AAP’s Ashutosh Defends Sandeep Kumar, but Leaves Us All Confused

The article reads like it’s going to explain why AAP punished its man, but we never get the answer to that.

AAP’s Sandeep Kumar (L) and Ashutosh (R). (Photo: The Quint)

Delhi’s Minister of Women and Child Development, Sandeep Kumar, has been “exposed”, humiliated and sacked from his post, all in the course of one day.

A nine-minute-video showing Kumar in “a compromising position with two women,” led to his fate.

His crime? Well, all of us have been wondering that, including AAP’s Ashutosh himself.

In an article for NDTV.com titled‘The Sex Was Consensual, Private Act. Why AAP Punished Its Man,’ Ashutosh makes a humbling attempt to exonerate Kumar. He makes a case against the “moral outrage” over his “sex tapes”, buttressing his piece with the whole ‘sex is a natural thing’ argument.

Also Read: Mr Kejriwal, Stop Slut Shaming Sandeep Kumar?

“The video clearly establishes that both individuals knew each other and consented to sex in a private space away from the public glare. The question then is that if two consenting adults are physically involved with each other, is it a crime? Is it editorially justified that this becomes a headline in newspapers and TV channels?”

The narrative lays bare the social hypocrisy of treating a sexual act as something morally corrupting, demeaning, or worse, worthy of getting someone dismissed from his job.

“He is not seeking any sexual favour for any obligation. He has not pressured her to get in the act. It’s not rape. It’s a case of two adults with their consent indulging in sex. Then why should this sex video be discussed at all? Why should it be made public? Why should it be linked to the character of the man and the party? Why should it create headlines? What wrong has the man done?”

Ashutosh’s arguments make complete sense, justified even. The fact that Kumar is a public figure does not in anyway necessitate hauling him over, well, the “natural” act of physical consummation. He, is, after all, an aam aadmi (pun intended) like any of us

“So whatever Sandeep Kumar has done in private, without inviting any complaints from his partner: should it create ripples in the media and in politics?”

Ashutosh carefully delves into examples from the past where a male leader’s sexual involvement have not had any ramifications in his political life. It’s clear, that by drawing these examples, Ashutosh’s is strengthening his case for Kumar.

Indian history is full of examples of our leaders and heroes who had lived with their desires beyond social boundaries. Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru’s reported affairs with many female colleagues were juicy gossip, but it didn’t spoil his political career. His relationship with Edwina Mountbatten is widely discussed. The entire world knew about it. Their affections continued till Pt Nehru’s last breath. Was it a sin?

And finally, Ashutosh exposes the media’s “hypocrisy” and “hollowness” in capitalising on Kumar’s sex tapes.

“As a puzzled individual may I ask why the SEX VIDEO of two consenting adults should grab headlines of the day and why should it be debated on TV channels? If it is a sin and a certificate for characterless-ness, then the role of all the above great leaders in history should also be re-assessed and reevaluated.”

While one can debate over the merits of television channels airing the video on air, Ashutosh’s last few lines in the article have left us terribly confused.

“As a novice, I can only say that it is easy to trash AAP, but difficult to point fingers at these gentlemen because they were very powerful people. AAP can be attacked and insulted because we are small and toddlers in politics. But may I tell you it is always the toddler who changes the course of time and history.”

How does the fact that the party is new in politics related to it sacking a minister for something the leader himself believes is a “natural” act?

The contents of the entire article indicate that Ashutosh stands in solidarity with Kumar, but the sense of backtracking towards the end is a bit problematic.

And most of the criticism against the party in view of this incident is in consonance with the outrageously moralistic stance taken against the minister. Delhi’s Chief Minister not only thinks the act is “objectionable”, but also terms it something that does not fulfill the party’s definition of “propriety.”

Somehow, in this implicit support for the party’s actions, the leader becomes complicit in their doings, which obviously deflates his entire case for Kumar.

Also, the title of the article seems like it’s going to explain ‘why AAP punished its man.’ We never got the answer to that.

(With inputs from NDTV.)