I think [the] desire to see a leaderless movement is one of our follies and speaks about our ideological biases. I don't think there's been any such thing at a "let's change the government" scale and frankly I'd be skeptical if there were, as we wouldn't know exactly who is lurking in the shadows pulling the strings and where it might be led to. Rather, it's the harmful movements like the rise of fiat currency, factory education, rapacious industrialization, crony capitalism, caste system, patriarchy and such that seem to be following the "no one leader" pattern more. In a genuine movement somebody's gotta do the work and individual accountability has value; a movement without clear individual leaders is a movement that won't take any responsibility when it does something wrong.
This came as my comment on a thread here:
Hi this is Vinay & Khushboo, the directors of "An Insignificant Man". Ask us anything!
Do check it out, its a treat for budding documentary film makers as some very intricate details of their experiences have been openly shared here.
I'll add to this : In a real movement, one that arises organically, there will be people who really get in the thick of things and there will be people who don't get so involved, for all sorts of completely plausible reasons ranging from skills matching to having cancer patients at home to care for. There is asymmetry in involvement and that is natural. And there are practical, real life requirements like naming the contact person, defining whose account is to be used, who'll be the spokesperson that the media can invite, etc. And if we follow through with the power=responsibility equation then the reverse also needs to be true. Those who take more responsibility must be accorded more power. Else you leave the movement / initiative open to hijacking by disadvantage-takers. And note: there will ALWAYS be disadvantage-takers, even subconscious ones.
And I say all this along with a self admission : I have been involved in organizing some small events etc where we said it's leaderless, we're all volunteers, etc.. I now see that I wasn't being genuine. Of course there were leaders, and that reality came up whenever a problem or a significant question came up. The people who KNEW how to tackle it, were the leaders. Leadership roles can be fluid, with different people stepping in and out over time, but there definitely was leadership. And my insistence that it was leaderless etc, apart from trying to make a noble impression, only ended up causing confusion through lack of accountability. If there were "just volunteers" then hell yeah there was a "core organising team" directing the volunteers. There was NO problem in having a leader'ed structure and I now feel that I wasted time and efficiency by stating that it was leaderless. And the biggest consequence of the leaderless-ness claim? No one to take things forward, everyone waiting for someone else to take the lead! If I had a penny for each time I've seen that happen, well, I'd have a nice penny collection.
I'd like to re-iterate this point because I think it is very important and has been largely ignored : The TIMING at which YY and PB's complaints erupted displayed an extremely high level of disrespect and disregard for nearly every other active Delhi AAP member's herculean efforts. For me this is equivalent to urinating inside a temple just to piss everyone off.
There's a few more nuanced points about the timing:
1. It co-incided with Modi govt's first union budget release that had several problematic issues which were of national importance. There were other issues too which were simply more important than internal arguments in India's smallest political party if you consider cash-in-bank levels. Even for Delhi, the LG had just started intruding on the state government's turf and some very controversial things like forced occupation of Delhi's ACB by central paramilitary forces that effectively castrated the new Delhi CM's executive powers happened around this same time period. The only thing that could have allowed the central govt to get away with it all was a major distraction that keeps all the news channels and newspapers diverted for a long time and not talking about these more important issues. The AAP split came like a gift from heaven for Modi, and I simply do NOT buy the theory that it was mere co-incidence.
2. The issues that YY and PB brought up, for all their fire and fury, were nothing new. Those complaints were being spoken by several dissenters withing AAP since before the 2014 general elections even. YY himself had then been rubbishing the very things he was suddenly making an issue about now. Because these issues were nothing new, he, of all people, could have easily let the new AAP government's first 100 days and first clashes with LG pass without having to stab people in the back while they were fending off attacks on the front. With more important issues like Budget being present and "hot", if I was in YY's place and live TV cameras were pointed at me during prime time and I was given the mic like he was, I would have used that crucial opportunity to address the nation about things that truly matter. Instead, I saw YY practically following a script and sticking ONLY to the AAP split topic.
So whatever the content of what they were saying, the timing of the AAP breakup is something that has sent up several red flags (excuse the pun) for me. From the BJP's perspective, it was just too perfect to chalk up to blind co-incidence.