top of page

By:

Anuradha Rao

3 March 2025 at 9:18:19 pm

The Problem with One-Face Politics

From Kanhaiya Kumar to Arvind Kejriwal, Indian politics offers a warning about movements that struggle to grow beyond one dominant face. Watching Abhijeet Dipke rise to prominence recently made me think of Kanhaiya Kumar. Not necessarily because of their politics, but because of a pattern. Kanhaiya did not emerge alone. During the JNU agitation of 2016, Umar Khalid, Shehla Rashid and Anirban Bhattacharya were also prominent voices. Yet one person became the most recognisable electoral...

The Problem with One-Face Politics

From Kanhaiya Kumar to Arvind Kejriwal, Indian politics offers a warning about movements that struggle to grow beyond one dominant face. Watching Abhijeet Dipke rise to prominence recently made me think of Kanhaiya Kumar. Not necessarily because of their politics, but because of a pattern. Kanhaiya did not emerge alone. During the JNU agitation of 2016, Umar Khalid, Shehla Rashid and Anirban Bhattacharya were also prominent voices. Yet one person became the most recognisable electoral political face of that moment. Dipke, too, is part of a movement with other articulate people around him. Yet increasingly, one name travels. That raises three questions for any movement or political party hoping to become a serious electoral alternative. Can the party nurture more than one face? Can those faces make big ideas understandable? Can one of them eventually take over? Similar Patterns Irom Sharmila moved from extraordinary moral authority as an activist into electoral politics, but that authority did not translate into votes. Jaya Prakash Narayan built Lok Satta around governance reform and institutional change, but strong ideas did not translate into large-scale electoral strength. Akhil Gogoi moved from grassroots activism into Raijor Dal and built an electoral presence, but the organisation remains strongly identified with him. Chandrashekhar Azad moved from the Bhim Army to the Azad Samaj Party and then into Parliament. His next test is whether the organisation can grow beyond his own appeal. Then, there is Arvind Kejriwal. India Against Corruption had several formidable names around it: Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan, Kumar Vishwas and others. Yet over time, AAP became overwhelmingly identified with Kejriwal. Politics naturally seeks a protagonist. Charisma, timing and communication matter immensely, as does media attention. The problem arises when the organisation stops looking beyond that face. What happens to the second, third and fourth people? Are they given responsibility? Are they allowed to build their own constituencies? Are they exposed to the public often enough to become independently recognisable? Or does the success of one leader quietly become the ceiling for everyone else? Perhaps, it is far too early to ask this question of Dipke. Perhaps it is too early to ask whether he has a succession plan. We do not yet know clearly whether he even sees his movement becoming a conventional political party, or what shape he ultimately wants it to take. But it is not too early to ask what happens to the talent around him. Succession is a late-stage question. Talent visibility is an early-stage one. A movement reveals something about its future long before it contests an election: through whom it allows to speak, whom it trusts with responsibility, and whether others around the founder are allowed to build their own identities. Succession Woes This is hardly limited to politics. Indian organisations have struggled with the same issue for years. Family-run businesses have a clear succession path. Whether the next generation is always the best choice is another matter, but the direction is obvious. Outside family businesses, the problem is often more glaring. Companies speak endlessly about leadership pipelines, high-potential talent and succession planning. Yet when a long-serving chief executive or founder leaves, boards often find that nobody inside is ready. Was there really no talent, or did the organisation fail to recognise, retain, stretch and give it enough room to grow? That question matters even more today because what we once recognised as talent may no longer be enough. The skills that made someone successful ten years ago may not be the skills needed for the next decade. Politics faces the same problem. Recognising talent is only the beginning. The second challenge is whether that talent can communicate. Yogendra Yadav is a useful example. Few would question his understanding of Indian politics, elections, rural India, or public policy. He brings nuance to issues that deserve it. But nuance has a difficult relationship with electoral politics. A voter should not need a seminar to understand what you are proposing. That does not mean dumbing down ideas. India will need serious thinking on artificial intelligence, jobs, education, agriculture, climate, cities and demographic change. Political leaders will need intellectual depth. But depth must be translated. The real skill is making something simple without making it simplistic. A leader must understand the ten-year problem and explain its relevance in ten seconds. Politics needs intellectual depth in the engine room and clarity on the dashboard. Perhaps this is why one person sometimes races ahead of equally intelligent colleagues. The political star may not be the person with the most sophisticated argument. It may be the person who can make that argument understandable beyond the room. Then comes the third question: can one of them eventually take over? Congress has spent decades responding to criticism that leadership succession repeatedly returns to one family. The BJP faces a very different situation. After more than a decade of Narendra Modi dominating national politics, discussion of who will follow him remains largely speculative. When does a party start preparing for what comes next? Certainly not when the chair becomes vacant. Future leaders need years of preparation before the public. They need to govern, campaign, debate, explain difficult ideas, face criticism, make mistakes, lose occasionally and recover. More importantly, several people need that opportunity. Succession planning should not mean identifying a single successor in advance. It should mean ensuring there are choices. Which brings me back to Dipke. Perhaps the interesting question is not whether he becomes another Kanhaiya Kumar, another Kejriwal, or disappears from public memory. The real test of a political organisation is not whether it discovers a star. It is whether it knows what to do with all the talent standing around the star. (The writer is a learning and development professional. Views personal.)

Beyond the Protest: The Gen-Z Test for Indian Democracy


Ever since the protests at Jantar Mantar over the NEET paper leak, Gen-Z and its zealous outbursts against several issues in society are quickly becoming national headlines. Ranchi saw Gen-Z protesting against irregularities in the functioning of JPSC and JSSC. CJP started the ‘School Thik Karo’ campaign against mismanagement of schools in villages. Even an individual woman tourist in Jammu and Kashmir attempted, single-handedly, to lead a protest against the Indian Army for blocking a road as part of a security protocol.


Wary of the sequence of events at Jantar Mantar and the cross-party mass appeal that the cause of that protest commanded, governments are going out of their way to demonstrate their commitment to addressing issues concerning the youth. Across all major political parties, there is renewed rigour on this count. Initiatives are being taken to reach out to Gen-Z on a large scale through social media as well as by visiting college campuses frequently.


These reactive measures only highlight the fact that such incidents almost always happen because basic processes, which should have been in place and monitored regularly, are routinely violated with no accountability at any level.


Vague Outcomes

As far as the Jantar Mantar protest is concerned, a minister has resigned, FIRs against protesters have been cancelled in most cases, compensation to the families of students who committed suicide has been agreed to ‘in principle’, a task force has been set up to suggest measures to minimise paper leaks in future, and the Supreme Court has set up a committee to look into the violence and alleged excessive use of force by the State.


Given that the recent NEET paper leak happened right at the level of paper-setters, it remains to be seen how much improvement technology-led solutions will bring to the examination process in particular, and what will be done to address issues in the education system at large that go far beyond a paper leak.


In Ranchi, the government has cancelled several past JPSC examinations, as demanded by the protesters. However, this has put a question mark over the employment of candidates who cleared those examinations and are currently in public service.


As a result of a complaint by volunteers of the ‘School Thik Karo’ initiative, the state administration in Maharashtra suspended one school principal over alcoholism; while in Rajasthan, CJP volunteers faced a violent mob, similar to what police faced during the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar.


All of this reveals how far such initiatives can go. They may provide eye-catching headlines and viral reels, but they will not move the needle where it really matters.


Lessons to Be Learnt

There are lessons in all this for several stakeholders in Indian democracy: Gen-Z protesters; the larger society, as a silent supporter that believes in the cause of the protest; opposition parties; and finally, governments and respective ruling parties at the national and state levels.


Gen-Z protesters need to realise that their protests will be constructive and create a positive impact only if they remain within the rule of law. If their own behaviour smacks of the same vices, they will quickly lose that goodwill and support. They also need to differentiate between optics and substantive change.


The silent majority that supported the genuine cause of the protesters will need to carefully assess the means used, and not just the stated end objective. Resorting to mobocracy, anarchy and violence will do no good to anyone. It will have to ask hard questions of those who have been, or currently are, in power.


It will also have to discern hidden political agendas and selective outrage, if any. The reasons for the meteoric rise of the AAP from a protest in Delhi and its subsequent spectacular fall are a lesson in themselves. Legitimate opposition parties, whether at the national level or in different states, need to realise that it was their responsibility to take up such issues proactively and hold the government of the day accountable through constitutional means, right in Parliament and state assemblies.


It is amply clear that they have failed in their duty, thereby ceding their space to other entities to occupy. Having lost that initiative and the first-mover advantage, they need to at least differentiate themselves in the manner and methods used to conduct a protest, instead of simply mimicking the street protests of CJP or any such outfit. Not doing so can only further erode their relevance and make them an also-ran.


Firstly, they need to acknowledge the hitherto downplayed fact that chronic issues faced by the middle class and urban India are as urgent and important as those affecting poor sections of society, farmers and rural India.


Popular schemes that offer direct financial help, a loan waiver or a subsidy are neither a solution nor even an expectation in this case. All that this section of citizens is expecting is good governance, fairness and transparency — which is perhaps a far more difficult ask than directly transferring money into a bank account or giving a loan waiver or subsidy.


Just as with the examination malpractices or the quality of schools that CJP took up, there are several other issues waiting to be tapped by anyone who wants to take that initiative.


Examples are plentiful: pathetic road conditions year after year that result in casualties almost daily without any accountability; rampant encroachments on roads and footpaths to an extent that the Supreme Court has to explicitly say that the right to walk is a fundamental right; the quality of public transport; the quality of government hospitals; mismanagement of traffic on roads, railways and now even in the skies. The list goes on.


All of these will resonate equally with the masses. Although these are chronic issues, they have reached a tipping point.


This systemic decay has happened under the supervision of many opposition parties for a very long period. Hence, they have very little, if any, credibility left to question the party in power or offer solutions.

However, the BJP, or any relatively new party in power, will have to offer credible and sustainable solutions with visible progress that citizens can experience for themselves in their day-to-day lives. While massive infrastructure development, new freeways and metro lines are all important, what lies under that metro line or on both sides of that elevated freeway is no less important.


Secondly, while Gen-Z may push demands that carry better optics and offer instant gratification than systemic and lasting reforms, governments and respective ruling parties need to resist the temptation to readily oblige by taking ad hoc decisions in a hurry.


Cancelling JPSC examinations without giving the matter sufficient thought, or giving amnesty to protesters who blatantly took the law into their own hands, are examples of the latter that should have been avoided.


Although unrelated to Gen-Z protests, it is noteworthy in this context that, just like the cancellation of JPSC exams, even the aggressive drive by the FDA in Maharashtra has attracted strictures and fines from the High Court, even when the cause taken up by the FDA is right.


If governments cannot differentiate optics from systemic reforms, it will amount to the ‘Gen-Z-fication’ of governance itself, which will do more harm than good.


Thirdly, considering the complexity of these issues and the equally complex, time-consuming solutions they call for, action on the ground will need to be backed by clear communication.


Gen-Z, and citizens at large, need to understand that even with the best efforts, nothing can be one hundred percent flawless. Without such communication and mass sensitisation on this point, vested interests can always question the entire system at any time, irrespective of the improvement taking place.


Gen-Z protests have shown the mirror to several stakeholders in our democracy. All those stakeholders need to look into that mirror, learn their lessons and initiate the change that it calls for. After all, as it is often said, the best way to change the system is to be the change that one wants to see.


(The writer has worked in the Information Technology sector. Views personal.) 

Comments

bottom of page