Backpage

IMAGES of the chief minister of Delhi, along with a few of his cabinet colleagues on a dharna in the offices of the Lieutenant Governor, seeking a resolution to the ‘strike’/non-cooperation by senior bureaucrats are hardly designed to inspire confidence in either our political leaders or the robustness of our institutional arrangements. And while such bizarre spats and acrimonious exchanges between the Aam Aadmi Party and the Union government are not uncommon, that the stand off was permitted to go on for as long before the ‘sit in’ was withdrawn, is clear indication that unless both sides retract from their obdurate stands, we may well see the dismissal of the elected government.

One might argue that such a situation has long been in the making. Ever since the AAP won an unexpected electoral victory in 2015, it has been difficult for the BJP, in power both at the Union and municipal level, to accept the verdict and work out a modus vivendi with the state government. In fact, rarely have we seen a state government subjected to such continuous non-cooperation and harassment, a situation made more fraught since Delhi is not a full-fledged state .

With most key powers – law and order, land, appointment and postings of personnel – with the office of the LG, in effect the Union Home Ministry, we have a classic situation of ‘little power, great responsibility’. Conflict, thus, is inherent in the arrangement unless all sides, recognizing the fragility of the institutional architecture, are willing to subdue their partisan interests and ambitions and work together for a common purpose. Expectedly, this is easier if all sides – Union, state, municipal – are from the same party. The situation in Delhi is explosive not merely because the BJP and the AAP are politically opposed to each other, but also because both leaderships are loathe to cede any space or legitimacy to the other, preferring instead to engage in a brinkmanship akin to the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) strategy of the Cold War.

Even as the stylistics of the AAP, favouring protest and confrontation over negotiated settlement to signal its difference causes serious disquiet, it is difficult to not be sympathetic to its predicament. Despite no previous experience in running an administration and the pressure of unrealistic expectations generated by an unprecedented electoral victory, there is little doubt that this government has done rather well in a number of key areas – primary education, health, water and electricity. Equally that the lives of the underclass in the unregistered/unrecognized settlements, arguably over half of the population, have improved because of a discernible decline in hafta payments to municipal workers and police, greater security against demolition, and a distinct improvement in electricity and water supply and rates. The likelihood of the AAP being voted back to power, whenever elections are held, thus remains high.

It is easy to see why this upsets the BJP, unused particularly under the Modi-Shah dispensation to losing any contest. And with AAP leadership continually pushing the bounds with its confrontational style, the tension only aggravates further. Little surprise that the Union government, through the office of the LG, has used every trick, legitimate or otherwise, to show the AAP regime its place. Even in the heyday of centralization under Indira Gandhi, it is difficult to think of a comparable situation wherein a state government has been subjected to such travails.

Reducing this stand off to primarily an issue of stylistics or political culture, while in itself not invalid would, however, be partial. It is often claimed that Sheila Dikshit in her first term as chief minister was able to craft a working relationship with the Vajpayee-Advani led NDA government, and even successfully execute some important projects. What, however, is less appreciated is that the very idea of the AAP threatens the cosy compact of elite interests – politicians, bureaucrats, middle class – which governs Delhi. A party whose electoral rationale depends on articulating the interests of an urban underclass is likely to always be treated with suspicion. It is intriguing as to why the All-India Services feel so aggrieved about their alleged treatment in Delhi when equally ‘objectionable’ treatment by politicians elsewhere is ‘meekly accepted’. Surely not because the AAP government no longer has the power to prepare their Annual Confidential Reports?

It is not the case that Delhi should be granted ‘full statehood’ for these problems to reduce, if not disappear. On this matter, the AAP clearly needs to appreciate the specificity of the national capital and tone down its rhetoric. Irrespective of how this crisis is resolved, if such treatment of a democratically elected state government is left unchallenged, we may well have to re-imagine and recast our constitutional schema, particularly on the federal question. The AAP in Delhi needs our support, not because it is correct but because the Union government is wrong.

Harsh Sethi