Like a well-used night shelter resting on high tectonic activity, Delhi itself seems to hold few surprises, save for the fact of ceaseless activity below the surface changing its visible form and contours. Its politics is as frequently misread as its weather—as being on the whole derivative. Perceived as a place where 70 per cent of its 160 million citizens regard it with detachment as their ‘karmabhoomi’ and not ‘janmabhoomi’, many believe Delhiites lack a deeper emotional connect with their domicile.
Which is why when Delhi became the laboratory of an audacious political experiment, where heavy doses of idealism reaped electoral dividends in the 2013 assembly elections, many wondered how a city shorn of any mass emotional connect could crave, then reward, idealistic change. Now, the seeds sown by AAP flower across the country, fuelling ambition, sensing opportunity. Some attribute the efflorescence to that one word everyone loves but few understand—change. Yet, many have misunderstood why Delhi rewarded Kejriwal’s experiment.
Caste or religion isn’t a determinant for voters in Delhi; class is. A staple in bigger states, the two factors do not unify or create any bloc big enough in Delhi to be exploited through the politics of victimhood. It’s perhaps the only state where the rich, and the upper, middle and lower middle classes exist in virtually equal numbers. Their one commonality: most of them are migrants to the city, where they pursue the pared-down goal of leading a better, improved life.
Even as migration kept gathering pace through the 1990s, the BJP kept failing to notice ground-level change, yielding ground to the Congress for the next 15 years. It also gave birth to the Congress strategy of creating notional “unifying support blocs” by regularising illegal colonies and slums—‘JJ clusters’ in Delhi bureaucratese. The pitch was simple—‘you were illegal; we’ve made you legal’—a strategy that won votes for the Congress. It gave birth to Sheila Dikshit’s version of swaraj—the Bhaagidari scheme—taken one step further by the AAP’s idea of self-governing mohalla sabhas.
Politics thrives on a sense of victimhood; in Delhi, AAP dichotomised its poll pitch as a battle between an honest ‘us’ and a corrupt ‘them’, comprising the powerful and parties which pander to ‘them’. It concocted a victimhood not rooted in caste or religion, but in lack of access, participation and privilege.
Delhi is electorally misjudged for another reason. The city-state doesn’t just consist of Connaught Place, Jor Bagh, South Extension, Chanakyapuri, Defence Colony or Greater Kailash. Areas like Kapashera, Burari, Nand Nagri, Ambedkar Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Jaffrabad, Seelampur, Badli, Deoli, Rithala and Madipur houses millions of citizens whose needs and aspirations go unheard and undebated. They remain the blind spot in our commentary; areas we don’t wish to see or pretend don’t exist.
Residents in these areas—adding up to significant electoral numbers—mostly work to send remittances back home, and dream of joining the aspirational class. Like most dreams in modern India, they are in a hurry. So, the thought of a cheaper power bill, free water and a cooperative police found ready appeal with them. AAP knew it would be tough for them to bemoan the state of development and infrastructure in Delhi—one of India’s most pampered states. After all, the roads, the Metro, the low-floor buses are there for all to see and use. Arguably, they are amongst the better ones on a comparative nationwide index. They therefore redefined and repackaged shortcomings for their target audience.
The privileged half in Delhi has confirmed western economists’ favoured description—secession of the successful. Gated communities, power back-up, purchased water, access to private healthcare and high comparative incomes insulate them from many daily worries of the less privileged, who look to the government to provide them. The voting patterns of the upper classes are individualistic in some measure. They, too, can vote for instant, perceived benefits, not merely out of ideological convictions.
The hard pitch of immediate promises meant that once in power, AAP would always be judged by the success of their delivery. As we know, 49 days isn’t enough time to decisively alter any landscape in governance. But charges of betraying its impressive mandate by being quitters have hit AAP thick and fast. Disillusionment spreads quickly; as Delhi reaches the last leg of campaigning, idealism fights a losing battle with the disappointment of not getting cheaper power and free water. If AAP faces persistent questions over its sudden exit, they are being harried not only because Delhiites miss the heady experience of a revolution, but because the hopes of material change lie in ruins. A large chunk of Delhi’s electorate was also the beneficiary of the old compromised system; it’s when the arbitrariness of patronage puts them on its wrong side that they feel the injustice of it.
In other states, politics follows different rules. Identity politics becomes a spur to victimhood; in many places, people are comfortable with political legacies and age-old allegiances to an ideology. States have hugely inconsistent development patterns and disconnect between urban and rural parts. Quite unlike Delhi, where the privileged and under-privileged live cheek-by-jowl and use the same infrastructure. In a city-state like Delhi with its very economic logic of cohabitation, it follows that issues of identity are less of a factor. There may be more cars on the roads here. But the disaffection in not being part of the growth story is the same everywhere.
That’s why it must be remembered that Delhi isn’t a lab which allows tests in standard temperature and pressure (STP) conditions. Why, India or even Delhi itself isn’t thinking the way it was in December last year!
Vinay Tewari is the managing editor of CNN-IBN & IBN7
Sheila Dikshit could not have been Delhi’s CM for 15 years only because the residents of posh Chanakyapuri were fond of her (Mind the Quicksand, Apr 14). A lot of good, solid development work has gone into Delhi, of course, helped by massive funds.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
The population of Delhi state which was around 2 million in the fifties has risen to almost 18 million in 2014. A very large proportion of the citizens of the the state is essentially made up of migrants. Many of them do not belong to Delhi by birth - they are settlers, a continued unique feature of Delhi through several centuries. The City State is, in a way, a microcosmic reflection of what is India at large.
Sheila Dikshit could not have been Delhi's CM for fifteen years only because the residents of Chankyapuri were fond of her. A lot of good, solid development work has gone into Delhi, always well endowed with resources. Also, unlike Bombay and Bangalore, its wealth does not sustain the needs of a large rural hinterland.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT