‘B-Team’ or ‘Secular Alternative’: Where Does AAP Really Stand?

At the root of AAP’s reconfiguration lies its desire to expand despite its structural weakness.

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's back-to-back interviews, Raghav Chadha's press conference targeting the Congress, and the launch of an ambitious Delhi government scheme for the home delivery of rations, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) seems to have a lot going on of late.

Kejriwal's interviews to two channels often alleged to be pro-Bharatiya Janata Party – Times Now and Zee News – in particular raised a lot of eyebrows, especially as he desisted from criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi or Home Minister Amit Shah in the interviews. Instead he praised them for helping Delhi fight COVID-19.

This was in sharp contrast to Chadha’s press conference, in which he said that the “Congress is on ventilator.”

So what explains this sudden positioning by the AAP? Does it indicate a larger realignment or is it just a tactical move? And does strategist Prashant Kishore have anything to do with it?

The AAP’s tactics have a lot to do with the structural weaknesses it faces and its desire to expand beyond them.

A Regional Party With National Ambitions

Though as of now it is restricted to mainly two states – Delhi and Punjab – control of the national capital gives the AAP a national profile by default. As a result, the national media coverage it gets – both positive and negative – is disproportionately higher than many regional parties.

This also makes the AAP much more capable of expansion beyond its core territories than other parties. Kejriwal and the AAP don’t face the same linguistic limitations that many other regional leaders face and can hope to expand in Hindi-speaking states, especially smaller ones like Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand and in urban centres.

An Unstable Base in Delhi

The second challenge for the AAP is the fact that even in Delhi, it has a weak base as compared to other regional parties in their respective states.

The problem is that till now even the voters of Delhi don't see it as a national alternative.

Despite winning 67 out of 70 seats with a vote share of 54 percent in the 2015 Assembly polls, the AAP got less than 20 percent of votes in the 2019 general elections, and stood behind not just the BJP but also the Congress.

And less than a year later, it stormed back to power in Delhi, with 62 seats and over 50 percent of votes in the Assembly polls.

Clearly, the voters in Delhi see the AAP only as a party custom-made to run the state government and the limited powers that come with it. At the national level, the battle even in Delhi has been between the BJP and the Congress.

Compared to other regional parties that rule different states, the AAP also has the weakest base of committed voters – that is people who will vote for the party irrespective of whether it is a national, state or municipal election.

Perhaps the 15-20 percent that voted for the AAP in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls are the real, committed AAP voters.

It's not that other regional parties don't suffer in national elections. The Left in Kerala, Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) in Telangana, Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal all suffered in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls compared to state elections, but none of them witnessed the kind of fall the AAP did.

So even to overcome this weak base in their core state, the AAP needs to present itself as an effective national alternative. The question therefore is – at whose expense should it expand?

So Whom Does AAP Expand at the Cost Of?

The AAP has been an unpredictable party from the beginning. It isn't often clear who the party is harming more, the BJP or the Congress.

Take for instance the 2013 Assembly elections, the first election the party fought. Sheila Dikshit and the Congress were facing 15 years of anti-incumbency. The BJP fancied its chances of coming to power. Enter the AAP, with Kejriwal taking on Dikshit on her turf. The AAP took over much of the Congress' base among poorer voters but also a sizeable chunk of floating voters who would have otherwise gone to the BJP.

So, as a result, the BJP remained stuck at its core vote share of 33 percent and was denied what was a sure chance of coming to power.

However, in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the reverse happened. By taking on Narendra Modi in Varanasi, Arvind Kejriwal emerged as the champion of the Opposition. As a result, the AAP led in four Muslim-dominated seats in Delhi, which it had lost just a few months back. Its gains were almost entirely at the Congress' expense.

Now, coming back to the 2020 Assembly elections, in which Kejriwal desisted from attacking Modi and Amit Shah and didn't take a stand publicly in favour of the anti-CAA protests.

This helped the AAP get a sizeable chunk of votes from people who had just voted for the BJP in the national elections. The BJP's vote share fell by 22 percentage points between the two polls, which almost entirely went to the AAP.

Explaining Kejriwal's Posturing

The AAP's latest posturing – attacks on the Congress, going soft on the BJP – needs to be seen in this context. It appears to be trying to win over the BJP voters who may be disgruntled with the Modi government's allegedly weak response to Chinese incursions in Ladakh or its handling of the COVID-19 crisis.

The choice of channels, therefore, is not coincidental.

Also note that the only issue on which Kejriwal in his recent interviews appeared to be criticising the BJP was on its handling of the standoff with China.

"We stand with the army. We should take back whatever territory China has captured," Kejriwal said in the interviews.

Therefore his criticism of the BJP was on the one issue that Modi has owned for the past six years – national security.

This is a plank on which the Congress has consistently failed to corner the BJP, despite its best attempts.

A recent survey by CVoter showed most people who were concerned by Chinese incursions, still trusted Modi over the Congress to handle this crisis. Therefore, the AAP is trying to be the alternative for disgruntled BJP voters who may not necessarily like the Congress at the national level.

There is a defensive reason for this as well. The arrest of suspended AAP leader Tahir Hussain in connection with the northeast Delhi communal violence gave the Delhi BJP a chance to present the AAP as anti-Hindu. During the violence, this reporter came across several Hindus in the area who said they voted for Kejriwal but won't do so again. The AAP appears to be wanting to shed this tag.

So Has AAP Given Up on Secularism & Minorities?

If indeed the AAP's expansion efforts are all aimed at disgruntled BJP voters, what does it mean for the minorities who have been supporting the party?

For Muslims in Delhi, the Delhi riots and their aftermath have created some dissatisfaction with the AAP. Many Muslims feel that the AAP didn't do enough during the communal violence and that it has delayed giving out compensations to the people affected. Some also criticised the AAP government for treating the COVID-19 cases at the Tablighi Jamaat Markaz as separate from other cases.

However, the AAP has tried to contain this damage by speaking in different voices. For instance, Okhla MLA Amanatullah Khan has been raising his voice on the arrests of Muslims that are taking place as well as the alleged role of BJP leaders in the communal violence. Initially, he even alleged that Tahir Hussain is being victimised as did Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh.

The 'different voices' approach can be seen in Parliament as well.

The AAP voted against the Triple Talaq Bill, UAPA Amendment and the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill. And in all these cases Sanjay Singh led the AAP's charge.

But when the AAP voted with the government on the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, it was another MP, Sushil Gupta, who spoke in the Rajya Sabha. Sanjay Singh went missing as did the sole MP in the Lok Sabha – Bhagwant Mann from Sangrur in Punjab.

On the other hand, someone like Greater Kailash MLA Saurabh Bharadwaj is being projected as a pro-Hindu face, with his organisation of Sunder Kand in his constituency.

What Does AAP Really Stand For?

The AAP's desire to strike a balance in key issues and to speak in multiple voices through different leaders makes it a bit like the Congress. Even in the Congress, there are leaders like Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Milind Deora who praised the move to abrogate Article 370. Similarly, Randeep Singh Surjewala's praised the Supreme Court's verdict on the Ram Temple issue and said that the party was always in favour of its construction.

However, the difference lies in the ability of the top leadership to distance themselves from these positions. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have maintained some degree of credibility among minorities, partly due to their vociferous and consistent condemnation of Hindutva politics.

Kejriwal in that sense appears to be less clear in his positions.

In fact, what has become clear is that Kejriwal is essentially technocratic in his thinking. He seems to prefer dealing with policy issues and considers issues such as communalism vs secularism and caste divisions as “diversions.”

This doesn’t necessarily make him communal or casteist but it makes him a leader who doesn’t consider these issues important enough to stick his neck out for. This can be problematic from the point of view of minorities.

In the political pitching of Kejriwal, the role of Prashant Kishor is important. Once Modi’s strategist, Kishor fell out with the BJP and began consulting for a number of regional leaders. Here’s how they have positioned themselves:

• Nitish Kumar: Won with the support of RJD and Congress but joined hands with the BJP. Kumar and Kishor have fallen out since last year.
• Captain Amarinder Singh: Has remained anti-BJP but is hawkish on matters of national security.
• YS Jaganmohan Reddy: Remains independent but supported the BJP on key issues like CAA, Article 370.
• Mamata Banerjee: Kishor has reportedly tried to get her to become more measured and issue-based in her opposition to the BJP.

It does seem that Kishor appears to favour strong regional leaders, who remain independent, but don’t hesitate in backing BJP on key national issues and are less ideological in their opposition. Kejriwal appears to be going in the same direction.