Is the Aam Aadmi Party a revolution? French or American?

By Iconoclast Die-hard supporters of Arvind Kejriwal call AAP a revolution. But is it really one? And, if yes, is it inspired by the French revolution or the American? I can already hear his supporters shouting. What a blasphemy. AAP is a revolution alright, but in its own right. Can’t you guys think Indian? You toadies of slavish mentality! [caption id=“attachment_130955” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  AFP[/caption] AAP is a symbol of protest, and in many ways has rewritten the rules of the game. To many political analysts, AAP has revolutionised the political space by emphasising many of the aspects that our political class never thought possible: the non-VIP politician, transparent sources of funding for elections, a passion against corruption, unorthodox electioneering, zealous probity, and a connect with its target voter. These are the very things that the established political parties had lost sight of, specially Congress and regional parties. BJP still had a modicum of connect through its mentor, RSS. Rahul Gandhi’s approach was becoming more and more platonic, not in its love for the masses, but in its ‘philosopher king’ refrain. His pontifications were becoming more and more a butt of jokes, and the populist space that the Congress had so assiduously built for itself was being ceded with an alarming speed. Congressmen in Delhi had no clue who they were championing, and in a famous gaffe, Sheila Dixit asked, “who Kejriwal?” The convenient and cosy political arrangements among rival parties of not targeting their top leaders had been blown to smithereens. Now let us read an encyclopaedic entry on the French Revolution: “Popular resentment of the privileges enjoyed by the clergy, aristocracy and the King’s court at Versailles combined with an economic crisis following the expenses of the Seven Years’ War and the American Revolutionary War and years of bad harvests. Demands for change were couched in terms of Enlightenment ideals and led to the convocation of the Estates-General in May 1789. The first year of the Revolution saw members of the Third Estate proclaiming the Tennis Court Oath in June, the assault on the Bastille in July, the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, and an epic march on Versailles that forced the royal court back to Paris in October. The next few years were dominated by struggles between various liberal assemblies and right-wing supporters of the monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms. A republic was proclaimed in September 1792 and King Louis XVI was executed the next year.” Does all this bear an uncanny resemblance to the AAP phenomenon? To me, everything looks the same except the element of violence. Though one must say that the political witch-hunt being planned by Kejriwal is nothing but metaphorical violence against its opponent. What one needs to remember even more is the Reign of Terror followed the uprising, led by the Jacobins and Maximillien Robespierre, and culminating in Robespierre himself going under the guillotine. The Reign of Terror was characterised by mob justice. Graphic accounts of how the victims were brought to the guillotine camp, and how blood thirsty mobs delivered instant justice, have enlivened the accounts of history. The mobs did not follow any procedure. Their innate hatred of the aristocracy, the privileged, the rich and the famous, led to an unimaginable bloodbath without a single canon of procedure being followed. Zoom to 2013 and the referendum exercise by AAP. It bears uncanny resemblance to the mob decisions of 1793-94. So, is Kejriwal the new Robespierre and AAP a reinvention of the Jacobins? Please remember, the Jacobins were officially called “Society of the Friends of the Constitution” and were radical and left wing. Again, an uncanny resemblance with AAP. Remember again, the Reign of Terror ended with Robespierre himself going under the guillotine, and the extreme left policies being discredited. AAP has not yet started its Reign of Terror, but the signs are all but evident. Kejriwal is left, he is radical, he is opinionated, and deeply ambitious. The American Revolution, on the other hand, was a rightist phenomenon, and due to a 7 year war fought against the British, the political formations which took charge were not populist, left, or radical. They were pragmatic people who forged a strong republic which has withstood every test and made it a superpower. The AAP is, therefore, not the American hue but the French colour. The ideas engendered by the French enlightenment fed the French Revolution, and the ideas engendered by Anna Hazare made AAP the phenomenon that it became. The way AAP is shaping up, road from here on is one of ruin and perdition, given the style adopted by AAP, interestingly being “all style and little substance”. Does anyone remember how the French Revolution formally ended? The directory was bankrupt and ineffective, the country longed for a decisive ruler, and Napoleon Bonaparte took over on popular sentiment. Is Narendra Modi reading this? (Iconoclast is an insider with a ringside view of matters that matter. He is a keen observer of political and administrative intrigues as also of sports and culture.)