AAP/Kejrival has become a hot topic of debate
both for its ideologies and its economic policies. There are people
who support it vehemently, there are many who doubt it and many who
oppose it. The ones who oppose Kejrival are mostly supporters of Mr.
Modi. In this letter I argue why I would not doubt AAP/Kejriwal and
also prefer him over Modi.
One of the reasons people do
not support him is because they feel that that his policies are
populist. To judge a policy to be populist we need to question its
financial sustainability. The AAP team has always maintained that
they feel that the prices are high because of high corruption (they
have given many prima facie evidence for that) and inefficiencies and
if these problems are resolved then the prices can be lowered. He
might very well be right and then Delhi government will not have to
provide subsidies on power and water. He has clearly said that these
subsidies are short term and these policies will be reviewed. Many
people argue that 700 litres of water is too much. Well Mr. Kejrival
has himself said that while we can not argue that it is the
government's responsibility to provide lifeline water, the quantum
can be debated upon. Thus we can say that he is willing to consider
reduction in the minimum amount of free water allowed. Many people
are arguing that he should have first conducted audits on power
companies and then taken up a decision on electricity rates. (The
subsidy has been given to people who use less that 400 units, so any
body who uses air conditioners will not benefit.) If he would have
done so, many including his political opponents would have started
arguing that he will not fulfil his promises. Considering that AAP
is going to fight the Lok Sabha elections very soon, should we blame
Mr. Kejrival for announcing subsidies on electricity which he is
going to review after the audit results come out. Also we can not
call him a socialist when AAP talks of increasing competition in the
power sector. The larger point is that it is too early to judge his
policies as populist. If he continues the same for even after two
years, then we can take a judgement call.
Some people question his
integrity and say that he is hungry for power and that he is actually
a B team of congress to stop Mr. Modi. Well Congress can accept
anything but an attack on the first family. It was Kejrival who tried
to expose Mr. Robert Vadra. So he clearly can not be with congress.
Here is a video explaining the Vadra scandal Link and another video where
top journalist commend Kejrival for what he did Link. He left his job in income tax department and was working in the streets of Delhi
to bring about change and awareness. Very few people know it, but he
lived for 3 months in slums of Delhi. Imagine the strain that would
put between you and your wife and children if you tried to do that.
How can we question his integrity. Some people accuse Mr. Prashant
Bhushan for his comment that there should be a referendum in Kashmir
to decide what should happen. India got Kashmir under very
controversial circumstances (to learn in detail read the book Freedom at Midnight). What Mr. Bhushan suggests is only too
idealistic and democratic in nature and I know that it is not
nationalist and practical and I oppose it. Also it is only his opinion and not the
party's stand. Should a party not allow people to have their
individual opinions or else how will new ideas come up.
Now coming to Modi vs
Kejrival debate. Mr. Modi seems to be an honest and efficient person
who has done a fair job in Gujrat. But where Mr. Modi fails is that
he is an outcome of the same old system. He may himself be good but
just like Mr. Manmohan Singh he can just can not take a stand against
the wrong doing of his own party members. Why has he not done or even
talked about preventing the rampant corruption in mining sector. Why
did he not prevent a tie up between BJP and Yedurappa which happened
today. Karnataka was earlier run by mining barons such as Reddy Brothers and but the land
and builder mafia has taken over in last elections Link. As the most influential of BJP,
why did he not put honest candidates in the election. Can he prevent people like Gadkari flourishing in his own party?
We call BJP business
friendly and a couple of days ago Mr. Modi made a remark in a rally
in Ranchi that congress is responsible for underdevelopment in
Jharkhand. Well most of the time Jharkhand had a BJP government and
no industry came there because of high demand for bribes. The fact of
the matter is, while Modi himself might be honest he can not change
the existing system too much simply because BJP is itself involved in
corruption as much as Congress is. There is a feeling that if Modi
will come to power things will change drastically, that the country
will start growing by 9%, that inflation will come down, bureaucracy
will become efficient. I have my doubts if these things will happen. He
can take some quick decisions which would benefit the economy but he can not
bring transparency in the processes as his own peers would oppose
that. He can not bring a fundamental change in the system because he
himself is a product of it.
I was supporter of Modi as
well but with scepticism and only because congress provides a
hopeless alternative. In my opinion he has a typical RSS mindset and
his secular credentials can easily be questioned. One of my Sikh
friend said that she would never feel safe under the Modi government.
But let us leave that aside. Modi to me comes out as just too self
boating and an arrogant person. Here is a link of an interview with
Karan Thappar Link. Just look at how he leaves the interview. Ramchandra
Guha calls him a megalomaniac Link. My point is if we do not trust Kejrival,
why are we trusting Modi for PM. He has not proved any credential as
a national leader. (Here are some other essays by Mr. Guha on Mr.
Modi and BJP Link Link)
Coming back to Kejrival.
What excites me about him is not that he is talking of free water and
electricity but that he is talking of an audit of the power
companies (which has been ordered); that he is talking of taking on
the water mafia (I am sure Modi would not have done that as BJP would
benefiting out of the mafia). He talks of bringing transparency and public goods such as education, health and transport. While AAP can challenge the incumbent
lobbyists, BJP can not because they are themselves involved in crony
capitalism. The benefit with AAP is that they are fresh and are not
rent seekers from the existing corrupt system the way BJP is. And Modi,
I guarantee you can not check that. Where ever there is a leakage,
both congress and BJP benefit out of it. Modi can not stop that but
AAP can. Why did BJP under the leadership of Modi support such a weak
Lokpal bill. They never talk of making CBI totally independent, only
AAP does. Only AAP can bring about the drastic changes required today. And
I am also hopeful that with people such as Meera Sanyal (CEO and
chairperson of the Royal Bank of Scotland) joining them, they will
follow a prudent economic and fiscal policy.
I will end the article by
two quotes, one by Ram Guha and other by Mr. Kejrival.
“There is something of
Indira Gandhi in Narendra Modi, and perhaps just a touch of Sanjay
Gandhi too—as in the brash, bullying, hyper-masculine style, the
suspicion (and occasional targeting) of Muslims. Either way, Mr Modi
is conspicuously unfitted to be the reconciling, accomodating,
plural, democratic Prime Minister that India needs and deserves. He
loves power far too much. On the other hand, his presumed rival,
Rahul Gandhi, shirks responsibility entirely (as in his reluctance,
even now, to assume a Ministerial position). Indian democracy must,
and shall in time, see off both.” - Ramchandra Guha
Once Kejrival was asked as
to what he will do if he lost the Delhi elections, to which he
replied, that it is not for him to think what he will but for people
to think what they will do if AAP looses the election.
PS: Some links explaining
crony capitalism in Coal scam and how both BJP and Congress are involved Link Link Link.
