Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi,
was attacked with red chilli powder
at the Delhi Secretariat — a building one cannot enter without being put through a tough round of frisking and a laborious airport-like baggage check. To be able to take the elevator to one of the office towers, a picture of the visitor is first clicked by a webcam attached to the reception desk and a day-long paper ID is issued against a government ID. Party spokespersons, in a press conference, raised concerns over the deliberate incompetence of the Delhi Police, whose operations are controlled by the Central government. As expected, conspiracy theories about the involvement of political rivals are afoot. Of course, this will spill beyond the spectre of the incident. MLA Saurabh Bharadwaj described this as a serious security lapse and then added that ‘BJP’s Central government has created an atmosphere where anti-social elements are being instigated and promoted to attack Kejriwal’. CCTV footage shows a man, who was later identified as Anil Kumar, who is seen attempting to touch the minister’s feet and subsequently smear his face with the chilli powder. [caption id=“attachment_5136591” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]
File image of Arvind Kejriwal. PTI[/caption] Bharadwaj added that ’the attackers will be protected by the police and no action will be taken’. In 2014, Kejriwal blamed political rivals when he was punched in Delhi’s Dakshinpuri area and earlier had ink, synthetic motor oil and even eggs hurled at him in Varanasi, where he was contesting against BJP’s then prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi. The tracing of political motivation to public displays of resentment isn’t a practice limited to Kejriwal and AAP. In September, when his convoy was attacked at an election rally, Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan accused the Congress party of being involved in organising the attack. The BJP chief minister also had a slipper thrown at him while he was standing at a podium during his speech in the poll-bound state. This points to two problems that need to be addressed: The first is that leaders from various political parties seem to think they are in some kind of an everlasting war zone, where the only thing they are supposed to do is attack and defend their actions and ideologies. The manifestation of rage through violence is misplaced but the reason for that rage could well stem from public frustration at the ineptitude of the state machinery. In 2014, when the AAP convenor was in an open jeep, an autodriver named Lali garlanded him and then struck him hard on the left cheek, called the political figure a liar and accused him of betraying auto drivers by resigning within two months of taking his chief ministerial oath. Lali was beaten up by AAP supporters surrounding their leader. Auto rickshaw drivers comprised a substantial chunk of his loyalists; around 2015, every other auto rickshaw in Delhi carried a picture of AAP’s signature anti-corruption broom on it. Later, the minister had visited the home of the attacker, sending a positive signal to the rest of the vote bank. And with that, the fact that Lali had committed an offence in the public eye was wiped out. From the point of view of political strategy, the smearing of red chilli power or a splatter of ink by a single person in a large crowd doesn’t amount to reflecting public hatred towards a leader and which political rival will want to offer a chance to another party to victimise itself?
)