Kejriwal – A Man Of Systems

By – Jayishnu Agarwal

The Punjab elections gave India its most successful political startup, making its supremo Arvind Kejriwal one of the most influential and powerful people in India, leaving behind its opponents, clearly becoming the only one to be at least on the same track on its march to the finish line of the 2024 elections.

Kejriwal, an ex-Italian and civil servant, is one of the most educated and learned IItians in the country. He has worked in every system that exists and aspires to change the lives of people in this country, from corporate jobs to NGOs to policymaking. Arvind had been a part of every system, but his constant drive was to change the system. From his days in Parivartan to joining India against corruption, he has blatantly rallied against every political party and ideology and has had a phenomenal role in bringing the importance of the right to information to the public light. 

Arvind’s movement against corruption brought the entire country together, from politicians to writers, actors, businessmen, and even high-profile civil servants, rallying behind him, eventually bringing the Sheila Dixit government in Delhi down. He formed his own party that represented the plight of the common people and called it the Aam Aadmi Party to fight the Delhi elections. He claimed that his party would follow a democratic process, not make individuals into cult figures, promising to be grounded and not include corrupt people in the party, the one thing against which he fought and found his name popular among people. He promised to use the Maruti Wagon, a symbol of the middle class refusing to even have security. Eventually, he even won the elections and formed a government in coalition with the Congress, vowing to pass the Jan Lokpal bill that would make government officials accountable for their work, failing which he even resigned on a record day. He was loved by people for his integrity and was again unanimously elected with a thumping majority in the coming Delhi elections.

He suffered a huge setback when his party members, namely Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav, left the party, which later only cemented his place in the party as the party supremo. He became very popular among young people. His image of a learned, secular, and welfare-oriented administrator screamed for a change in the system that the young had long awaited. He began well, with his policy affecting the lives of the poorest of the poor. He aspired to make new schools and change the existing ones, including the happiness subject, for which he was appreciated across party lines. He seemed a little different from the other politicians who cared for the people and not a career politician who had joined politics to just raise his ranks.

However, things started changing as Kejriwal’s aspirations grew. It began with the onset of the 2017 Punjab elections. Kejriwal started doing things that every ordinary politician did, cemented his position in the party, and removed the rule that limited the number of times a member could be elected president. Next, he started promising things that were neither feasible for the economy nor able to be delivered. With this, he was stuck in a web of lies from which he never came out. He openly lied about the number of jobs delivered, and the number of buses installed, and also lied about the water supply facilities for which he had sold the dream. Even his closest friends in politics left him and were on record accusing him of escalating a riot in Punjab to win an election. 

In an interview, he went so far as to question the integrity of the RTI act. His politics now seemed to be that of a football match where he was just passing the blame and moving forward, playing the victim card time and again to gain public sympathy. He went so deep into vote bank politics that his image of a secular leader now seemed like that of a tourist agent offering free religious travel to the people of his state. After gaining complete control of the police in the state of Punjab, he started using his powers to threaten his opponents in the state of Delhi, misusing the public services as a private entity to silence his critics. So much irony for a person who has made his way up to criticising every other politician that has existed in the country. His party members were found guilty of rioting while he was outright defending them. Both the big riots that happened in Delhi in the last few years had AAP leaders at the helm of affairs while the party was still defending them.

The major problem I have with him is that he seemed like a change, a strong force in the political system that would change it forever, but now he seems like every other politician that has ever existed in the country; the same old people that have rotted the public system; a person who could go to any lengths for his personal gains. His actions have not only damaged his reputation but have made sure that no politician is born of a revolt against the system because of the living testimonials that he has provided. He has also crushed the hopes of every little youngster that wanted to join politics because of the dream they were sold off, and the idea that you could change India still remains a distant dream. Nevertheless, it has cemented the one belief that stands the test of time: that in India, politics is not for the common man and that the name “Aam Aadmi Party” is the biggest irony that has ever been in the modern politics of India. 

Reforms the Government can inculcate

-by Vishakh Garg

I hope my readers are aware of what a government is, how it is elected, what are the duties and functions of a government and why it is an integral part of the nation. Conventionally, a government consists of 2 or more politically very strong unifications called parties. The parties try to diplomatically win over the support of the citizens of the nation. The side earning the maximum votes forms the union government. The new government now allocates different portfolios to varied leaders and regulates policies.
According to me, the highlighted drawback to this present system of Indian politics is the fact that many strong, educated, and logical leaders from the opposition side are at a loss which not only affects their credibility but also results in the depreciation of the post and the duties they would have undertaken. Under the pretext of Anti-Defection Law, a legislator can be disqualified under the scenario of defamation against their party also if they voluntarily decide to opt-out from the party itself. One can also be charged under the circumstances of noncompliance with the methodology or intentions of a party. Therefore, many progressive and challenging politicians are devoid of having an opinion of their own.
The stature of the particular portfolio assigned minister is questioned if he/she is competent enough to be designated or not. As citizens, we are not aware of the ministers and the post they will hold post-victory. Hence, because you call it deceptiveness or corruption, a lot of angst and disappointment is unleashed intra-borders.
An alternative outlook to this problem that I cater to is that instead of giving the power of decision to the residing government, the ministers should contest for a particular position. The candidature of the fellow candidates is out in the open for the nation to see and judge. It provides a level playing field for both the applicants to win over their mettle. Going further ado with my theory, I certainly feel that the whole concept of battling two or more parties is rigorous and lacks integrity. To become a Member of the Parliament, a minister must join either party. It does not matter whether he/she gels with the ideas of that particular party.
Another flaw that we generally overlook is that when a party fills in the government, only a few political leaders, especially those from the winning side, cuts. The other leaders, especially the worthy ones from the opposite side, are left with a per-say on any public matter. To cite an example, Shashi Tharoor, a member of the Parliament from the opposition side, is a very knowledgeable and skilled leader. Apart from his knack for writing and passion for the English language, which is often both appreciated and trolled, he is a commendable diplomat and had formerly held that portfolio. If he is given an equal opportunity as the current external affairs minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, he would prove his worth and be an efficient diplomat.
If you see the current finance minister, Mrs Nirmala Sitharam, is from an economic background, with being appointed as Assistant Economists in the Agricultural Engineers Association in the UK. Although she is highly educated and experienced in the field, some fiscal policies pressed upon by her were ineffective and baseless, which also received a massive backlash from the citizens. It was during her reign the GDP of the country went down from 6 to 5. Once in the lower house of the Parliament, Lok Sabha, she claimed to come from a background where they do not prefer Onion and garlic in their food, hinting that the rising prices do not affect her much. Coming back to the point, had a contest been held between 2 specific politicians irrespective of whether they belong to a particular party or not, she might not have been elected provided that the public knew about the regulations she would bring about.
My next debate is that one does not need to be in opposition if he/she is competing against a body or a single candidate. The current governing system does not give the opportunity, or even if it provides, there is misconduct in communication between the proposition and opposition that hampers the administration overall. Looking at the system as a whole, the motive of the opposition by default becomes to suppress the governmental policies to a large extent. The scope of the government shifted from welfare to soothing their own party member’s egos. The winning side of the elections should always welcome the ideas of the losing side with open arms. Inculcating this method, both sides will work to their full potential with no one feeling dejected or suppressed.
I hope that soon a tide of fresh and youthful minds sweeps the Parliament off their feet to fill in with a revolution of ideas. Many such young leaders already have the support to come forward to give the nation a new trajectory of thought-process it deserves by the masses.
Apart from this, I firmly feel there is a dire need for integrity and honesty in the flag bearers of the nation. Most of them lack these qualities. It is the mundane task to look into the newspaper in the morning and read about a politician caught in a scandal.
Therefore, to conclude the article in a crisp manner, I feel that an individual cannot bring the best out of them when they move in packs. When a minister represents a party, there are an innumerate amount of considerations one has to look into before taking a step. A leader, whichever rank he/she holds, of any nation or party, should always put the need of others first before themselves.

The man in white

-by Devika

It was a regular day. Just as normal as the other days. I came out of my house to meet my friends. But there was a commotion outside and people gathered around. So even I went to see what the commotion was about. It was the man in white. By the man in white I mean, the municipal chairperson. He always wears white kadhi, so I gave him that name. He came to interact with the locals. He goes to a different locality once every week. This week he came to my locality. You might think – why are the people so hyped up? Well, he is a bit different from other politicians we see these days. He made many changes in our municipality. He made our municipality the best in the entire state. He is all ears when people tell him their problems, so they were eager to meet him.

A man approached him and asked something, then he abruptly said “I want you to grab me by the collar and ask me – why aren’t you doing any development to my locality?” I wondered – what is wrong with him? Why is he saying such unusual things? Then the man in white continued, “But you have lost the right to ask me such things because you have sold your vote to me.” I was curious to know what his reply would be. Unsurprisingly, the man agreed that he sold his vote and added that he even took money from the other party. It got me thinking – what did he mean by ‘that statement?’ It was him who bought the votes by distributing money during the election campaign! Why is he making such statements now?

After racking my brain, I understood what he tried to convey by saying so. We do lose our right to ask or question our representatives when we sell our vote instead of casting our vote to those who are best qualified to govern us. Candidates who purchase votes consequently overturn the scale of evaluation – their purchasing power masks their inadequacies. He criticized that man for selling his vote. He wanted us to cast our vote genuinely without selling it or taking freebies from any political party even if we are in dire need of it. He wanted us to realize that our vote is not for sale, but it is there for us to select the best-qualified person to represent us and our interests.