AAP or BJP, Delhi will see continuity of Sangh parivaar ideology

Arvind Kejriwal’s legacy, far from being a challenge to the BJP, has been one of enabling its long-term dominance.

The popular narrative surrounding recent political developments suggests that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has returned to power in Delhi after a 27-year absence, succeeding the Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). However, a closer look reveals a different story; this is hardly a political transition, but merely a change in nomenclature.

AAP and its leader Arvind Kejriwal have been more aligned with the BJP’s ideological goals than many would care to admit. On critical issues that have defined the BJP’s political identity — the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, the abrogation of Article 370, and the push for a Uniform Civil Code — Kejriwal and his government have stood shoulder to shoulder with the ruling party at the Centre.

While Prime Minister Narendra Modi spearheaded the construction of a grand temple in Ayodhya, Kejriwal’s Delhi government spent an enormous sum to build a large, temporary replica of the temple in the capital. This bizarre initiative allowed Kejriwal, his MLAs, and their families to offer prayers to Ram Lalla. The structure was dismantled after just one day of use, an act as wasteful as it was absurd.

In a move that further highlighted his devotion to the Ayodhya narrative, Kejriwal’s government organised free trips for Delhi’s senior citizens to the temple town, facilitated through a partnership with the railway ministry. While he paid lip service to inclusivity by offering trips to Christian pilgrimage sites like Velankanni, it was clear that Ayodhya held a special place in his political strategy.

Kejriwal was also the first to welcome the BJP’s unprecedented decision to bifurcate Jammu & Kashmir, stripping it of statehood. Even BJP leaders were surprised by his enthusiastic endorsement, given that the move was not featured in the party’s election manifesto. Ironically, AAP itself had long campaigned for full statehood for Delhi, a stark contradiction given its support for reducing J&K to a Union Territory.

Though often reticent on issues like the Uniform Civil Code, Kejriwal’s tacit support for such measures has been evident. Friends of this author who were in the know recall that during the Mandal agitation in the early 1990s, though he was not yet a politician, Kejriwal was opposed to reservations.

When riots erupted in Northeast Delhi, Kejriwal’s response was bewildering. Instead of leading a peace march with his MLAs, he chose to pray at Raj Ghat. His passive approach stood in stark contrast to the proactive measures one might expect from a leader genuinely concerned about communal harmony.

Curiously, Kejriwal did not lament his lack of control over the police to address the riots, but he did express frustration at not being able to forcibly remove the women protesting against the new citizenship law at Shaheen Bagh. Even Home Minister Amit Shah refrained from such a move.

Kejriwal’s symbolic decisions also raised eyebrows. The party removed Mahatma Gandhi’s portrait from his office, replacing it with that of Bhagat Singh. While Singh is undoubtedly a revered figure, the decision to replace Gandhi, rather than display both portraits, spoke volumes.

Further, his Cabinet initially resembled an RSS shakha, devoid of any female representation. When he was jailed, he insisted on retaining the chief minister title despite being unable to conduct meetings or review files. Even when Atishi was appointed as chief minister, Kejriwal’s chair was kept conspicuously vacant.

Kejriwal contested elections despite being fully aware that bail conditions barred him from taking the oath or conducting Cabinet meetings. The charade of contesting under such circumstances only misled the electorate.

Throughout his tenure, it was Delhi’s lieutenant-governor and chief secretary — essentially reporting to Shah — who wielded real power. Kejriwal’s role was often reduced to a symbolic figurehead. This proxy rule by the Centre is unlikely to change with the BJP officially taking over.

One of the key reasons for AAP’s popularity in Delhi was its policy of providing free electricity up to 200 units, water up to 50 kilolitres, and bus rides for women. Interestingly, the BJP has committed to continuing these populist measures, ensuring a seamless transition in governance strategies.

Kejriwal’s supporters had no qualms about voting for AAP in state elections and the BJP in parliamentary polls. This is because the two parties are essentially two faces of the same Sangh parivar coin, united in their visceral hatred for the Congress.

AAP’s strategy of contesting all the seats in Himachal Pradesh, where it had minimal voter support, further exemplified this collaboration. By siphoning off votes from the Congress, AAP inadvertently strengthened the BJP’s position in states like Goa, Gujarat, and Haryana.

In the end, the so-called political shift in Delhi is merely a rebranding exercise. The ideological continuity between AAP and the BJP ensures that the Sangh parivar’s influence remains unbroken in the nation’s capital. Kejriwal’s legacy, far from being a challenge to the BJP, has been one of enabling its long-term dominance .

(A J Philip is a Delhi-based senior journalist.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.