people politics policy performance

Arun kumar

AAP & Them

The party with a

difference of opinion
Charged with anti-party activities, Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav face action by
the Aam Aadmi Party. They maintain their campaign is for the partys principles

Shubhendu Parth

amiliarity breeds contempt,

and so does success and the
story that is unfolding of the
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is
the case in point. It is also a
case that proves again that in politics

28 GovernanceNow | March 16-31, 2015

nobody is an absolute friend, something that Yogendra Yadav said during an informal meeting after he and
Prashant Bhushan were voted out of
the partys political affairs committee
(PAC) by 11-8 votes in the national executive (NE) meeting on March 4.
Six days later, the pro-Arvind Kejriwal group, led by Manish Sisodia,
Gopal Rai, Pankaj Gupta and Sanjay

Singh, issued a statement leveling serious allegations against the duo and justifying NEs decision of removing the
two founder members from the partys
highest decision-making body, PAC.
Listing out reasons behind the NEs
decision, the statement alleged that Yadav, along with Bhushan, had worked
against the interests of the party and
wanted AAP to lose Delhi elections so

that Kejriwal could be removed as the

national convener of the party. Detailing their anti-party activity, the
statement said that during the Delhi
assembly elections, Bhushan used to
call up AAP leaders of other states asking them not to campaign in Delhi.
The statement also categorically said
Bhushan told AAP leaders from other
states that he wont campaign because
Kejriwal needed to be taught a lesson.
What also backfired for the duo
was the email campaign initiated by
Bhushans sister Shalini Gupta, the partys coordinator for global support and
organisation development advisor, asking donors to be cautious while funding the party. The emails sent to nearly
800 NRI contacts of AAPs global group
on January 5 and 6 this year said they
should be cautious in donating to the
party since Kejriwal was fielding corrupt candidates in several constituencies in the Delhi election.
The fact that Prashant Bhushan
and his father Shanti Bhushan openly
pushed the case of Yadav as the national convener of the party perceived by
the group led by Sisodia as an attempt
to remove Kejriwal as the party head
further triggered the campaign to
oust the duo from the PAC.

The breaking point

While the Delhi election helped the

party bounce back, it also seemed to
have intensified the differences of
opinion among the key leaders with
the face of the party Kejriwal following more of an intuitive, ad-hoc style of
functioning typical of a nimble-footed
young organisation while Yadav and
the Bhushans pushing for a processdriven, structured approach to decision-making, including in the selection
of candidates. This was something that
the party had already displayed and
followed when it adopted a stringent
candidate selection process for the
2013 Delhi assembly election.
The process followed then by AAP,
made it mandatory for candidates to be
residents of Delhi and secure the signatures of 100 people each to prove their
support base before they could actually
submit their candidature to the party.

Among other information, the party

sought details of the persons criminal
history, political background, wealth,
knowledge of swaraj (self-governance,
a concept as propagated by Kejriwal)
and participation in social movements.
Besides, a screening committee
comprising AAP members was constituted to scan the applications and
shortlist five candidates from each
constituency. The list was supposed to
be put up on various public forums, including the AAP website for feedback
from the public and party volunteers.
Finally, the PAC was expected to decide
the candidates based on the feedback
and interview of the applicants.
A key point of difference between
Yadav and the Bhushans on the one
side and Kejriwal on the other, was
related to inter-party processes, something that got beyond the point of reconciliation when the party started to
finalise its candidates for the Delhi assembly elections in November 2014.
Prashant was categorically upset about
the credentials of several candidates
and as a member of the PAC put his
foot down in 19 such cases. Eventually,
the partys Delhi complaints committee cleared seven of those names. On
January 4, 2015, the remaining 12 candidates were referred to the partys internal Lokpal or ombudsman, Admiral

that had accused AAP of receiving `2

crore in 2014 through four dubious
companies. Yadav, on the other hand,
has been accused of planting negative
stories about Kejriwal in the media.
We cannot lower the ethical standards that we had set up as individuals and as a party, something that the
electorate now wants other parties
and leaders to follow. When the issue
of donation was raised by AVAM, and
the allegation of a hawala transaction
was made, there were questions about
whether the PAC had verified and approved it. We realised that there was a
need to strengthen the mechanism further, Yadav told Governance Now.
He also pointed out that the allegations of liquor recovery against the
partys Uttam Nagar candidate Naresh
Balyan indicated that the party had
failed to follow the right procedure
and evaluation mechanism. We must
develop inner party mechanism that is
quick, fair, credible and more stringent
than the police to investigate such cases.
Such a mechanism should also be ringfenced from the political leadership of
the party to ensure that we are able to
meet the ethical standards set by us. An
inquiry into the Balyan case could have
been the starting point, he said, adding that the letter written by him and
Prashant was aimed at reminding the

While Prashant Bhushan called up Arvind Kejriwal twice

after the meeting on February 26, and Yadav sent messages
to him through a confidant, they did not get any response.
The raw aggression at the meeting was quite unnerving and
unexpected, said Yadav.
L Ramdas, who finally rejected two of
the 12 names.
The pro-Kejriwal group, without referring to the email sent by Gupta in
January to the NRI group, alleged that
Prashant had tried to stop people from
donating money to AAP and threatened
to hold a press conference against the
party. The statement also said Prashant
was supporting the AAP Volunteer Action Manch (AVAM), a splinter group

party that since the elections were over

it was time to strengthen the partys internal democratic processes.
However, it was after the February 26 informal meeting of the NE
that communication between the duo
and Kejriwal got completely snapped.
Though leaders like Anand Kumar
did try to forge a compromise formula, things did not work out. According
to sources, while Prashant called up

www.GovernanceNow.com 29

people politics policy performance

AAP & Them

Kejriwal twice after the meeting on the

day, and Yadav sent messages to him
through a confidant, they did not get
any response. The raw aggression at
the meeting was quite unnerving and
unexpected, said Yadav.

What is wrong with AAP?

Critics and so-called anti-Kejriwal

groups point out that the party has fallen prey to the individual-driven cult
culture that it was always against, defeating the very purpose for which the
party was launched in 2012, something
that is also reflected in the party name
the use of popular Hindi phrase Aam
Aadmi that refers the common man,
whose interests the AAP proposed to
represent.
The party constitution was adopt-

were being set up. So the organisation

naturally has over-representation of
Delhi and is, in a way, lopsided. It also
needs adequate gender and sectoral
balance, he said, adding that he and
Prashant had tried to bring about the
changes that were at different stages
shelved by Kejriwal due to the urgency
of decision making.
We understood this and respected
his decision, but once the Delhi elections were over it was time to put the
house in order, Yadav said, pointing
out that the basic difference between
him and Kejriwal was more about
the notion of what a political party
is rather than the issues that some
in the party have been highlighting
to justify his removal from the PAC.
I prefer to follow a structured, pro-

We cannot lower the ethical standards

that we had set up as individuals and
as a party, something that the electorate
now wants other parties and their
leaders to follow.
Yogendra Yadav
ed on November 24, 2012 at its first
meeting at the Constitution Club on
November 24, 2012. It was here that
the partys National Council (NC) comprising 300 members and the NE of 23
people were formed. Both the NC and
the NE were expected to have more
members in due course to ensure adequate representation of people from
all districts, strata and gender. Several
committees were also formed to make
sure that the basic principles of interparty democracy, accountability and
transparency was maintained. One of
the key objectives of creating a layered
decision-making structure was also to
ensure nepotism did not play a role in
the party.
While refusing to get drawn into
making any direct comment on whether the democratic structure of the party
was crumbling under the pressure of
the pro-Kejriwal Delhi group, Yadav
pointed out that the committees were
formed when the other state units

30 GovernanceNow | March 16-31, 2015

cess-driven approach that follows

laid-down protocols and has in-built
safety mechanism with room for consultation and dissent. For Arvind, these
are bureaucratic, cumbersome and
time consuming.
This is quite symptomatic of the autocratic approach that the party has
been against from day one. The fact
that Kejriwal remotely managed the
entire six-hour NE meeting sitting at
the naturopathy hospital in Bengaluru also hints at his lack of tolerance to
dissenting voices and ideas concerns
that have been voiced by former AAP
leaders like Shazia Ilmi, Vinod Kumar
Binny, Maharashtras AAP unit convener Anjali Damania and the state secretary Preeti Sharma-Menon. Damania
quit the party post last year and now
from the AAP out of frustration with
the way the party was functioning.
In fact, senior AAP leader Mayank
Gandhi from Mumbai, defying the gag
imposed by the party, had, in his blog,

highlighted that while he agreed with

the issues raised by Prashant and Yadav, he decided to abstain from voting because Arvind needs a smooth
working in the PAC. However, Gandhi expressed his shock at the resolution of removing them publicly, especially as they themselves were willing
to quit.
This decision to sack them was
against the overwhelming sentiments
of volunteers from all over the world,
he wrote a day after. Following his blog
post, Gandhi has reportedly been targeted by a section of party members
for challenging the gag order and also
revealing the proceedings of the NE
meet another indication that voice of
dissent has no place in the party.
Interestingly, going by the sheer
numbers game and the allegations
made by Dr Rakesh Parikh, a senior
AAP member from Rajasthan, it is evident that the party is completely divided on the issue. The state unit, reports suggest, had passed a resolution
opposing any decision on Yadav and
Prashant before a proper hearing. According to Parikh, while he was not allowed to attend the meeting and vote
on behalf of the state unit, the proKejriwal group brought in somebody
called Sunil Agiwal to represent Rajasthan and vote in favour of the motion to
remove the two veterans. Had Parikh
and Gandhi voted in favour of the duo,
the motion would have tied at 10-10,
and would have caused a major embarrassment for the party satrap.
However, all is not lost for AAP,
and it is always a matter of time that
foes and adversaries find a common
ground to mend fences in politics. If
our departure can create more alertness about the issues then the departure has served its purpose, said Yadav during the informal chat at his
residence a day after his removal from
the PAC.
Interestingly, going by the mood of
the Delhi MLAs who have launched a
signature campaign to remove Yadav
and the Bhushans, his comment may
prove more prophetic than ever. n
parth@governancenow.com