Five reasons why Rahul can't pull off what Kejriwal did

Arvind Kejriwal, the man of the moment, or the man of the movement as one columnist called him, and Rahul Gandhi may seem like polar opposites. And yet they share some unexpected similarities. Both in their mid-40s, they each claim to represent a new generation of politicians and a new style of politics. When Rahul doffed his cap to Kejriwal’s Gandhi topi on Sunday evening, promising to take a leaf out of the Aam Aadmi Party election manual and make it bigger and better, something we “can’t even imagine”, he appeared to be promising to become more like Kejriwal. But the task isn’t quite as easy it sounds – it is perhaps more unimaginable than Rahul believes. And here are five reasons why. One, Rahul can never be the aam aadmi. Kejriwal is a Magsaysay award winner, a former babu. But even those who routinely brush off civil society members as jholawallahs can’t deny Kejriwal’s utter sincerity even when he’s walking the roads wielding his broom. No one would mistake Kejriwal for a man of means. Rahul could also drive a beat-up WagonR or wave a jhaadu, but he can never shake off his air of privilege – the very privilege that made him vice-president of the Congress party. Two, arrogance is not anti-establishment. Having broken ranks with Anna Hazare, who he still maintains is his guru, Kejriwal’s only reaction to allegations of possible financial misdemeanours and fundraising using Anna’s name was to express hurt, never anger. Even when Anna’s supporters got their knives out for him, Kejriwal has remained studiously respectful of the mentor he outran. The AAP’s platform is built on being anti-establishment. Where corruption and opaque decision-making have been the norm for political parties, AAP’s methods have consistently shown there’s a different way to play the political game through transparent funding, shunning tainted candidates, and innovative campaigning. Rahul’s version of the anti-neta is a self-serving leader, one who remains insulated from the worst defeat or scandal even as he plays the rebel, and comes out looking good at the cost of the party and its senior leadership. How else can he explain away the arrogance and unearned privilege on show at his famous 90-second press conference in which he demolished the prime minister and his government by offering to tear up the ordinance to protect tainted politicians? [caption id=“attachment_127702” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  PTI[/caption] The message from the four states yesterday was loud and clear – people are looking for real change not faux rebellion. Three, Rahul cannot connect with any audience. Kejriwal is neither a master orator like Narendra Modi nor does he possess natural charisma as, for example, a Priyanka. But what he lacks in oratory, Kejriwal makes up for in his principles  and his commitment to them. He has maintained unwaveringly that this was a campaign of and by the people. Even his victory press conference included exhortations to his winning candidates to work selflessly for their constituencies. While people may rightfully question his plans to power bills by half, or control inflation, nobody doubts his commitment to trying. Rahul, on the other hand, is already difficult to like, despite the dimples. Even his well-meaning attempts to find new ways of talking about old problems – ’escape velocity’ for Dalits, for example – have been misguided, increasing the ever-wider chasms between him and rally audiences. His frequent use of ‘bhaiya’, ‘suno na’ , the apparent extempore , chatty style – none of these worked because it’s painfully obvious that it’s neither natural nor sincere. Not only can he never hope to pull off the one-of-us image, but his speeches have also been boring, repetitive, and often plainly manipulative and off-putting – as when he attempted to strike a personal chord through rambling accounts of his grandmother’s assassination and Sonia’s illness during the food security bill vote. Four, Rahul is all promise, Arvind is all action. AAP was more or less written off at its inception. Report after report detailed how Anna Hazare’s supporters had walked out on him, and there were snide comments on the irony of an anti-corruption movement that  pilloried all politicians ended up producing one more political party. When Kejriwal decided to contest against a heavyweight chief minister, he was called arrogant and mulish. But Kejriwal followed it up with quietly visiting over 30,000 households, winning over traditional Congress voters and handing Sheila her most embarrassing defeat. The Congress continued with its ‘AAP kaun’ attitude up until the knockout blow on results day. On candidate selection too, the AAP went though a scientific process of selecting its candidates, so many of them with a personal story to tell, a raison’d’etre for their sudden politicisation. Their candidates included somebody who lost a family member in the anti-Sikh riots, another was a former armed forces personnel who felt he had been wronged, together they formed a string of back-stories that voters identified with. Each exemplified and reaffirmed the AAP promise of a new kind of politics. Team Rahul, meanwhile, has been talking endlessly its commitment to reaching out to citizens. But while Rahul spoke and debated and furrowed his brow, AAP went on to use more than 100 calling channels, milked social media like nobody has to date in India, used Google Hangouts to do Q and A sessions with Indians across the world and more. Kejriwal has aced his first political outing, but despite all the bluster Rahul has repeatedly failed to deliver, in election after another, starting with the debacle in Uttar Pradesh. His promise to introduce a new social media outreach programme for Congress cadre through Khidkee has been given a quiet burial. His repeated promises for clean candidates picked on merit and not nepotism proved empty, as the grand old party threw up the same old gallery of failed candidates, scions of political families, even sons and relatives of leaders in the dock on criminal charges. Five, Rahul is averse to risk and responsibility. Following the rout, the Congress party reportedly advised its media managers and spokespersons to insist that the state elections were not a verdict on Rahul’s leadership and that the state elections were very different from the coming Parliamentary elections. Take a moment to think whether a rout for the AAP would have led to similar attempts to shield Kejriwal? As no less than Sharad Pawar has pointed out today, the country wants decisive leaders, those who lead – and lose – from the front. Kejriwal brings to electoral politics a brazen rebellion, a questioning of the old status quo. Like his victory, Kejriwal’s politics has hinged on seeking what was considered impossible. To replicate that, there is only one thing the Congress can do – present a whole new Congress, give the the leadership status quo the big heave-ho. That is what India truly ‘can’t even imagine’. And it is what Rahul won’t do.