The Rebel's Insecurity Crisis

The Rebel's Insecurity Crisis
Updated on
3 min read

History has shown that when rebels become rulers, they turn into dictators. It is in the nature of the habitual dissenter to question the establishment, or else his own convictions would become meaningless. Delhi’s eternal rebel and maverick Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is no exception. The moral agitationist represents the oppressed little man, who is struggling against a tyrant who is bleeding them dry and uses the state machinery to keep him in a state of subjugation. Without an enemy to fight, the rebel doesn’t have a cause.

What Kejri chose to ignore is that India is a democracy and its establishment is not tyrannical. It functions through rules and regulations, has a bureaucracy to enforce them, a political leadership to regulate them, and parliamentary representation that acts as checks and balances to prevent the country from slipping into chaos and dictatorship. It is ironic that instead of stability, it is the capital of a stable nation that is slipping into anarchy, thanks to the chief minister taking on the Centre and demanding absolute power. From one-party rule, he wants one-man rule. It is undemocratic.

It is important to understand Kejri’s psyche to analyse the parabola conflict. The past year has shown him to be a combination of Don Quixote, Che Guevara and a tinpot dictator of a small banana republic. Above all, he is an exhibitionist. We may deplore the shallowness of the lookist, but rulers are particular about their public image. It’s their way of attaining historic immortality. Churchill’s greatcoat and cigar are signs of carefully cultivated image management, just like Indira Gandhi’s white streak in her hair, Rajiv Gandhi’s cross-shoulder shawl or Modi’s waistcoats. Geuvara’s cap and Mao’s bib-collared tunic are sartorial signs that are meant for the illustrated books section of time’s library. They become symbols of the person. Kejri really needs Rohit Bal or an original tailor to create a public image which showcases  authority. At the risk of sounding facetious, nobody in power would take seriously a man in a white topi who sings songs at swearing-ins. Nobody takes seriously a chief minister who sleeps on Rajpath wrapped in a cheap quilt, locks up bureaucrat’s rooms and dallies with autorickshaw drivers. It’s the age of television. Even a rebel has to get his look right, even if he believes his cause is just.

But Kejri’s cause is only just so. Delhi functioned as a Union Territory first, and now runs as a state. Its chief ministers—many of them including august BJP warriors such as Madan Lal Khurana and Sahib Singh Verma—did not kick up a fuss over the powers the Centre exercises over the capital. Law and order and bureaucratic postings are done by the Central government, acting in harmony with the state administration. The governance of a sensitive city like Delhi, being India’s Ground Zero, cannot be given to an inexperienced and rabble-rousing ruler like Kejriwal. He and his ministers lack the experience or knowhow to counter a deadly terror strike, handle the price mechanism of consumables or enforce anti-corruption laws. His resume is restricted to income tax scrutinies. The chip-on-the-shoulder ethos among various bureaucratic arms is still being carried by Kejri the rebel. Modern Indian history has shown that rebels are not suited to be rulers if they do not come of age as politicians. The Communists, who are history’s original rebels, ruined two states they rule­d—Kerala and West Bengal­—culturally, socially and politically. The Maoists have become extortionists and murderers. A rebel is a destroyer who becomes a tyrant after seizing power. Guevara was a mass murderer. Like Stalin destroyed his critics, Kejri has cleansed AAP of anyone who questioned his authority. The problem with Kejri is that he is paranoid as well as insecure about himself. He doesn’t need to be. He has a mandate he is throwing away—busting the myth of the wisdom of the voter. This current fight against the Centre is a wrestling match of egos, in which the sole victim is the governance of the capital.

ravi@newindianexpress.com

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com