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.
Politics is WAR and the words of Gen. Patton apply: