Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, like most politicians, thrives when there's an antagonist in his narrative. Kejriwal needs a villain – ideally one that can be portrayed as a Goliath to his David. Give him abstract concepts to take on, like judicial reforms or criminal defamation, and he flounders. Pit him against Sheila Dikshit or Kiran Bedi (or Mukesh Ambani), however, and Kejriwal soars.
But that's a dangerous game to keep playing. Not all abstract concepts can easily be grafted onto a villain's face, not all antagonists can be beaten and, after beating Goliath, even David turned into a belligerent king. While an us-versus-everyone narrative has worked for Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party in the past, crying "conspiracy" at every given opportunity can make you look paranoid rather than gutsy.
The Delhi government's latest controversy is a perfect example of this. Kejriwal has a real gripe, one that has even earned him some political currency in the past: the lack of full statehood for Delhi. While people don't always understand the complexity of the situation, few find reason to disagree with Kejriwal (or former Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit or the pre-Modi Delhi Bharatiya Janata Party), that the CM should have control over Delhi Police among other state services.
Kejriwal's Jung
It tends to seem self-evident to most people. The Delhi Chief Minister should have control of all the levers of state. Yet currently anything related to public order, police and law is in the hands of the Centre. Kejriwal wants to change that. But he's doing it by picking a battle with Lt. Governor Najeeb Jung over transferring bureaucrats and it's not going well.
First Kejriwal issued a show-cause notice to the chief secretary for not routing files relating to the transfer of Delhi police officers through the CM's office. Then the chief secretary left for a 10-day visit to the US. Jung appointed senior IAS officer Shakuntala Gamlin as acting chief secretary for the interim, a move Kejriwal opposed claiming the officer was too cozy with power companies.
The power however rests with the Lt Governor, so Gamlin took the post anyhow. Kejriwal tried to transfer the bureaucrats who issued orders allowing Gamlin to take up the post, but these transfers were declared void by Jung. The CM's office on Monday even ordered the chamber of one of these bureaucrats to be kept locked. Now Kejriwal has barred Delhi government bureaucrats from taking orders directly from the Lt Governor.
He is also set to meet the President about the situation today, hours after Jung did the same, and Kejriwal has also said he will be writing to the Prime Minister asking for an intervention in the issue that AAP has termed a "coup."
Not quite Jungpura
None of this is pure fancy from AAP or Kejriwal. Senior lawyers Indira Jaisingh and Rajeev Dhawan, when asked by the Delhi government to give an opinion, have said that this is a controversy created by Jung, who has no "independent discretion" and didn't need to force Kejriwal to work with a chief secretary he opposed. Kejriwal and others from his government have insisted all along that a correct reading of the constitution will vindicate them.
Other legal experts point to an interpretation of the law that suggests Jung doesn't have to abide by the CM's opinions, and can use his discretion on subjects that are under the Centre, rather than Delhi. The Delhi government rules require the Lt Governor to consult the chief minister only if the President commands him to do so.
AAP has other reasons to be suspicious of Jung as well, not the least of which are concerns about retribution as, in the run-up to the Delhi elections earlier this year, Kejriwal spent a fair amount of time targeting Jung, going so far as to call him an agent of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
After the opinions offered by constitutional experts, it is likely that Kejriwal and AAP might go the legal route to take on Jung. But in doing so, the Delhi Chief Minister risks perpetuating the dramebaaz tag that he managed to somewhat shed after the Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal would very much like to use the current battle as a springboard to eventually demand full statehood for Delhi, but the government – and, more importantly, the courts – might not be inclined to support him if they feel his approach to the battle has been slapdash.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
But that's a dangerous game to keep playing. Not all abstract concepts can easily be grafted onto a villain's face, not all antagonists can be beaten and, after beating Goliath, even David turned into a belligerent king. While an us-versus-everyone narrative has worked for Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party in the past, crying "conspiracy" at every given opportunity can make you look paranoid rather than gutsy.
The Delhi government's latest controversy is a perfect example of this. Kejriwal has a real gripe, one that has even earned him some political currency in the past: the lack of full statehood for Delhi. While people don't always understand the complexity of the situation, few find reason to disagree with Kejriwal (or former Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit or the pre-Modi Delhi Bharatiya Janata Party), that the CM should have control over Delhi Police among other state services.
Kejriwal's Jung
It tends to seem self-evident to most people. The Delhi Chief Minister should have control of all the levers of state. Yet currently anything related to public order, police and law is in the hands of the Centre. Kejriwal wants to change that. But he's doing it by picking a battle with Lt. Governor Najeeb Jung over transferring bureaucrats and it's not going well.
First Kejriwal issued a show-cause notice to the chief secretary for not routing files relating to the transfer of Delhi police officers through the CM's office. Then the chief secretary left for a 10-day visit to the US. Jung appointed senior IAS officer Shakuntala Gamlin as acting chief secretary for the interim, a move Kejriwal opposed claiming the officer was too cozy with power companies.
The power however rests with the Lt Governor, so Gamlin took the post anyhow. Kejriwal tried to transfer the bureaucrats who issued orders allowing Gamlin to take up the post, but these transfers were declared void by Jung. The CM's office on Monday even ordered the chamber of one of these bureaucrats to be kept locked. Now Kejriwal has barred Delhi government bureaucrats from taking orders directly from the Lt Governor.
He is also set to meet the President about the situation today, hours after Jung did the same, and Kejriwal has also said he will be writing to the Prime Minister asking for an intervention in the issue that AAP has termed a "coup."
Not quite Jungpura
None of this is pure fancy from AAP or Kejriwal. Senior lawyers Indira Jaisingh and Rajeev Dhawan, when asked by the Delhi government to give an opinion, have said that this is a controversy created by Jung, who has no "independent discretion" and didn't need to force Kejriwal to work with a chief secretary he opposed. Kejriwal and others from his government have insisted all along that a correct reading of the constitution will vindicate them.
Other legal experts point to an interpretation of the law that suggests Jung doesn't have to abide by the CM's opinions, and can use his discretion on subjects that are under the Centre, rather than Delhi. The Delhi government rules require the Lt Governor to consult the chief minister only if the President commands him to do so.
AAP has other reasons to be suspicious of Jung as well, not the least of which are concerns about retribution as, in the run-up to the Delhi elections earlier this year, Kejriwal spent a fair amount of time targeting Jung, going so far as to call him an agent of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
After the opinions offered by constitutional experts, it is likely that Kejriwal and AAP might go the legal route to take on Jung. But in doing so, the Delhi Chief Minister risks perpetuating the dramebaaz tag that he managed to somewhat shed after the Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal would very much like to use the current battle as a springboard to eventually demand full statehood for Delhi, but the government – and, more importantly, the courts – might not be inclined to support him if they feel his approach to the battle has been slapdash.