AAP issue Part 1

Dear AAPians,

This part of my blog is about on going issue about the removal of PB and YY from PAC. This decision has suddenly gave birth to 2 separate camps among the volunteers, pro and against AK. Whatever information is available as of today, I am basing my views on those facts.

First I would like to address the group of people who disagree with this decision and have come to the conclusion that this is a case of one person acting as a Supremo or Dictator, who is not able to digest power and position.

1] It seems that the clash of ideas, lack of trust and disagreement had started during LS election campaign and its ticket distribution up to the results of Delhi 2015 elections, so it is wrong to say that AK has suddenly become undemocratic and misusing his power since we have won and he has won the popular vote to become CM.

2] Labeling AK as a Supremo is unfair. One must understand that removal of 2 members from PAC was done by voting where 8 people voted against the removal. According to MG’s blog, AK did offer to resign from the post of Convener since he did not want YY and PB to be part of PAC due to their lack of co-ordination and understanding to work together. It was up to rest of the members to ¬†accept his resignation and nominate another name to be a Convener BUT most of them preferred to have AK continue as a Convener due to their continuous faith and belief in him. Even MG suggested that YY and PB should NOT continue as PAC members, it is a different matter that he disagreed with the voting approach.

3] YY and PB still maintains their membership in NE committee. They have publicly assured to continue working within the party and move on. Of course, remaining in PAC is not their sole purpose of joining this party.

4] It seems decision of removal is taken based on their conduct of last 12 months as PAC members,after getting feedback and opinion from at least Haryana, Punjab, Bihar and Delhi AAP units.

5] It is premature to assume that PAC members were not aware of the backlash and opposition this decision of sacking YY and PB would create in media and volunteers, there might be a solid reason and evidence for them to take this risk in the interest of the party and its future functioning, at least for PAC matters.

6] Above all we have heard the story from one side only, once remaining members of PAC or AK himself makes a public announcement and clarifies their reason behind this step everybody would be in a better position and well informed to judge this whole episode. Then it would be correct for us to make a judgement.

Now for people who are in support of this decision and agrees with what all happened:

1] We see the punishment given to YY and PB but yet to see actual charges against them and credible proofs proving those charges, nothing is out in open for us to accept this decision.

2] If the most serious charge against them is working to remove AK from Convener, working to promote their stature and reach in the party, accusation of leaking letters and notes in the media, these charges does not amount to any activity against the interest of party or its future. Any member trying or working to replace AK as a Convener should not be labeled as anti AAP or indulging into anti party activity.

3] Inner Democracy, different kind of politics, equal opportunity, all these means every member has a right to promote his/her name for the highest post in the party. Having a negative opinion about the most popular leader of the party should not be considered as a threat, not having party’s interest at heart or being ambitious. It is a democratic right for every member of the party to advocate and promote the case, cause, person and opinion of their choice within the party. Let everyone see this exercise, let supporters, volunteers, well wishers, all of us see what exactly that person is doing and how.

4] Any member coming out in open during press conference or an interview with the meeting details, letters exchanged should not be punished for doing so [ as long as there is no strategic matter or matter which party has already agreed and decided to publish anyways] How will lakhs of volunteers know what all is going on in the party if meeting details and views of PAC or NE members are not published regularly?

5] Silence of AK and his absence in this meeting did not help at all. At least there should have been a statement in regards to the reason of his absence before the meeting started.

Hope we get to see facts and evidence used so far to remove them so every volunteer and supporter who disagrees with this removal and its entire process will continue to believe and support the party and its leaders as they have been doing, if they find the basis and evidence credible enough.