What have we done Arvind bhai? Yadav, Bhushan's letter brews another storm in AAP

Get ready for another round of acrimonious public spat between the two warring factions of the Aam Aadmi Party. The letter to Kejriwal jointly written by the dissenters’ duo Yogandra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan reflects that frustration is running high in their camp after peace talks between the two groups collapsed. [caption id=“attachment_2176719” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  ibnlive[/caption] Enough dirty linen was washed in public both by the AAP leadership and Bhushan-Yadav duo during Kejriwal’s absence from the Delhi. Following his arrival from Bengaluru he had asked his people not to speak anything against these two senior leaders in public. Apparently, he made party spokesperson Ashish Khetan seek an apology on Twitter for making an adverse comment against the Bhushans in the past. AAP spokespersons and leaders, who till a few days ago were being caustic in public, had gone silent. The same was the case with Bhushan and Yadav, and their followers. It appeared that both the sides wanted to give peace a chance. What suddenly prompted the duo to make this letter, that was supposed to be confidential, go public? Despite the moratorium that no communication between the two groups would be made public, why these two senior leaders, the intellectual faces of AAP, resort to this sudden U-turn? The AAP members and senior volunteers, who have been a witness to a series of events after the last meeting of the National Executive at village Kapasheda, where the decision to ouster Bhushan and Yadav from the Political Affairs Committee (PAC) was taken, believe that it was due to the frustration brewing in the Bhushan-Yadav camp. “Since Admiral L Ramdas failed to solve this standoff between the two groups and Kejriwal insisted on getting the duo out of National Executive, Yadav and Bhushan have become frustrated. There’s hardly a day left for the National Council meeting, and it seems Kejriwal will have his way. There are strong chances that both Yadav and Bhushan would be shown the door,” a senior volunteer remarked. In the letter addressed to ‘Arvindbhai’, Yadav and Bhushan have justified their stand on going public, “We have been compelled to communicate to you through this open letter. It is ten days since the two of us asked you for an appointment on your return from Bangalore. But you have not yet managed to find the time slot for us. This has given rise to a lot of confusion on the eve of the National Council meeting. Party volunteers, supporters and well-wishers are hoping that talks are on and they are about to get some good news. They are also anxious about party’s unity and whether closed door negotiations might involve some compromise with party’s principles. Hence this public communication.” Flagging their concerns, both demanded bringing the party under the ambit of RTI; probe into the four major allegations among others that the party has faced - donations cheques for Rs 2 crore; the liquor seizure case in Uttamnagar; Law minister’s degree; and the sting and attempts to form government by engineering defections. Lamenting the turn of events and the dialogue between the two groups hitting a dead end, Yadav and Bhushan in their letter have asked Kejriwal, “What have we done Arvindbhai to deserve this personal animosity? No matter what lies your friends spread in the media, deep within you know the truth. We’ve never asked you for any post, position or favour. We’ve never made any attempt to dislodge you from your position in the party. If anything we have extended whatever support we could at crucial moments. It would be undignified to spell all that out here. The three of us know the truth. Yes, we’ve questioned you. We’ve questioned when you did not want to be questioned. Yes, we’ve warned and alerted you against ill-advised and hasty moves. And yes, we’ve stood up when you refused to listen. Is that a crime for a party built on the principles of Swaraj?” Finally Yadav and Bhushan seem to have inferred the reason of this animosity. “Slowly it dawned upon us that the principle intent of these talks is to secure our resignation. The bottom line for interlocutors from your side was that the two of us must resign from the national executive. We were told that this is your personal insistence. We were told that you are not willing to be the National Convener as long as the two of us are members of National Executive. This is exactly what you had said when demanding our removal from PAC. The message from your side is loud and clear: either resign gracefully or you’ll be thrown out. It pains and shocks us to see that this comes not just from your advisors but from you personally.”