizational Matters:

In this matter only ONE can lead. The rest have to FOLLOW or get out of the way.