THROUGHOUT THE campaign for the assembly elections in Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party had steered clear of the debate on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. Asked about the protests against the controversial legislation, the trite response was that the police was under Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s command.
Ironically, barely a week after Kejriwal was reelected as Delhi chief minister, his government found itself in a sticky situation, as simmering tensions boiled over and fuelled violent clashes between the pro- and anti-CAA camps. The AAP leadership soon realised that the argument that the police was not in its control will not wash, and that the violence would blemish its reputation. In the run-up to the polls, liberal-minded people had criticised Kejriwal for not taking a clear stand on the CAA issue. Now, in the midst of violence, the state government began to face questions about what it was doing to calm the capital.
AAP leaders were at pains to explain their proactive steps, even as they attacked Shah and the Union government for failing to take adequate measures to quell the riots. Kejriwal himself undertook a series of measures—meeting MLAs and officials from affected areas, instructing district magistrates to take out peace marches, touring riot-affected areas, and meeting Shah and asking him to increase police presence in violence-hit areas. He also visited hospitals to meet the injured, met the family of the policeman who was shot dead at Chand Bagh, and visited Rajghat with his cabinet colleagues and prayed for peace at the Mahatma Gandhi memorial.
He made a statesman-like appeal for peace, saying, “In the violence, Hindus are dying, Muslims are dying and policemen are dying. Who benefits from this violence? No one. This violent conflict should end.”
The AAP is warding off criticism saying its MLAs and volunteers are alert to the ground situation. “We are monitoring North East Delhi, 24x7,” said Rural Development Minister Gopal Rai. “Our MLAs and volunteers are going to [riot-hit] areas and talking to people.”
The AAP has been stridently attacking the Union government after it was criticised for seeming to agree with Shah’s assessment that the Centre had taken adequate steps to bring the situation under control. “Hindus and Muslims have died; policemen have died,” said Sanjay Singh, AAP leader and Rajya Sabha member. “Shops, houses and religious places are being burned down. Journalists have been beaten up. All this in the national capital, where the law and order comes under the Union home minister.”
He also tried to contrast Kejriwal’s response with Shah’s, saying the Delhi chief minister had not slept since the clashes broke out and has been in constant touch with legislators, party workers, civic bodies and the police. “Amit Shah has to wake up,” said Singh. “He calls an all-party meeting to merely fulfil a formality, while his party leaders like Kapil Mishra openly instigate violence. If a government is elected on the basis of good work, will you instigate riots to spoil it all?”
In a careful balancing act, though, the AAP has stopped short of demanding Shah’s resignation—a big departure from the party’s all-out attacks on the Union government in the past. The intent appears to be to not burn the state government’s bridges with the Centre so early into Kejriwal’s third term as chief minister.
“We do not wish to get into any kind of confrontation with the Centre,” said a senior AAP leader. “We have criticised the Centre where it was required, we have alerted the police whenever we have come to know of incidents, and we have suggested measures to be taken.”
Clearly, the AAP is walking a tightrope to avoid being on the ropes.
