Why Arvind Kejriwal's 'desi Brexit' is all show, aimed to score political points

Brexit, it seems, is in vogue in Delhi these days. Whatever be the implications of the referendum on Britain and consequently Europe, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is determined to hold a referendum of his own – to seek full statehood for Delhi. [caption id=“attachment_2821196” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File image of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal. Reuters[/caption] If Kejriwal is to be believed, a poll on the lines of the recent referendum in the UK, to decide Britain’s exit from the European Union, would take place in the capital – to count people’s opinion on granting statehood to Delhi – and that it would, once and for all, clinch the issue. But a pertinent question remains – will this be constitutionally tenable? Unlike the Brexit referendum, which will now have a definite outcome – once Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon is invoked by PM David Cameron’s successor – there is no legitimate provision in the Indian constitution of guiding policy through public opinion. In parliamentary form of the Government in India, people’s opinion is expressed through periodic polls that elect their representatives. Of course, any attempt to guide state policies through public opinion would ultimately subvert the constitution. Kejriwal is not naïve to be ignorant about it. Yet, his insistence on the referendum for Delhi’s statehood is rather Machiavellian. https://twitter.com/ArvindKejriwal/status/746257913849745408 Kejriwal’s fascination for the referendum can be traced back to the Anna movement – which started at the fag-end of the UPA-2 government – to fight against corruption. The most articulate proponent of running the government through referenda back then was Kejriwal’s friend-turned-foe Prashant Bhushan. The idea, of holding frequent referenda on government’s policies, found resonance even in the Anna movement. This was the precise reason why Kejriwal, in his first term as chief minister of Delhi, tried to take populism to extremes by holding people’s court, which quickly became unmanageable. His subsequent decision to come up with a budget by seeking people’s opinion effectively turned into a gimmick that hardly altered anything about the budget-making process. Of course, policies in the Delhi government cannot run counter to the constitution. But, Kejriwal has been driving at something different – something potentially damaging to the image of the Modi government, as a strong and stable one. For instance, he would tend to hold a referendum on every issue where he is in conflict with the Centre. As of now, there have been as many as 14-odd bills passed by the Delhi assembly that were turned down and returned by the Centre. The Delhi government routinely fights with the home ministry over the appointment and posting of officials, and the control over Delhi Police – one of the main reasons why the Kejriwal government is seeking statehood for Delhi. These are some of the major issues that could be a part of Kejriwal’s referendum, thereby giving a clear impression of the constant tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government. Although the chances of the referendum leading to official action are next to none, there could still be serious implications across the country if it gains traction among people. In a diverse nation like India, a clear fault line exists between the developed and the under-developed states. The Hindi heartland and Eastern states have been falling way behind the development curve as compared with some of the states in the southern and western parts of the country. According to data obtained from  the planning commision of India , there exists a wide chasm in the consumption expenditures (Rupees per month per person in 2004-5) among various states. For example, an average urban resident in Gujarat has a consumption expenditure of Rs 1206.80, as compared with Rs 729.50 for someone living in urban Bihar; while a rural resident of Delhi earns more than twice (Rs 1056.40) of someone living in rural Orisha (Rs 422.10). A similar divide exists between the North East and the rest of the country, where except for outlier states like Tripura, the region is left far behind in terms of economic prosperity. Of late, there has been a tendency among the rich-states, and their political elites, to regard underperforming states as a drag on them. Though not openly, it finds muted expression – like in attacks on Hindi-speaking immigrants in Mumbai. Such feelings, existing at subterranean levels in southern states, can easily find expression in a perverse form and may get articulation by seeking people’s opinion through referendum. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself belongs to one of the most developed states in the country, Gujarat, though he politically represents Varanasi, a constituency from Uttar Pradesh – the most populous but underdeveloped state in India. In this context, the subversive tendencies of Brexit – if it finds resonance in the Indian political class – can hardly be undermined. Even within Britain, the referendum is seen as limiting to the role of Parliament – though Brexit was endorsed by the British Parliament. In fact, the manner in which the British Parliament has tied itself in knots on the issue of exiting from the EU is frowned upon by a strong section of the intelligentsia in the West. In sharp contrast to Britain, India has a written constitution where in its “basic structure” is inviolable. Its constitutional framework has been clearly defined and the roles of the legislative, judiciary and executive are demarcated in clear terms. The statecraft is not steered by measuring people’s opinion on an issue-to-issue basis, instead, it is guided by established institutions. In his book, ‘Revolution from Above’, noted sociologist Dipankar Gupta referred to “social reforms” as pushed from above, much against the popular will. Drawing from that analogy, in all likelihood, an Indian ‘Brexit’ would only be used as a tool to create turbulence in order to score political points in Delhi.