AAP Among Unequals

Angry, Alternative Politics, they called it. But has AAP failed to redeem its pledge? Is it too angry, and not alternative enough?

- Pragya Singh

SOCIAL scientist Ashis Nandy has quite a way with his gnomic observations on Indian politicians. For Arvind Kejriwal, he had specially qualifying words that put a finger right on the AAP’s core dichotomy. The Delhi chief minister is both an insider and outsider in Indian politics, Nandy had said. “The Mufflerman,” he said in an interview after the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) won a startling 67/70 seats in the 2015 assembly elections, “should remain like Spiderman, an outsider.” But remaining a complete outsider would be “suicidal” too, Nandy said—what Kejriwal had to do is keep one foot inside.

So how much of a pure political animal could Kejriwal, the ‘common man’ who walked right over those yellow ­barricades to the other side, afford to be? Could his party become just another party, a product vying for space on the supermarket shelves? One among many, like numerous other sectoral interests?

The word ‘AAP’ was to denote a new sort of politics. The moral code that brought it into being was meant to be always front and centre, while it stayed tactically aware and combative. It claimed an essentially Gandhian streak. Have they forfeited it somewhere? Partymen say they have honoured their promise to the people—and the vox populi favours them. But immersing themselves in the minutiae of mohalla politics, tiring themselves out in unceasing skirmishes, have they lost something of the big picture?