That he was an aspiring politician, in spite of his clearly visibly political traits. Then, it sounded more of getting political to deal with the political establishment of the day.

That if he could be the political underdog, if at all, he took a political plunge.

That what sort of politician he would be then.

That what he meant when he talked big of cleansing the prevailing political establishment? We had no idea of the ‘what and how’ this cleansing.

That what he meant by ‘being anti-establishment’?

That how would he define his limits of ‘political untouchability’, like ‘accepting’ support from Congress to form his government in Delhi?

That what was going to be the line for him that would define his pro public stand and would separate it from the irrational ‘populist’ sentiments, often at display in the Indian politics, especially during the elections, as the case now?

That if he could be a team player if he was given the chance to stepping into the shoes of a political activist. A major reason behind the failure of the anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare was absence of a team spirit and Kejriwal was a major factor responsible for it. Even during the peak of the movement, the differences between the Team Anna members were clearly visible.

That what he thought about other vital social issues than political corruption? We were not aware that he would take an electorally populist stand on social evils like the ‘Khap Panchayats’. We had no idea if the politician in Arvind Kejriwal would justify the existence of the ‘Khap Panchayats’ shielding behind the silly argument of Khap’s ‘cultural purpose’.

(..and unfortunately, this list, too, above is an open-list!)

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey – https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/


That he was an activist.

That he had a mindset to set goals and follow them with resolve.

That he been part of some highly commendable social-activism movements.

That he understood the System well when he talked about cleansing it.

That he was ready to go to any extent to sound pro public.

That he had an authoritative mindset.

That he had prominent traits of a politician-next-door.

That he believed in and practiced the politics of symbolism.

That he was an expert in playing with words.

That he was good in planning and strategising but had not performed on team-skills.

(..and the list above is an open-list, fortunately and unfortunately!)

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey – https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/