“This time, the whole media has sold itself, it is a big conspiracy. If we ever form the government, we will probe this and everybody, including media personnel, would be sent to jail.” - Arvind Kejriwal.
Arvind Kejriwal has had a love hate relationship with the media in recent years. But now it seems this relationship has turned into a purely acrimonious relationship, which wasn't the same three years ago.
During the Anna Movement, Kejriwal was the darling of the media. Every night, debate shows on all channels talked about the anti corruption revolution led by Team Anna - a team of which Kejriwal was an integral part. The media saw hope in this man. Everybody in the country did. And that is why, when he decided to form his own party everyone rejoiced. It did not matter if Anna Hazare did not support him.
India needed a political party that was "different". The AAP seemed to offer just that. They wanted to be the party with a difference. They stood for something that no other party in the country did. The thought in a way no party did. In a way, the AAP (during its inception) was the complete antithesis of the other political parties. All seemed well until a catastrophe struck.
The catastrophe that I'm referring to is the sudden lurching of the AAP into power. Nobody, even the fiercest supporters of the AAP expected them to form the government in Delhi. At first, Mr. Kejriwal seemed reluctant to accept power. He had unknowingly raised the hopes of the people to unimaginable heights, without realizing that he could actually end up coming in power. This sudden development had left Kejriwal shell shocked.
When the media asked if Kejriwal would take the support of the Congress or the BJP to form the government, he swore on his kids and said that he would never under any circumstances support the Congress or the BJP.
And then, a few days later came the 'U' - Turn. He said that he would indeed form a government in Delhi with the help of the Congress. He justified this change in decision with a rather feeble logic of an "SMS Referendum" that overwhelmingly called for the AAP to ally with the Congress. It is perhaps this U-turn that began souring the otherwise sweet relations between the media and Kejriwal.
And then came the huge doles of populist measures - free water, free electricity and the like. When the media questioned him on the economic implications of such large subsidies, the AAP labelled these questions as anti -people and anti-poor.
Arvind Kejriwal has had a love hate relationship with the media in recent years. But now it seems this relationship has turned into a purely acrimonious relationship, which wasn't the same three years ago.
During the Anna Movement, Kejriwal was the darling of the media. Every night, debate shows on all channels talked about the anti corruption revolution led by Team Anna - a team of which Kejriwal was an integral part. The media saw hope in this man. Everybody in the country did. And that is why, when he decided to form his own party everyone rejoiced. It did not matter if Anna Hazare did not support him.
India needed a political party that was "different". The AAP seemed to offer just that. They wanted to be the party with a difference. They stood for something that no other party in the country did. The thought in a way no party did. In a way, the AAP (during its inception) was the complete antithesis of the other political parties. All seemed well until a catastrophe struck.
The catastrophe that I'm referring to is the sudden lurching of the AAP into power. Nobody, even the fiercest supporters of the AAP expected them to form the government in Delhi. At first, Mr. Kejriwal seemed reluctant to accept power. He had unknowingly raised the hopes of the people to unimaginable heights, without realizing that he could actually end up coming in power. This sudden development had left Kejriwal shell shocked.
When the media asked if Kejriwal would take the support of the Congress or the BJP to form the government, he swore on his kids and said that he would never under any circumstances support the Congress or the BJP.
And then, a few days later came the 'U' - Turn. He said that he would indeed form a government in Delhi with the help of the Congress. He justified this change in decision with a rather feeble logic of an "SMS Referendum" that overwhelmingly called for the AAP to ally with the Congress. It is perhaps this U-turn that began souring the otherwise sweet relations between the media and Kejriwal.
And then came the huge doles of populist measures - free water, free electricity and the like. When the media questioned him on the economic implications of such large subsidies, the AAP labelled these questions as anti -people and anti-poor.
A few days later came the huge controversy over Somnath Bharti. He was seen asking a police officer to conduct a vigilante style raid on a house. When the police refused - and rightly so - all hell broke loose. Arvind Kerjiwal decided to go on a dharna to protest against the police. Eventually, he had to do abruptly cancel the fast because the Central Government would not budge. Anyhow, this episode had severely dented Kejriwal’s image of an efficient administrator. The fact that a chief minister was protesting on the middle of the road didn’t exactly go well with the media.
And then, 49 days of high octane drama, Kejriwal resigned as CM and the Delhi assembly was dissolved. Many - including me - believe that this was a political masterstroke by Kejriwal. He had realized that governing Delhi was not as easy as he had imagined. Furthermore, with the national elections coming up, he wanted to ride his popularity wave and see if he could replicate a success at the national level. He decided to resign and act like a slain martyr. A martyr who had died (read - resigned) fighting the monster of corruption. This was indeed a political genius. He had "killed not two, but three birds with one stone".
However, this martyr act too did not go down well with the media. The respect that the media had for a new party went lower.
They began to ask the AAP tough questions. Why had Mr. Kejriwal called himself an "anarchist"? Why had the AAP voiced support for the Indian Taliban - the Khap Panchayat? Why did certain members of the AAP hold controversial views about the Kashmir issue? Why did Mr. Kejriwal give Somnath Bharti a clean chit on his own? Shouldn't his methods of having free and fair investigations on other politicians with alleged misdeeds be applied to his party also? Why did Mr. Kejriwal have a meeting with a controversial Muslim cleric who is known to have issued fatwas? Did he have this meeting to appease a certain section of society? Isn't this then a case of "vote bank" politics - something the AAP has vociferously stood against? Why did Mr. Kejriwal first publicly refuse a government bungalow and then in private ask for not one but two bungalows? Why did Mr. Kejriwal - a vehement protester against the "elite class" and "lal batti" - use a private jet?
The AAP buckled under pressure and did not respond well to these questions. Some of them - including ones on the Khap Panchayat - did not answer at all. The way they dealt with the questions was reminiscent of how all political parties in India did and still do. They remained a "party with a difference". Yes, the "difference" was they had an air of self righteousness in the way they answered questions. They always took the moral high ground. They acted as if the AAP can do no wrong. They acted as if they were "holier than thou".
This "self" righteousness, sadly, then gave way to pure arrogance. And it was this arrogance that led Kejriwal to make the autocratic comment about "jailing the media".
This self assured hubris reminds me of a famous quote by George Bernard Shaw....
“He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.”
It almost seems that Bernard Shaw had Kejriwal in mind when he wrote this quote.
-Tejas Mehta
And then, 49 days of high octane drama, Kejriwal resigned as CM and the Delhi assembly was dissolved. Many - including me - believe that this was a political masterstroke by Kejriwal. He had realized that governing Delhi was not as easy as he had imagined. Furthermore, with the national elections coming up, he wanted to ride his popularity wave and see if he could replicate a success at the national level. He decided to resign and act like a slain martyr. A martyr who had died (read - resigned) fighting the monster of corruption. This was indeed a political genius. He had "killed not two, but three birds with one stone".
However, this martyr act too did not go down well with the media. The respect that the media had for a new party went lower.
They began to ask the AAP tough questions. Why had Mr. Kejriwal called himself an "anarchist"? Why had the AAP voiced support for the Indian Taliban - the Khap Panchayat? Why did certain members of the AAP hold controversial views about the Kashmir issue? Why did Mr. Kejriwal give Somnath Bharti a clean chit on his own? Shouldn't his methods of having free and fair investigations on other politicians with alleged misdeeds be applied to his party also? Why did Mr. Kejriwal have a meeting with a controversial Muslim cleric who is known to have issued fatwas? Did he have this meeting to appease a certain section of society? Isn't this then a case of "vote bank" politics - something the AAP has vociferously stood against? Why did Mr. Kejriwal first publicly refuse a government bungalow and then in private ask for not one but two bungalows? Why did Mr. Kejriwal - a vehement protester against the "elite class" and "lal batti" - use a private jet?
The AAP buckled under pressure and did not respond well to these questions. Some of them - including ones on the Khap Panchayat - did not answer at all. The way they dealt with the questions was reminiscent of how all political parties in India did and still do. They remained a "party with a difference". Yes, the "difference" was they had an air of self righteousness in the way they answered questions. They always took the moral high ground. They acted as if the AAP can do no wrong. They acted as if they were "holier than thou".
This "self" righteousness, sadly, then gave way to pure arrogance. And it was this arrogance that led Kejriwal to make the autocratic comment about "jailing the media".
This self assured hubris reminds me of a famous quote by George Bernard Shaw....
“He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.”
It almost seems that Bernard Shaw had Kejriwal in mind when he wrote this quote.
-Tejas Mehta