Democratically speaking, it does not seem appropriate for the new chief minister of Delhi to state that only Arvind Kejriwal can sit on the chair of chief minister she has kept vacant. Ethically, she cannot speak on behalf of the entire Delhi electorate. Rather than take over office by sitting on the chief minister’s chair, Atishi has kept it vacant and has chosen to use another chair placed next to it to officiate as the chief minister. Interestingly, the chair selected by her or perhaps for her is white in color. One is tempted to deliberate on whether this color has been purposely chosen to project her image as a clean one, untainted by any charges placed against her. The same cannot be said about Kejriwal, who has resigned from his position as the chief minister, and handed over the charge to Atishi.
Explaining her decision not to sit on what is supposed to be officially chief minister’s chair, in addition to stating that it was kept unoccupied for Kejriwal, who’d return to it after Delhi Assembly elections, Atishi went on to compare her role with that of Bharat from Ramayana. Symbolically, as the Ramayana states, when Hindu Lord Rama was send for a 14-year exile to forest, that is vanvas, Bharat placed his sandals on the throne and did not sit on it, though he officiated as the king while his elder brother was in exile.
Comparing Delhi with Ayodhya, Atishi stated that she was doing what Bharat did when Rama was in exile. Delhi is not a kingdom, neither is the chief minister’s chair a throne. In her opinion, Kejriwal may be a Lord-like figure but the same cannot be said about what voters think about him. Nobody can object to her regarding him as Rama in her personal life if she really considers Kejriwal as such but she cannot impose him as such on rest of the Delhi state. Delhi is not Ayodhya.
Besides, Kejriwal has not shown any inclination of heading for a 14-year or even a four-day exile in any forest. He has made his demand for an official accommodation fairly loudly and also vehemently. Nor has he been forced into any exile by anyone. His decision to quit the chief ministerial position is his own based on apparently certain political strategies he hopes will turn electoral results in his favor.
One wonders whether Atishi appears to have elevated him almost to a God-like status out of her own choice or has been doctored into doing so. The latter point holds greater credibility. This leaves no doubt about not just “religious” agenda, targeted towards winning votes, of probably Kejriwal’s strategic aims but also his apparent desire to elevate his “status” in people’s mind. He seems keen, rather politically desperate, to be viewed and supported as people’s Rama. He is certainly chasing a mirage. Notwithstanding all religious moves exercised by BJP leaders linked with Ayodhya and their gods, they have primarily limited their role to being their bhakts, that is devotees. They, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi seem to have shown no sign of being considered as “Rama” by masses.
Kejriwal-politicking, apparently propelled by Kejriwal-ego, seems to being going a little too overboard on this front. Of course, chances of his giving explanations or perhaps even keeping quiet that he has no role to play in this drama cannot be ignored. But that of Atishi projecting him as such stands out quite blatantly. Well, she can consider herself or is made to do so as strong a Kejriwal-bhakt as possible, the same cannot be imposed upon others in a secular, democratic republic. If she considers herself as Bharat, with the chair left vacant for Kejriwal as former did for his elder brother, it is certainly equivalent to Atishi projecting herself as Kejriwal-bhakt just as Bharat did as Ram-bhakt. He placed his elder brother’s sandals on the throne. At least, Atishi has refrained from placing any symbolic item linked with Kejriwal’s image- whether his muffler or Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) symbol- the broom. Perhaps, this option was considered but rejected.
There is a difference between Atishi projecting herself symbolically as Bharat, Delhi as Ayodhya, the chief ministerial chair as throne left vacant for Kejriwal and her being sworn in constitutionally as the chief minister. Legally and formally, she’d still be addressed as Delhi chief minister. Delhi remains Delhi. Democratically, Delhi state government shall continue to be headed by Atishi as chief minister till she chooses to quit office, Delhi Assembly is dissolved at the time of scheduled elections or for some other reason. Whoever perceived the idea of keeping chief ministerial chair vacant along with explanations- linked with Ramayana- as put forward by Atishi was probably guided by perception that religious-card will help Kejriwal return to power with a massive majority. In other words, this is certainly an attempt to tap on religious sentiments of voters.
Certainly, Indians are quite religious. But to assume that their electoral calculations are still guided by politicians’ religious strategies is equivalent to misunderstanding them. If this was the reality, BJP’s Ayodhya-card would have helped it win at least a majority in recent parliamentary elections. It did not. Rather, nowadays, when politicians go overboard in exercising religious cards, particularly when elections are about to take place, it doesn’t take long for voters to view the same as nothing else but a part of their campaign. Kejriwal is probably trying his hand at a bigger plan than this. One may draw attention to his having commented recently regarding Modi’s resignation owing to his age. Considering that BJP is heading an alliance, the possibility of it losing power before the term is over cannot be sidelined. Kejriwal has apparently started trying his hand at religious cards which may help him if and when this happens. Politically and electorally, at the national level, he still has a long way to go. Nevertheless, he is hopeful, that symbolic images of the chief ministerial chair kept vacant for him and this being linked with Ramayana may perhaps help cleanse his image of the charges levied against him electorally in the voters’ perception. This attempt has certainly been begun by Atishi. But she hardly looks like any character from Ramayana. Nor does the chair look like a throne. She can be considered a Kejriwal-bhakt but that’s it. Chances of this “religious” card having any major electoral impact may be dismissed or at most be viewed as another side of Kejriwal-ego, which has been floated, but like a balloon can’t be expected to stay afloat for too long. Last but not the least: – one got the impression that Kejriwal preferred the image of a common man as suggested by his party’s name- Aam Aadmi Party, that is common man’s party. Where does the throne or even the chief ministerial chair fit in here?
Nilofar Suhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialization in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy. She has come out with several books. These include:– Modi’s Victory, A Lesson for the Congress…? (2019); Arab Spring, Not Just a Mirage! (2019), Image and Substance, Modi’s First Year in Office (2015) and Ayodhya Without the Communal Stamp, In the Name of Indian Secularism (2006).
