The “Arvind Kejriwal for prime minister?” hyperbole on social media is inevitable, given the scale and circumstances of his victory in Delhi. A more pertinent question is whether the Delhi assembly elections will impact the national scene. The answer is necessarily nuanced: yes, and no.
Yes, Kejriwal is being lionised by a large section of the Centre-Left Opposition, which sees him as a potential national force. They are in triumphalist mode, rejoicing over the humiliation of the BJP in general and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in particular, largely because he won Delhi in the wake of CAA-inspired ideological polarisation.
However, as noted in this column a fortnight before polls, it was AAP's strategy of consciously avoiding the CAA controversy, while showcasing good governance, which gave the party its overwhelming advantage. He also made it a point to visit the Hanuman Mandir after the results. So, another section of liberals is criticising Kejriwal for having embraced 'soft hindutva'.
This ideological confusion does not auger well for Opposition unity. From that perspective, Kejriwal's spectacular will not have an immediate impact on national politics.
A third stint as chief minister gives Kejriwal the impetus to expand, but the process is likely to be slow. Anti-Modi factions across the board have latched on to him because one by one, all their poster boys have either joined hands with or been battered by the Right. Nitish Kumar partnered with the BJP and the Gandhis and Sharad Pawar with the Shiv Sena. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Naveen Patnaik and KCR all maintain a friendly relationship with the centre. As for the rest, Mamata Banerjee suffered a severe setback in the general elections, as did Mayawati, Akhilesh Yadav and Laloo Prasad. Kejriwal is the only one to have gone head-to-head with the BJP and won.
If at all Kejriwal and AAP are to emerge as the nucleus of the Opposition, the party must establish itself in other states. Kejriwal's well-wishers may advise him to hand over day-to-day affairs in Delhi to a trusted aide and devote himself to expanding the party's footprint.
The party knows from experience that elections in the National Capital Region and those in other states follow a different logic. Caste-based politics in NCR is necessarily diluted but plays a significant role in states with lower levels of urbanisation. Cities are sites of social change, where the stratified structure of rural societies is disrupted. Kejriwal's formula in Delhi – the undifferentiated poor plus minorities – cannot be replicated in other states. More so, because there is intense competition for these votes from other parties. He must evolve different strategies in order to displace the Congress and take on the BJP head to head in neighbouring states.
The immediate question is the impact of the defeat on the BJP. Maharashtra and Jharkhand did not carry the sting of Delhi. The former was a victory snatched away by opportunism; the latter was a setback, but not a severe one. There is no denying that the Delhi elections are a personal setback for Home minister Amit Shah, who had taken the lead on CAA.
By the time polling day rolled around, he had become a polarising figure, purely by default. As Home minister, he controls the Delhi police and its sins of omission and commission at the Jamia Milia and Jawaharlal Universities were laid at his door – thereby alienating the youth. For them, the problem was not CAA – most, in fact, were not involved in the protests – it was institutional aggression against students.
His strategy of polarising the vote on pro- and anti-CAA lines, without addressing the concerns of the youth, was only marginally effective. The BJP's voteshare did increase, but whether it was because of anti-incumbency, polarisation or simply misdirected anger at the disruption caused by the CAA protests is a matter of conjecture. The fact remains that the 'vikas' plank, integral to all of Modi's campaigns in the past, was not given pride of place in Delhi.
It was Kejriwal who siezed the 'vikas' platform, which has always a critical feature in Delhi elections. Delhi's voters may respond to nationalism in Lok Sabha elections, but expect development and ease of living from local representatives. The late Congress leader Sheila Dikshit won three consecutive elections on the development slogan. The sharp contrast between the 'vikas' delivered by Kejriwal during his 5-year term and the apathetic performance of the BJP-run municipal corporations did not help matters.
Apart from a dodgy campaign, Shah's decision to stick with Bhojpuri star-turned-politican Manoj Tiwari as Delhi BJP chief, but not project him as chief ministerial nominee, is inexplicable. Tiwari, despite two Lok Sabha wins, remains something of an outsider in Delhi and has been unable to mobilise the cadre. That the BJP lacks a credible chief ministerial face in Delhi has been evident for years, but Shah has not chosen to rectify the leadership gap.
So what does this mean for the BJP? Given that highly-placed party sources see increasing signs of discord in Modi's inner circle, a recalibration of power relations at the top is possible. The PM is believed to be deeply unhappy with the fallout of CAA, particularly in the context of foreign relations.
As always after a round of elections, the capital is abuzz with rumours of a Cabinet reshuffle. But the changes in the BJP may have to go deeper than a mere switch around of faces.
The writer is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience in working with major newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author.
