Lessons from Delhi

Amitava Mukherjee

(The author is a senior journalist and commentator)

The principal lesson from the just-concluded Delhi election result is that the people of India are ready to repose faith in those who are not professional politicians but will not tolerate any moral delinquency on their part. Although it will be unjustified to conclude that Arvind Kejriwal and his Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) are guilty of transgression in the alleged liquor license controversy as the case is sub judice, it cannot be denied that his image took a beating in public minds after his incarceration. He had raised great hopes in public minds when he first launched his AAP, but now his party faces existential questions.

To survive in politics, one must show accommodation, and here, Kejriwal erred from the very beginning. Once, he had worthy and very capable comrades like Yogendra Yadav, Kumar Biswas, Prashanta Bhusan, etc. by his side. Their presence gave the Aam Aadmi Party respectability. But Kejriwal failed to retain them. Still, what transpired among them or what led to the breach is not in the public domain. One understands that it must be over ideological questions. If that were the case, accommodation should have been easier.

The federal system demands good working relations between the central and respective state governments. There may be ideological differences, but that should be handled with dexterity at personal levels so as not to harm the interests of either the central or the state governments. Jyoti Basu was an ideal example of such statesmanship. Despite being a Marxist, he had good relations with both Indira and Rajiv Gandhi. Short-duration prime ministers like Chandra Sekhar, I.K. Gujral, and H.D. Deve Gowda respected Basu, who in turn paid back similar respects to the three. Even Atal Bihari Vajpayee was on good personal terms with Basu. This made possible the smooth functioning of the West Bengal government under the deceased Marxist.

Arvind Kejriwal should have kept in mind Jyoti Basu’s example when he became chief minister of Delhi. He should have struck a good personal chord with Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of the country, for his interest and that of Delhi. Instead, he unnecessarily indulged in street-level politics against the Prime Minister by staging blockades and demonstrations. This certainly alienated a large section of the Delhi electorate, who always put more premium on efficient governance instead of slogan shouting. On several occasions, bigwigs of the AAP have complained about ‘non-cooperation’ by the central government in discharging various state-level functions in areas like education, health, drinking water supply, etc. These could have been easily settled had Kejriwal taken those up with the Prime Minister at a personal level.

Now, let us move on to the most contentious issue: the Kejriwal government’s liquor licensing policy.

Right at this point we are not in a position to comment on the nitty-gritty of the matter as the case is sub judice. Some general comments can, however, be made that will prove that the AAP government could have avoided the controversy. The Janata Party government by Morarji Desai in the late 1970s had imposed a government monopoly on liquor licensing in Delhi with a specific goal. It is a fact that liquor licensing supplies almost 20 percent of the revenues of various state governments. But Desai, being a strict teetotaller, had some other purposes too. He knew that government control would act like a wall in front of the mushrooming of liquor shops in the slum areas of the capital. True, it might have facilitated the growth of illicit and adulterated liquor trade in those areas, but in such cases, governments would have always the option of letting loose the law-and-order machinery after the bootleggers. Overall, Desai’s policy was sound, and this continued for a long time.

Then why did the AAP government replace it with an auction-based system, a mechanism by which liquor licenses were sold? This not only opened a burgeoning flow of liquor in several strata of Delhi society but also created large numbers of new liquor shops in slum areas. It’s certainly not a good phenomenon in any society.

The results of the Delhi election will weaken Arvind Kejriwal’s position in the INDIA bloc. But he has the qualities to become a central figure among opposition leaders. He is educated and well-read. Only he has to give shape to a clear-cut ideology of his own and of his party. The BJP has Golwalkar. Congress, at least outwardly, pays respect to Mahatma Gandhi. (In effect, the grand old party worships Indira Gandhi). The Communists have Karl Marx and Lenin. Various remnants of the former Socialist Party (like the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh and the Janata Dal (United) in Bihar) have Ambedkar and Ram Manohar Lohia. In Chennai, the DMK and the ADMK took up the issue of caste repression long back. But what is the ideology of the AAP? Kejriwal and his comrades have not been able to provide any answer yet. Their ideology seems to be just providing some relief through administrative measures. For a complex country like India, it is no ideology at all.

There are a few other lessons for the BJP and the Congress too. The Delhi assembly election has again established the BJP’s organizational ability and the indispensability of the RSS behind the BJP juggernaut. BJP has also quickly adjusted itself to the reality that giving time-worthy succours to the middle class as well as the poorer sections of society is the key to electoral success.

But what about the Congress? Its performance has been pathetic. Its candidates lost their deposits. The fate of Sandip Dikshit, son of Sheila Dikshit and the only heavyweight candidate of the Congress, was no different. The Delhi assembly results will again prove the point that the increase in Congress’ tally in the last Lok Sabha election was entirely due to the munificence of regional opposition parties. It was a piggyback ride for the Congress. For Indian society and politics, Congress will remain largely irrelevant for a considerable time to come.