Why we're suckers for Jung versus Kejriwal

You have to agree: whatever is going on between Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lieutenant-Governor Najeeb Jung is much more exciting than, say, Bombay Velvet, the IPL or even PM Modi’s trips around the world.

Ideally, the Kejriwal-Jung face-off should disgust all of us. Whatever they are fighting over, in real terms it will translate into a mismanaged, ungoverned capital. Delhi lost a lot of shine under L-G Najeeb Jung’s rule. And as for Kejriwal, the last time he engaged in a fight (ironically, with those who wield real brooms) the city ended up with mounds of rotting garbage and unbearable stink. That’s just a month-old memory. Ideally, we should ask both men to disappear for a while, settle their scores privately and then come back to govern the city as it should be.

Yet, the more they fight, the more we find it impossible to look away. The reason is simple and complex. Celebrity roast is the new cool. And when two well-known people decide to "roast" each other publicly — we all end up having a good time, even if there are not too many witty one-liners. Ok. At least, it’s a bit like watching WWE on TV.

And Delhi has always liked WWE in politics. Not just today, this millennium or the last century. But for thousands of years, Delhi has survived and thrived through messy court intrigues, political backstabbing, power games between freebooting warlords and the great nobles. And it has all been — just like Kejriwal and Jung’s turf-war — over legitimacy. Except for those years when exceptionally powerful emperors like Akbar held sway, Delhi elites generally pushed, shoved, bulldozed and killed their way up: to “kiss the threshold” of the throne. There were always too many claimants to ultimate power.

Take Delhi’s high aristocracy during the Lodi dynasty. They could not accept the idea of one great power centre. The royals were reminded again and again that they should share power. Bahlul Lodi, who did not even bother to build a throne, had a fairly peaceful time. His son Sikandar was not so generous, but he was smart enough to keep the aristocrats happy. But his son and the last Lodi sultan, Ibrahim, was hopelessly arrogant and inefficient. Babur did not invade Delhi in a fit of fancy. Nobles, who did not like the rules of Ibrahim’s game, lobbied actively for his removal.

I don’t know if a democracy allows this or not. But like the ulemas of the past, lawyers today are busy interpreting questions of legitimacy — CM or Lt Governor? There is intense power-play between the bureaucracy and the CM, with the L-G actively trying to share more power.

If lessons of history mean anything, Kejriwal will change the game only if he manages to replace his current set of court elites with others loyal to him. Perhaps, that’s what he is trying to do?