When Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal began his four-day tour of Gujarat on Wednesday, he actually intended to send a message to voters far beyond the state’s borders. By entering the Bharatiya Janata Party’s citadel, where his brief detention by the police led to clashes between AAP and BJP supporters in Delhi and Lucknow, Kejriwal is attempting to persuade voters across India that the model of development proposed by BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi is deeply flawed.
In effect, Kejriwal’s invasion of Gujarat was scripted on his trip to Uttar Pradesh earlier this week. After a backbreaking 500-km road journey from Delhi into Uttar Pradesh, the highpoint of Kejriwal’s roadshow – his first foray into the Hindi heartland – was a rally in Kanpur on Sunday, March 3.
The mesmeric moment came at the fag-end of AAP UP convenor Sanjay Singh’s speech, which was as remarkable in content as it was passionate in delivery. Declaring war on the three Cs – corruption, communalism, corporate greed – Singh included a twist that no one in the crowd had expected. He said he wished to present a proposal: should BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi contest from Varanasi, as is being speculated, Kejriwal should fight the Lok Sabha election from there too.
A deafening roar swept over the ground, similar to the roar that had greeted Mahendra Dhoni’s victory shot in the World Cup cricket final three years prior. People in the crowd leaped to their feet, arms aloft, cheering in approval.
When he came on, Kejriwal did not utter a word about whether he intends to contest against Modi in Varanasi. Yet, aware of the lure of Modi’s economic rhetoric, Kejriwal announced his decision to undertake a four-day tour of Gujarat to verify whether the development Modi boasts of bringing to the state was indeed true.
The rally generated a frisson that immediately spread through the city. Late that night, the owner of an eatery, a self-avowed BJP voter for decades, thought it was audacious of Kejriwal to dare Modi and predicted it might alter the election situation in UP in unforeseen ways.
Such predictions are based on the reputation of giant-slayer that Kejriwal has acquired, having beaten the complacent Sheila Dikshit in her constituency. But then, Modi is no Dikshit. He looms over UP, dominating street-corner discussions and the public arena alike. There isn’t a corner from where Modi doesn’t stare at you, from billboards to posters on walls to stickers on buses and cars, testifying to the lavish expenditure incurred on building him into the BJP’s icon.
By contrast, AAP is still growing wings. It is strapped for funds, dependent on the enthusiasm of its volunteers. Yet, it was clear through the three-day AAP roadshow that there is a high degree of awareness about the party in UP, and that Kejriwal enjoys a vast reservoir of goodwill. AAP supporters, particularly the young, are obsessive about him, never losing an opportunity to flock around to touch him.
It is against this backdrop that the roar of approval that greeted Sanjay Singh’s proposal has to be examined for its multiple meanings. To begin with, AAP supporters believe the party must concentrate its volleys against Modi instead of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The potshots Kejriwal took against the Gandhis and the United Progressive Alliance government seemed like a sub-plot in the AAP’s larger narrative.
For instance, at several stopovers between Delhi to Kanpur, Kejriwal asked listeners why Modi hasn’t yet spoken out against Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law, Robert Vadra, for allegedly acquiring vast tracts of land illegally in Haryana and Rajasthan. He also asked why the BJP government in Rajasthan had not yet filed an FIR against Vadra on this count. Then, to the delight of his listeners, came the punchline: “It means Modi has an understanding with Vadra.”
Second, AAP’s attacks against Modi will be double-pronged. In addition to harping on the alleged nexus between Modi and the Ambanis (and by extension the corporate sector), as Kejriwal did in Rohtak a week ago, the AAP will become increasingly vociferous in its denunciation of the BJP’s communal politics. From the evidence of the roadshow, it seems the 2002 riots of Gujarat will not be emphasised, largely because it enables Modi to flaunt the endorsement from the Supreme Court-monitored Special Investigations Team of his claims that he did not conspire to foment violence.
Yet Ayodhya was mentioned, as were the more recent Muzaffarnagar riots, and at several stopovers, listeners were exhorted to maintain Hindu-Muslim unity. In his speech at the Kanpur rally, Kejriwal spoke of his grandmother, a devout Ram worshipper. “On the day the Babri Masjid was demolished I asked my grandmother whether she was rejoicing,” he recalled. “She said she wasn’t because she didn’t want a temple to be built after demolishing a mosque.”
He also linked elections to riots, claiming that cynical politicians had severed the decades of warm ties between Jats and Muslims in Muzaffarnagar, to help them capture power and divert public attention from corruption cases.
In Firozabad, Kejriwal asked Hindus and Muslims to remain “united as a tight fist” to ensure that the corporate world doesn’t appropriate their land. In addition to criticising the BJP, Kejriwal even hammered the Samajwadi Party for presiding over more than 100 incidents of communal violence during its two-year reign in the state. He noted that the Congress had announced job reservations for Muslims before the UP assembly election in 2012, and then forgotten about it.
AAP’s UP narrative sought to portray corruption, communalism and rapacious corporations as weapons deployed by the political class employs to subvert the popular will and to add to the woes of the common man. This brings us to the third layer of meaning underlying the roar – the social categories that AAP hopes to target as its support base in UP.
AAP has won supporters from among the middle class, particularly the young, but even its most indefatigable volunteers admit that the party’s positions have limited appeal in the Hindi heartland, still in thrall to primordial identities. In urban UP, a substantial section of the middle class has demonstrated an inclination towards the BJP, buying as much into Modi’s development plank as into his Hindutva persona. Yet, among its legion of supporters, there are many who say their voting decision will ultimately depend on the candidates that the political parties field.
Nevertheless, despite having been projected as a middle class party, AAP’s appeal appears strongest among the urban lower classes and castes, the members of which still retain their rural roots. Of special resonance to them is AAP’s rhetoric about big business appropriating land, and the inflationary pressure on the economy arising from the government’s decision to pay a higher price to the Ambanis for extracting gas. But beyond these economic ideas, they are attracted by AAP’s promise to provide corruption-free governance and smash the network of privileges.
The most astonishing aspect of AAP’s foray into UP is its appeal to Muslims, who are drawn by its idea of shunning the politics of caste and religion, and delighted by its attack on Modi. A team of AAP volunteers at a roadside kiosk outside Bareilly claimed that nearly 70 per cent of those who participate in the camps they hold are Muslim.
The party’s vast appeal, however, may not necessarily translate into votes. With just a month before the general election, AAP is running against time to become a player in UP.
It is to overcome the paucity of time, not to say of resources, that AAP has sent its leaders on the tour of Gujarat and plans to risk fielding Kejriwal against Modi. It believes that this strategy will compel Modi to answer the questions he has dodged and, more importantly, turn AAP’s admirers into voters. It is all about demolishing the myth of Modi. This could cut both ways. AAP could eat into the expanding BJP support base, but it could also fracture the anti-BJP vote to Modi’s advantage. Whatever the result, one has to give it to Kejriwal. He has taken on Modi as no politician has.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
In effect, Kejriwal’s invasion of Gujarat was scripted on his trip to Uttar Pradesh earlier this week. After a backbreaking 500-km road journey from Delhi into Uttar Pradesh, the highpoint of Kejriwal’s roadshow – his first foray into the Hindi heartland – was a rally in Kanpur on Sunday, March 3.
The mesmeric moment came at the fag-end of AAP UP convenor Sanjay Singh’s speech, which was as remarkable in content as it was passionate in delivery. Declaring war on the three Cs – corruption, communalism, corporate greed – Singh included a twist that no one in the crowd had expected. He said he wished to present a proposal: should BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi contest from Varanasi, as is being speculated, Kejriwal should fight the Lok Sabha election from there too.
A deafening roar swept over the ground, similar to the roar that had greeted Mahendra Dhoni’s victory shot in the World Cup cricket final three years prior. People in the crowd leaped to their feet, arms aloft, cheering in approval.
When he came on, Kejriwal did not utter a word about whether he intends to contest against Modi in Varanasi. Yet, aware of the lure of Modi’s economic rhetoric, Kejriwal announced his decision to undertake a four-day tour of Gujarat to verify whether the development Modi boasts of bringing to the state was indeed true.
The rally generated a frisson that immediately spread through the city. Late that night, the owner of an eatery, a self-avowed BJP voter for decades, thought it was audacious of Kejriwal to dare Modi and predicted it might alter the election situation in UP in unforeseen ways.
Such predictions are based on the reputation of giant-slayer that Kejriwal has acquired, having beaten the complacent Sheila Dikshit in her constituency. But then, Modi is no Dikshit. He looms over UP, dominating street-corner discussions and the public arena alike. There isn’t a corner from where Modi doesn’t stare at you, from billboards to posters on walls to stickers on buses and cars, testifying to the lavish expenditure incurred on building him into the BJP’s icon.
By contrast, AAP is still growing wings. It is strapped for funds, dependent on the enthusiasm of its volunteers. Yet, it was clear through the three-day AAP roadshow that there is a high degree of awareness about the party in UP, and that Kejriwal enjoys a vast reservoir of goodwill. AAP supporters, particularly the young, are obsessive about him, never losing an opportunity to flock around to touch him.
It is against this backdrop that the roar of approval that greeted Sanjay Singh’s proposal has to be examined for its multiple meanings. To begin with, AAP supporters believe the party must concentrate its volleys against Modi instead of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The potshots Kejriwal took against the Gandhis and the United Progressive Alliance government seemed like a sub-plot in the AAP’s larger narrative.
For instance, at several stopovers between Delhi to Kanpur, Kejriwal asked listeners why Modi hasn’t yet spoken out against Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law, Robert Vadra, for allegedly acquiring vast tracts of land illegally in Haryana and Rajasthan. He also asked why the BJP government in Rajasthan had not yet filed an FIR against Vadra on this count. Then, to the delight of his listeners, came the punchline: “It means Modi has an understanding with Vadra.”
Second, AAP’s attacks against Modi will be double-pronged. In addition to harping on the alleged nexus between Modi and the Ambanis (and by extension the corporate sector), as Kejriwal did in Rohtak a week ago, the AAP will become increasingly vociferous in its denunciation of the BJP’s communal politics. From the evidence of the roadshow, it seems the 2002 riots of Gujarat will not be emphasised, largely because it enables Modi to flaunt the endorsement from the Supreme Court-monitored Special Investigations Team of his claims that he did not conspire to foment violence.
Yet Ayodhya was mentioned, as were the more recent Muzaffarnagar riots, and at several stopovers, listeners were exhorted to maintain Hindu-Muslim unity. In his speech at the Kanpur rally, Kejriwal spoke of his grandmother, a devout Ram worshipper. “On the day the Babri Masjid was demolished I asked my grandmother whether she was rejoicing,” he recalled. “She said she wasn’t because she didn’t want a temple to be built after demolishing a mosque.”
He also linked elections to riots, claiming that cynical politicians had severed the decades of warm ties between Jats and Muslims in Muzaffarnagar, to help them capture power and divert public attention from corruption cases.
In Firozabad, Kejriwal asked Hindus and Muslims to remain “united as a tight fist” to ensure that the corporate world doesn’t appropriate their land. In addition to criticising the BJP, Kejriwal even hammered the Samajwadi Party for presiding over more than 100 incidents of communal violence during its two-year reign in the state. He noted that the Congress had announced job reservations for Muslims before the UP assembly election in 2012, and then forgotten about it.
AAP’s UP narrative sought to portray corruption, communalism and rapacious corporations as weapons deployed by the political class employs to subvert the popular will and to add to the woes of the common man. This brings us to the third layer of meaning underlying the roar – the social categories that AAP hopes to target as its support base in UP.
AAP has won supporters from among the middle class, particularly the young, but even its most indefatigable volunteers admit that the party’s positions have limited appeal in the Hindi heartland, still in thrall to primordial identities. In urban UP, a substantial section of the middle class has demonstrated an inclination towards the BJP, buying as much into Modi’s development plank as into his Hindutva persona. Yet, among its legion of supporters, there are many who say their voting decision will ultimately depend on the candidates that the political parties field.
Nevertheless, despite having been projected as a middle class party, AAP’s appeal appears strongest among the urban lower classes and castes, the members of which still retain their rural roots. Of special resonance to them is AAP’s rhetoric about big business appropriating land, and the inflationary pressure on the economy arising from the government’s decision to pay a higher price to the Ambanis for extracting gas. But beyond these economic ideas, they are attracted by AAP’s promise to provide corruption-free governance and smash the network of privileges.
The most astonishing aspect of AAP’s foray into UP is its appeal to Muslims, who are drawn by its idea of shunning the politics of caste and religion, and delighted by its attack on Modi. A team of AAP volunteers at a roadside kiosk outside Bareilly claimed that nearly 70 per cent of those who participate in the camps they hold are Muslim.
The party’s vast appeal, however, may not necessarily translate into votes. With just a month before the general election, AAP is running against time to become a player in UP.
It is to overcome the paucity of time, not to say of resources, that AAP has sent its leaders on the tour of Gujarat and plans to risk fielding Kejriwal against Modi. It believes that this strategy will compel Modi to answer the questions he has dodged and, more importantly, turn AAP’s admirers into voters. It is all about demolishing the myth of Modi. This could cut both ways. AAP could eat into the expanding BJP support base, but it could also fracture the anti-BJP vote to Modi’s advantage. Whatever the result, one has to give it to Kejriwal. He has taken on Modi as no politician has.
