Delhi looks little different since 2010: AAP must share some of the blame

Cities that are at the cutting-edge of national development are also, very visibly, the sites of change. Their physical, social, and intellectual infrastructure is transformed in 15 years. If you compare Seoul between 1970 and 1985, or Shanghai between 2010 and 2025, they appear to be two completely different cities. This was also the case, in fact, for Delhi between 1995 and 2010. The Delhi that hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2010 was unrecognisable as the town I arrived in as a kid a decade and a half earlier.

 

Since then, Delhi has stood still. As the city state goes to the polls next month, it is worth reflecting on how the past 15 years have been wasted. Nothing of importance has been built, other than a new complex at what was once Pragati Maidan and some largely cosmetic changes to the Central Vista. Even these are in response to specific demands from the highest levels of the Union government, and do not basically represent a transformation of the average city-dweller’s experience of the capital.

 

This period has also been the period of the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP’s) ascendance in local politics. The Commonwealth Games kicked off the serial winters of protest that we saw in this city between 2011 and 2014, the political movements that birthed the party that then dominated politics at the state level in Delhi.

 

AAP and Arvind Kejriwal must answer the question: How have they transformed the lives of the people of Delhi in this period in power? They must answer this without deflection and transference. Yes, of course, the Union government has made their life difficult. But it has done so for all state governments, many of which have nevertheless been able to work to improve their citizens’ lives. Delhi has been the location of economic and entrepreneurial energy since 2010 at a level unprecedented in its history, surpassing Mumbai and Bengaluru in many ways. How has that been reflected in the city’s urban fabric or its governance? If the answer is “not at all”, then how does AAP justify its very existence today?

 

To be fair, when it first came into power, AAP and Mr Kejriwal did in fact have a different and unique vision for local governance that set them apart from the traditional parties — even if one that was somewhat naive. Mr Kejriwal’s book on “Swaraj” in politics spoke of radical decentralisation as the answer. Some of us, no friends to the anti-corruption movement, nevertheless thought that this component of AAP ideology could make it appealing for an emergent urban middle class in places beyond just Delhi. The promise of new schools with local input and of mohalla clinics seemed to be a genuine implementation of this decentralisation agenda. If implemented properly, it could lead to improvement and accountability at the most local level of the Indian state, the sphere of governance where this country has traditionally been a greater failure than all its peers.

 

But these clinics have not worked as planned. Many are shuttered for lack of staff; others have witnessed a shortage of medicines and other necessities, and have even been the location of fights between residents and employees. Schools do not seem to have been improved to the degree required. Meanwhile, the focus on clinics should not mean that large hospitals are not built, but it seems that has been the major consequence.

 

Neither have new traffic management systems made a difference except, once again, in the areas of central Delhi spruced up for the G20 meetings. Drainage and air quality have gotten steadily worse. If the second is not entirely the Delhi government’s fault — part of the blame must be shouldered by the government of the state of Punjab, which as all know has no connection whatsoever to the government of Delhi — the first certainly is. Existing attempts at restructuring drainage in the city, as planned by IIT Delhi, were abandoned by AAP and new plans and tenders floated. As a consequence, floods in the city have been getting worse every year.

 

Instead, the party has puffed itself up, tried to pretend it is a national player and the Prime Minister’s main Opposition. By doing so, it has just made itself look ridiculous.

 

Nor, in the end, can we defend this government on the basis of its social policies. We cannot say that at least it has a vision of Delhi as a world city — liberal, inclusive, and multicultural. One of their Lok Sabha candidates changed their name, reportedly for fear it sounded too “Christian”. What could be expected, anyway, from a party whose senior leader once led raids against Africans in Delhi?

 

AAP has failed as comprehensively as the anti-corruption movement did. In 15 years, Delhi looks little different, perhaps worse. Without an answer to how it intends to improve the city in the coming years, it is hard to see why it should be re-elected.