Arvind sometimes wrong… need people who can stand up to him: Prashant Bhushan

All that I can say is that I think the volunteers, the supporters and well-wishers of the party wanted a different kind of resolution, and they wanted to see a united party, and the manner in which the decision was taken has disappointed a lot of them.

Kumar Vishwas came out and announced the decision removing you from the PAC, but prefaced it by saying “we are all united”. How do you move towards unity from here?

See, I’ve been raising concerns in the party about some derailment from its original founding principles of transparency, accountability, inner-party democracy and swaraj which were detailed in a letter that I had written to the national executive, and also a joint letter Yogendra Yadav and I had written. And we had also outlined the corrective steps necessary to ensure the party doesn’t stray too far from its principles… What has happened is that the manner of the decision yesterday has at least created a perception among volunteers that the party is not united.

Also read: ‘Kejriwal insisted Yadav, Bhushan should be out’

When you say manner, you mean?

The decision to remove us from the PAC. I have been telling Arvind for a long time now that though he has some very, very outstanding and remarkable qualities, he also has some weaknesses which he recognises. I have told him that one of the weaknesses is that he wants to take unilateral decisions. While most of his decisions are correct, occasionally they may also be wrong. And while I defer to his political judgement usually, occasionally when I very strongly feel that it is wrong, I differ from it.

[related-post]

For example, the decision to try and form the government again in Delhi after the Lok Sabha elections with Congress support was one such decision with which I disagreed very strongly, which if taken could have been disastrous for the party. Therefore, I have been telling him that it is essential that our decision-making bodies and structures must be broad-based and should consist of a number of people with independent views and who can stand up to Arvind and tell him that this decision is wrong. And that would be one way of ensuring that there is no unilateral decision-making in the party. Unfortunately, yesterday’s decision does not go in that direction. So that’s why it has led to a lot of disappointment in the volunteers and workers of the party.

Also read: They were given choice to quit, they insisted vote us out  

Has there been a breakdown in communication? Have you tried to call Kejriwal?

There has been a breakdown in communication unfortunately and I am also perhaps to blame for that. We have not spoken to each other for a long time. However, I did try to have a one-to-one meeting with him and I sent him a message about that the day before yesterday but unfortunately there wasn’t any response. Communication certainly must improve and that’s what Admiral Ramdas has also written in his letter.

In your letter, you wrote about institutional mechanisms the party needed to have and said it would have in its constitution. In this national executive meeting, did that come up at all?

Unfortunately, there seemed to be a greater urgency and need in these two national executive meetings to discuss only the constitution of the PAC or our removal from the PAC rather than addressing those institutional reform issues we had raised in our letters. Some of them were peripherally touched, such as setting up of a mechanism to investigate the two crore cheques to strengthen the system to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. Or to investigate this candidate from whose godown some liquor was found.

That was discussed?

Briefly, yes.

In August 2014, an AAP member recorded a journalist saying that Yogendra Yadav had given her information on a story, and used that to say he was damaging the party. What is your take on that?

Well, Yogendra Yadav has said this matter can be referred to the party’s Lokpal for investigation. I just want to say that even in that report in The Hindu about which this recording has come, there were certain things that were quite serious about violation of the decisions of the national executive by the party leadership. To my mind, those issues are more serious than the issues about whether and how this thing came to be reported, etc. I think gradually, from a time when we used to project ourselves as a transparent party… we have come to a situation where we have become afraid of transparency. In the last election, we were not even willing to share information even within the PAC, even to PAC members, about the names and bio-data of the candidates for fear it might leak out. Therefore, I think we have to address the substantive issues rather than the issues of about how information of the party has leaked out.

Also read: AAP’s claim of ‘party with a difference’ had fallen flat, say rivals

The decision to oust you was not unanimous (11-8). What do you say to those who believe the PAC would work better without you and Yogendra Yadav?

See, disagreement, even vehement disagreement, cannot be seen as such a problem that makes the functioning of a committee or a team difficult. Especially in a political party, it is essential to have independent-minded and robust people who can disagree, even strongly disagree, on issues and decisions and who can yet sit together and either evolve a consensus or take decisions by the majority.

There is one section that says Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan have been working against Arvind Kejriwal as national convener. What is your response to that?

Arvind is clearly the preeminent leader in the party. He is the great mass leader in the party and as I said he has a large number of very remarkable qualities, including his courage and his boldness. As far as I am concerned, and as far as I know Yogendra Yadav is concerned, there has never been any thought in our mind that he needs to be replaced as the preeminent leader of the party. My father did express a view, which was his personal view, that he feels that while Arvind is a great mass leader, as far as organisational skills are concerned he felt that Yogendra Yadav would be better.

He felt that the organisational control over the party should be with Yogendra Yadav and that Arvind should be the main mass leader and the face of the party. But those are his personal views. But maybe a perception arose on account of his expressing his personal views that we were trying to replace Arvind as the convener of the party and make Yogendra Yadav convener of the party. But as far as Yogendra Yadav and I are concerned, we never entertained any such views or expressed any such views, or did anything that would strengthen that perception.

Until Wednesday, party supporters had hoped there would be some form of resolution. But the perception now is perhaps even stronger that the AAP is divided. What would you like to tell AAP members?

My message would be that all leaders of the party should take a deep breath and introspect. Introspect about the founding principles and ideals on which this party was built. What was the idealism on which so many lakhs of people came out, left their jobs, gave so much time, effort and money in order to build and create this party? Think of those volunteers. Think of their idealism and seriously introspect as to where we are going, what we are doing, and whether we are allowing our egos to come in the way of what the volunteers want us to do, what the volunteers want us to be, what the volunteers want this party to be. That would be my message.

What is your future is the party? Do you still want to be part of it?

I certainly am and want to be part of this party. A lot of the volunteers and founding members of the party want me there in order to ensure that the party… See, I see my role in the party primarily, apart from being a legal adviser etc, primarily as a person who does whatever I can, uses whatever moral or other authority that I have to keep the party true to its founding principles. I still hope and expect that the party will recover the ground that it has lost and remain true to its founding principles and will not disappoint the volunteers and those who founded the party.

Because this party has come to represent the hopes and aspirations of a lot of people in the country who want to see an alternative kind of politics, who see the conventional politics of other kind of parties which have descended to using all kinds of unethical means with money, liquor etc, who have descended to high command culture etc. They want us to be a different political party and I still hope and expect that the party will come back on track and will continue to be the vehicle of what the people want it to be.

And you will continue to stay?

Yes.