The settlement discussion went on for days. Regrettably, hassles that were difficult to accept were rejected by both sides. If there had been a more realistic compromise, matters would have ended there. In retrospect, perhaps, some of the leaders who had been through thick and thin since the Anna’s movement could have shown more realism and accommodation. However, this is easier said than done. The voters of Delhi, who gave AAP a great mandate, will also be “deeply hurt and pained” by what is going on in the party. This party still doesn’t seem to be cut out to shoulder great responsibilities. Next time the Delhi electorates will certainly bear this in mind when they will vote. I hope, the party will understand this and organise themselves in a better manner. It is time that party should frame rules based on its objects for registering with Election Commission. It should conduct elections for internal democracy.
To keep AAP united, Chief of party Arvind Kejriwal will have to face several challenges ahead. He received mandate for the second time. People kept faith on him and assigned such a big responsibility to him. However, the one who was talking about the transparency are discussing about their leaders’ differences within a four walls. They should solve the problem as soon as possible, before things go out of their hands. If Kejriwal fails to resolve internal conflicts he may not get another chance. Arvind Kejriwal has to be very careful and calculative as every citizen and rival political parties are keeping close eye on his every action. Aam Aadmi Party lead to a split in its core leadership after party leaders accused Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan of attempting to remove Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal as its convenor. AAP is a one and half year old party born out the great political churning (manthan) process. The fact is that its leaders are not simply basking in the glory of election win and looting (like BJP and Congress) but is evolving its ideology and politics through intense battle of ideas and views. The main issue is to separate the issues from non-issues. Nobody disagrees on what AAP stands for. There are limitations in the implementation which Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan highlighted.
Ever since Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) victorious sweep in the Delhi elections, it has been an example of hope. However, events in the AAP National Council meeting of March 28 have given rise to confusion. Arvind Kejriwal is being widely admired as a charismatic leader with a viable political instinct. This sad day, somehow, the AAP leadership got into ugly, factional fracas.
AAP should work towards resolving those shortcomings, and do not let personal ego and ambitions come into this. Arvind Kejriwal has done fabulous things for AAP. Kejriwal needs to follow his own party rules and allow someone else to become the national convenor, like Yogendra Yadav. Maybe, people who are very close to Kejriwal today, like Sanjay Singh, Ashutosh and Dilip Pandey will feel some loss of power. This will be good for the party in the long run. The internal Lokpal and Prashant Bhushan have own observations over it. Mr. Shanti Bhushan must quit. AAP was a movement to cleanse the dirty politics which is going around and to actually set the “system” right. They ventured into the political arena to involve common man into the state of affairs. Kejriwal led it from the front and won the elections. He in fact hasn’t taken up any portfolio.
AAP has been struck by repeated rumours of rifts over the past few days as letters by senior leaders have found their way into the media. First, a letter written by the party ombudsman, Admiral (Retd) L. Ramdas, lamented the way in which the party has been split into two camps. Two notes written by Mr. Bhushan and Yadav surfaced later, seeking inner party democracy and raising concerns about a “personality cult” being built around Kejriwal. A fourth letter by the AAP’s Delhi secretary, Dilip Pandey, came as a counter to those notes, accusing Yadav of a conspiracy to take over as party convenor. While some in the AAP view the notes by Bhushan and Yadav as an affront to Kejriwal, others say it is a healthy exercise to promote discussion within the party about its future course. Rift between the AAP’s three most prominent leaders is the result of the party moving away from an “academic Leftist idealism”, which Yadav and Bhushan embodied, toward a more pragmatic approach towards politics. These differences have been played out within the party recently with public disagreements over issues such as selection of candidate and the question of whether to expand its base or focus on Delhi.
AAP should resolve the internal conflicts as soon as possible and should direct all their energies towards ensuring better governance, otherwise the people who voted for them would feel cheated and the party would lose the confidence of citizens. This is not the time for AAP leaders to divide themselves in groups. People of India have high hopes from each frontline leader of the party. All differences should be put on the back burner and concentrate on the delivery of promises made by the party in Delhi elections. Only this would enable them to enlarge the party base. AAP should borrow a few leaves from the experienced and avoid falling into trap.