Kejriwal and Modi: Agents of change promising too much, too soon
On the face of it, Arvind Kejriwal and Narendra Modi are literally chalk and cheese. One is an IITian and former IRS officer who is surrounded by a mix of NGO activists, old style socialists and secular fundamentalists; the other is an RSS pracharak turned PM in waiting whose parivar includes the saffron brotherhood, hi-tech whiz kids and captains of industry. It is unlikely that the ideologically contrasting Kejriwal and Modi will ever break bread, but both have one thing in common: both are 'gatecrashers' in a status quoist political system. Both, in different ways, claim to be change agents to be 'feared' by the incumbent government.
In a recent CNN IBN survey done by CSDS, more than half of those who preferred Kejriwal for Delhi chief ministership, opted for Narendra Modi to be their prime ministerial choice. In particular, the young and the restless - the 18 to 25 age group which appears to have been drawn to Modi's machismo - liked Kejriwal's 'anti-establishment' image too. Almost a bit like the
youthful attraction for the Salim-Javed "angry"' heroes of the 1970s.
Listen to their high pitched rhetoric in speeches. Modi speaks of being the son of a tea shop owner who wants to take on the 'Shehzada'; Kejriwal talks of being the "aam admi" representative who will "sweep away" brashtachar with his jhadoo. Both essentially claim to have a similar enemy: the Lutyens elite of Delhi which has ruled the country for much of the last sixty years. Both are looking to position themselves as the outsiders who are not members of any cosy club of privilege.
The attraction of such "outsiders" is obvious. Over the last several years, there has been a growing, legitimate anger against the VIP "khaas admi" culture. The "lal batti" of a government car in particular has come to symbolise a decrepit ruling class which is seen to be distant from real India. Moreover, the VIP culture is seen to represent an unequal state in which some are more privileged than others. By repeatedly questioning the prevailing political order, both Kejriwal and Modi have tried to create the basis for a new form of "us" versus "them" anti establishment politics.
For the highly judgmental Kejriwal, the "establishment" includes both the national parties as well as corporate India and anyone who is seen to be above a certain income level. For the Hindutvawadi Modi, the 'establishment' is primarily the Nehru-Gandhi family and their supporters. It should come as no surprise then that Kejriwal's strongest support is increasingly coming from lower income groups, including those in the jhuggi-zopdis, to whom he offers all kinds of goodies, from free water to electricity at half price. And while NRIs keen to identify with the "Motherland" may fund AAP, the party's social base is now dominated by those who feel left out of the growth engine.
Modi is also a favorite of long distance NRI nationalists, but is, by contrast, most attractive to those who have benefited from two decades of economic liberalisation. This middle and high income socio-economic group feels betrayed by the Congress and Dr Manmohan Singh, and fears that a few more years of sloth, corruption and pro-poor largesse will permanently derail the gravy train of sustained growth. Aspirational India - be it in Dalal Street or even in the bazaars of small town India - looks at Modi as someone who offers hope of an economic turnaround. For this large urban, mainly upper and middle caste Hindu constituency, the 2002 riots and Hindu-Muslim relations are a distant memory; their dominant concern is their own financial future.
The Modi-Kejriwal comparison extends to their leadership style as well. Both are larger than the parties they represent and fiercely individualistic in their approach. In a way, both are their own high commands who are driving their campaigns through strong personality driven politics. We hardly know anything of the other 69 candidates of AAP in the Delhi elections just as none of the other cabinet ministers in the Gujarat government really matter.
Excellent communicators both have also used the media with remarkable astuteness. Be it television or social media, AAP and the Modi brigade have been a step ahead of their Congress rivals. The media was oxygen for the Anna movement in 2011 which first catapulted Kejriwal from just another anti-corruption crusader into a national figure. Modi too, has benefited from the relentless media coverage of his every move, emerging as by far the most watched politician in the country today. And if Modi bhakts are quick to counter any criticism of their icon on social media, so are the AAP groupies. In fact, their abusive responses at times only confirm that intolerance is not the sole preserve of any particular ideology.
The big question is: will Modi and Kejriwal succeed in their respective missions? There are no magic wands in politics and electoral arithmetic can often be far more complex than voter chemistry. What is clear though is that both Kejriwal and Modi have chosen to capitalise on a growing fatigue with the existing ruling arrangement. Their success will depend on just how
widespread this mood for change really is. Which is why the Delhi election results are perhaps the most crucial and exciting of the five states going to the polls this winter.
If Kejriwal does well in Delhi, it may well be the first real sign that urban India is moving firmly away from the Congress.
And that can only be good news for the Modi campaign nationally. On the other hand, a failure for Kejriwal could, ironically, be a warning for the BJP's prime ministerial nominee not to get swayed by media hype.
Post-script: There is one other major difference between Kejriwal and Modi which is in their sartorial preferences. While the AAP leader prefers the crumpled white shirt and Gandhi topi, Modi likes well-starched expensive kurtas and varied headgear.
In politics, there is no set wardrobe for success!
More about Rajdeep SardesaiRajdeep Sardesai is the Editor-in-Chief, IBN18 Network, that includes CNN-IBN, IBN 7 and IBN Lokmat. He comes with 22 years of journalistic experience during which he has covered some of the biggest stories in India and the world. Prior to setting up the IBN network, he was the Managing Editor of both NDTV 24X7 and NDTV India and was responsible for overseeing the news policy for both the channels. He has also worked with The Times of India for six years and was the city editor of its Mumbai edition at the age of 26. During the last 22 years, he has covered major national and international stories, specialising in national politics. He has won numerous other awards for journalistic excellence, including the prestigious Padma Shri for journalism in 2008, the International Broadcasters Award for coverage of the 2002 Gujarat riots and the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award for 2007. He has won the Asian Television Award for best talk show for the Big Fight on two occasions and his current flagship show on CNN-IBN, India at 9, has been awarded the best news show at the Asian awards for the last two years. He has been News Anchor of the year at the Indian Television Academy for seven of the last eight years and won more than 50 awards in this period. He has also been the President of the Editors Guild of India, the only television journalist to hold the post and was chosen a Global leader for tomorrow by the world economic forum in 2000. An alumni of St Xavier's College, Mumbai, he has done his Masters and LLB from Oxford University and has also played first class cricket for the Oxford University team. He has contributed to several books and writes a fortnightly column that appears in seven newspapers.
- + The striking similarities of Modi and Indira's politics
- + AAP and the business of Delhi-centric news
- + Both 1984, 2002 a blot but conviction better in Gujarat
- + Cometh the anti-establishment neta
- + Can Arvind Kejriwal avoid a repeat of the 1989 VP Singh phenomena?
- + India is changing and it's in the positive direction
- + Arvind Kejriwal-AAP success has many lessons for Rahul Gandhi
- + Don't ban opinion polls, but bring in a code of conduct for pollsters
- + Leaders speak of riots and its victims but fail to provide the healing touch