The Credentials-Contempt Paradox
Arvind Kejriwal, an IIT alumnus, former IRS officer, and Magsaysay Award winner, embodies the archetype of the "educated reformer." Yet, his political career has been met with unparalleled vitriol, often disproportionate to his policy failures or successes. To understand this animosity, we must disentangle it from his credentials and instead interrogate the societal structures that breed such contempt. Noam Chomsky once remarked, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." Kejriwal's vilification reflects not just political rivalry but a deeper crisis: a society grappling with systemic inequality, unfulfilled promises of meritocracy, and the weaponization of disillusionment.
The Mirage of Education in an Unequal System
India's education-jobs paradox is stark. While the country produces over 2.6 million STEM graduates annually, only 46% find employment in formal sectors (NSSO, 2022). PhD holders, once revered, now face unemployment rates of 12%, with many driving taxis or working in call centers (AISHE Report, 2021). This dissonance fuels rage against symbols of "elite success" like Kejriwal. His credentials, rather than being celebrated, become a lightning rod for collective frustration. As Chomsky notes, "When you trap people in a system of inequality, they don't attack the system; they attack each other."
Kejriwal's rise via the 2011 anti-corruption movement promised systemic change. But when structural barriers—caste, nepotism, crony capitalism—persisted, his inability to dismantle them overnight transformed him from a hero to a hypocrite in public eyes. The anger is less about him and more about the betrayal of the meritocratic myth: "If even an IITian can't fix this, what hope do we have?"
Ambedkar's Shadow: Caste, Credentials, and Contested Modernity
The comparison to B.R. Ambedkar is instructive. Despite his monumental contributions, Ambedkar faced vitriol for challenging Brahmanical hegemony. His education at Columbia University and the London School of Economics did not shield him from casteist slurs; it amplified them. As Anand Teltumbde writes, "The oppressed who ascend the ladder are resented not for their failures, but for their audacity to climb."
Kejriwal, though upper-caste, disrupts a different hierarchy: the nexus of political and corporate power. His advocacy for transparency (via RTI) and critiques of privatization threaten elites who equate neoliberalism with "progress." The hatred he incites mirrors the backlash against Ambedkar—a systemic intolerance for those who question entrenched power.
Manufactured Consent and the Media's Invisible Hand
Chomsky's "manufacturing consent" theory elucidates how media shapes public perception. Kejriwal's portrayal as an "anarchist" or "unstable outsider" is not accidental. A 2020 study by the Centre for Media Studies found that 68% of prime-time debates on national channels framed him negatively, often focusing on personality over policy. When he proposed subsidized electricity and healthcare, headlines sneered, "Freebies or Reforms?"—a false dichotomy that obscures structural critique.
Meanwhile, his opponents—many with corruption charges or dynastic ties—receive softer scrutiny. This asymmetry reflects what Chomsky calls "the Orwellian principle: obfuscate the powerful, demonize the critic." Social media amplifies this, with bots and trolls (40% of anti-Kejriwal tweets in 2022 were from duplicate accounts, per EU DisinfoLab) weaponizing disinformation. The goal? To fracture his base of urban poor and aspirational middle class.
The Neoliberal Betrayal and the Crisis of Agency
India's neoliberal turn since the 1990s promised prosperity but delivered precariousness. Privatization gutted public services, forcing families into debt for education and healthcare. Kejriwal's policies—free clinics, school upgrades—directly confront this crisis. Yet, they're dismissed as "populism," a term elites use to delegitimize redistribution. Economist Prabhat Patnaik argues, "Neoliberalism discredits the state's role in welfare, then vilifies those who try to restore it."
Herein lies the crux: Kejriwal's hatred stems from his refusal to accept the neoliberal script. When he allocates 25% of Delhi's budget to education (versus the national average of 10%), he challenges the narrative that privatization is inevitable. This provokes backlash from those invested in the status quo—corporations, media barons, and rival politicians. As Arundhati Roy notes, "In India, the moment you speak truth to power, you're branded a traitor, a lunatic, or both."
The PhD vs. Job Crisis: A Generation's Anguish
The dissonance between educational attainment and employment is central. India has 1.1 million PhD scholars, yet only 14% secure stable academic posts (UGC, 2023). This "overqualified poor" cohort, steeped in debt and despair, views Kejriwal's credentials with ambivalence. His degrees symbolize a system that rewarded him but fails them. When he critiques the BJP's Agnipath scheme or Congress's agrarian neglect, it resonates—but when his own government can't generate jobs, the disillusionment festers.
This mirrors a global trend where educated youth, denied agency, radicalize against symbols of authority. As David Graeber wrote, "The system brands failure as personal, not structural—so the angry turn on the nearest target." Kejriwal becomes that target, a scapegoat for a broken promise: education as liberation.
The 2025 Delhi Assembly Election Defeat
In the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won 48 out of 70 seats, returning to power in the Union territory of Delhi after 27 years. The incumbent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which had been in power for the previous ten years, lost the election, with several prominent leaders, including national convener Arvind Kejriwal, losing their seats.
This defeat underscores the complex dynamics of public perception and the challenges faced by reformist leaders. Despite significant investments in education and healthcare, the AAP's inability to address systemic issues and generate sufficient employment opportunities contributed to public disillusionment. The electorate's frustration with unfulfilled promises and persistent structural barriers manifested in a decisive electoral loss.
The Fire Next Time
Kejriwal's hatred is not an anomaly but a symptom. It reflects a society where education's promise collides with capitalism's cruelties, where reformers are punished for exposing systemic rot. Ambedkar foresaw this, writing, "Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.