AAP's letter to BJP and Congress: The Politics and Policy aspect

Letter to BJP and Cong by Arvind Kejriwal is an awesome political stem taken by him. But he should understand that having political support which is as fragile as Glass in India limits his leeway. One of the biggest takeaway from that letter is that he says to both of them is you all are corrupt and I am holier than cow. I found this statement to be very arrogant to use even against Lalu's and Mulayam's leave BJP and Cong aside. I have following points to make about this letter

1. It is like asking for support with a Gun pointed at you right away. Though he never went to BJP for support but putting so many conditions (even if they are good) strengthens my perception of AAP being a destructive and anarchist force. The wordings of the letter makes it impossible for BJP and Cong to accept this kind of humiliation just to save Delhi from one election. Actually it is too much of an attack on ego even if not accepting these conditions had meant a complete wipeout from the nation.

2. I would have been very much impressed had this letter been issued in an acceptable language and not with arrogance. Still I am impressed with political vision behind this letter. It will go a long way in establishing AK and his team's political credentials in the league of Bhajan Lal and Sharad Pawar.

3. Many of the identified points are good like simplification of VAT, Audit of electricity companies, Issue of Unauthorized colonies but problem will lie in defining neutral authority for audit and investigation. Anti corporate people like Prashant Bhushan, AK and Jhollawallahs like them can not be part of an unbiased panel.

4. I vehemently disagree with point on strengthening archaic law of Lal Dora. Lal Dora is a big road block for development in cities like Delhi. With Land Acquisition bill at the Center, exploitation of landowners is almost impossible and laws like Lal Dora only makes life tougher for people of Delhi. There are many flyovers which took more than 3 times the time they should have taken only becs land belonging to few houses could not be acquired and to add to the agony of house owners, after construction of flyover those house became inhospitable. Only change required in Lal Dora is limiting its applicability.

5. Many issues mentioned like better education than private schools, better healthcare than Private hospitals, female Security and Unauthorized colonies are utopian and everybody supports them but the big question is HOW?

6.Points like Janlokpal and Swaraj will be a giant step in ensuring better India but such laws can not be made in haste. Every clause needs a through discussion and I feel discussion is not possible with My way or no way attitude of AAP. Janlokpal was/is very flawed piece of legislation and need huge improvements and law on Swraj though highly desirable is not available even in draft format. So only a principle support (in AK's words) can be assured which he have highlighted as unacceptable form of answer.

7. The point I disliked the most is 1st. VIP Culture. Have they considered Governance some kind of Joke. Red Light issue have been addressed by SC recently, But Govt Bungalows and Security are a necessity for public servant which they have earned through hard work (Principally Speaking) and you can not rob them of these privileges. Employers have to take care of their employees and same should be the case with Delhi Govt. Also, best of perks are necessary to attract best of minds in Governance. There are already many disincentives for an honest and talented person to be in politics and removing these physical amenities will not help getting better people in politics. But more than this, this points makes me doubt the intention of AAP. By AAP’s perception present situation looks like Aam Aadmi (Common man not AAP supporter)  is trying to dethrone Khas Aadmi (Political and powerful class) of Delhi but remember only two person who succeeded in achieving something like this in last century without bloodbath were Sardar Patel and Nelson Mandela, both of them conceded grounds in the form of Privy Purses to Princes of Princely states during unification of India and Right to safety of property to Whites for ending the policy of Apartheid in SA.

Single Point Party called AAP

I respect most of the AAP leaders including Arvind Kejriwal, Prashant Bhushan and Kumar Vishwas for what they have done and achieved including bringing corruption to the centre of public attention. Their achievements are not just limited to Anna Movement, Arvind Kejriwal did his bit for RTI, Prashant Bhushan fought like a warrior for 2G case and most of their other members have achieved much more than average Indian in their fields of work. Such warriors coming into politics should always be welcome as they are expected to be better than the current lot (at least in terms of honesty). But participating in politics and starting a political party are 2 different things. Generally, political parties are formed on strong ideological grounds. History and current lot of successful parties verify this. All over the world, they have some basic genetic ideology where they fall back upon (One may argue that their is no ideology in the times of opportunism but believe me one may digress from ideology in short term, time is a great leveler and it averages out digression) to answer critical questions they face during their lifetime. (Off course I am not counting Lalu’s and Mulayam’s while discussing this as for them power is the only objective) Democrats in US sights Social liberalism as central to them and Republicans put conservatism and hard core capitalism as central to them. I am quoting example of US as it is most powerful and successful democracy in modern world. In india too major political parties come with a central ideology, for Congress it is secularism, socialism and populism. BJP puts nationalism or Hindu nationalism (as some people call it) forward. Left parties are still stucked to idea of communism. In fact all the parties which are older than 30-40 years have some central ideology (Dravidian parties have Tamil nationalist, Shiv Sena have marathi superiority). India as vibrant democracy have seen experiments with politics without ideology in case of Janta Party of 1975 (Janta Party is very similar to current AAP of in having done “kahi ki ret kahin ka roda, bhanumati ne kunba joda” for single point target). During fragmentation of political issues in 1991 (Mandal, Kamandal) many political parties (SP, RJD) without ideologies were formed. These parties continue to exist today but reason for existence is a person or family. We have to give credit to Lalu’s and Mulayam’s that they are still able to get votes based on pure personal Charisma. These parties will face their challenges when patriarchs depart for better world. Shiv Sena is facing it as BalaSaheb Thackeray lost Charisma in his last few years.

Coming back to AAP, which is also a conglomeration of several people who agree on a single point agenda ‘Lokpal’. Apart from it they have nothing in common between their leaders. Leaders are clueless about issues of national importance (They hide themselves under the veil of focus on Delhi elections now) apart from cleaning up corruption or loosely say politics. While single point agenda organization are good for achieving the goal non-electorally it is very difficult to attain it electorally. If at all a single point organization achieves its goal in short run, they face questions of existence in long run( Janta Party 1977). So it is time for AAP leaders to define AAP. Saying things like “changing the system” may help them in getting volunteers and votes in the short term but it will jeopardize the applicability of organisation in the long run.