According to Times Now, Bhushan has questioned Kejriwal’s organizational skills and has said there is no internal democracy in the party.
It is hard to remember a time when the voice of dissent did not arise in the Aam Aadmi Party.
Since its inception till today, those voices are only rising and the party chief Arvind Kejriwal remains as ignorant as ever.
The latest addition to this list is one of the flag bearers and ever encouraging voice – Shanti Bhushan.
According to Times Now, Bhushan has questioned Kejriwal’s organizational skills and has said there is no internal democracy in the party.
“He is great leader, a great campaigner but in my opinion he lacks the ability to organize party affairs,” Bhushan told the channel adding, “AAP under him has failed to expand across India”.
Bhushan has apparently advised AAP supremo to consult other leaders on important issues and has suggested that he depute someone for the organizational work – someone who actually has time.
Well, Bhushan may be clearing way for his son Prashant Bhushan in the party, but the voices against Kejriwal has been arising for long.
After Lok Sabha eections were held, party’s loyal supporter and a candidate, Shazia Ilmi, resigned from all her party posts.
In her resignation speech in front of the media, she too had cited lack of internal democracy in the party. “I am leaving AAP because of the absence of inner party democracy in a party which talks of swaraj. The party is being run by a coterie which takes impulsive decisions and we get to learn about them later,” she had told reporters.
Her resignation had come at a time when Kejriwal in jail due to his tussle with the judiciary over a simple case. Showing her concerns for the future of the party which has become “directionless” in her own words, Ilmi had said, “Arvind has constantly shot down the messenger. I have been systematically marginalised for raising a voice of dissent. I’m no longer part of the decision making process. Arvind should not be in jail but with party cadres.”
The drubbing of party in the Lok Sbaha elections had also led to a bitter road fight between Manish Sisodia and Yogendra Yadav where latter had resigned from party posts too but was brought back by Kejriwal himself.
Kejriwal is called master of U-turns for his uncanny ability to take a 180 degree flip on whatever statements. But his lies stand exposed and his cadre is more split than ever.
Despite his open lies about party’s stand on elections in Delhi and minutes of the meeting with Lt Governor Najeeb Jung, the party cadre kept mum. But how long it would have remained hidden?
A recent report in the Economic Times said that despite Kejriwal’s tall claims about his party and elections in Delhi, as many as 25 out of 27 MLAs were against AAP fighting elections again. But they were afraid to speak against party “high command”.
The report quoted Rajesh Garg, MLA from Rohini, saying that the AAP members had not formed the party to fight elections in quick succession. “We formed a party to serve the people of Delhi and not fight election after election. Another poll will cost Rs 1,000 crore. And what if there is no clear mandate after the second election? What are we going to do?” he asked.
Garg had suggested that the party take or extent support to BJP and form the government. But Kejriwal did not seem to care. According to ET, asked whether Kejriwal would be upset with him for not toeing the party line, Garg said, “Maybe he will be upset, but why can’t they ask the public whether my proposal is feasible or not?”
Kejriwal, it seems, is running his own agenda where he decides what will be the right move for the party and himself. Nothing else can explain this chain reaction where every member is whining about not being heard by the leader. And he is in no mood to look at his mistakes and learn from them. After so many slaps, ink baths and several U-turns, he has become as thick skinned as a hippo.
Saying ‘sorry’ to the Delhi janata was a right move.
But it does not end there. The idea should have been a change in the mannerism and kind of politics that they do. But he is presenting the people the same old guy with same old attitude.
Just that the guy has become more silent and secretive does not mean that people will start singing to his tunes. In fact, it gives them all the more reason not to trust.
