From the earliest ideological split within IAC, when Anna Hazare and Kiran Bedi opposed political entry, to later exits of Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan and several founding organisers, AAP has consistently shed sections of its original leadership core. This pattern continued with resignations and distancing by figures like Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh, Alka Lamba and others, followed by repeated churn in state units of Punjab and Delhi.
The latest departure of Chadha and other MPs represents the most significant parliamentary-level rupture in recent years, especially because it involves sitting Rajya Sabha members simultaneously exiting the party and aligning with a rival national force.
Also Read |Raghav Chadha quits AAP, a party he co-founded with Arvind Kejriwal, to join BJP
AAP began with a rift
The origin of AAP’s internal instability lies in its formation itself. The split within IAC over entering electoral politics created two competing visions at the outset — one favouring continued activist mobilisation and another pushing for formal political participation. This foundational disagreement never fully disappeared. Instead, it resurfaced later in organisational disputes about structure, hierarchy and decision-making. As AAP transitioned rapidly from protest movement to ruling party in Delhi, it had to adopt electoral discipline far more quickly than most political organisations.
That acceleration created early fault lines between founding activists and the emerging leadership structure centred around Kejriwal. These tensions eventually led to the high-profile exit of Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan, widely seen as the first major internal fracture of the party’s ideological base.
Also Read | AAP slams BJP’s ‘Operation Lotus’ as Raghav Chadha and 6 other Rajya Sabha MPs defect to saffron party
Why everyone leaves Arvind Kejriwal
As AAP matured electorally, especially after its strong performance in Delhi, the party’s structure became more centralised. Decision-making increasingly concentrated within a narrow leadership circle, with strategic, electoral and organisational issues tightly controlled by Kejriwal. While this helped AAP maintain coherence and electoral power, it also reduced space for internal dissent. Leaders who once operated in a consensus-driven movement framework increasingly found themselves in a command-driven political organisation.
This shift is repeatedly reflected in departures over the years. Leaders who left often cited loss of internal democracy, limited consultation or ideological drift from the founding ethos. Even when resignations were formally attributed to personal reasons, they often followed periods of visible internal disagreement or marginalisation.
A consistent trigger for exits has been electoral ticket distribution. As AAP expanded and became a competitive electoral force beyond Delhi, especially in Punjab and municipal bodies, control over candidate selection became a major source of internal conflict. Denial of tickets or perceived sidelining has repeatedly preceded resignations or open criticism from senior leaders. In many cases, departures have coincided with pre-election reshuffles or organisational restructuring, reinforcing the perception that internal hierarchy is tightly linked to electoral utility.
The recent wave involving parliamentary members follows a similar logic, where internal realignments and leadership disputes reportedly escalated into a public issue.
Another recurring explanation is AAP’s strong personality-centric structure. The party’s identity remains closely associated with Kejriwal, which has helped it maintain a unified public brand but has also limited the development of alternative leadership centres. This system ensures quick decision-making and electoral clarity. But it also creates bottlenecks for ambition and disagreement within the party hierarchy. Over time, this has contributed to periodic exits of prominent leaders who either felt marginalised or disagreed with strategic direction.
The Chadha episode, where removal from parliamentary leadership preceded resignation, shows how roles and internal hierarchy remain tightly controlled and can quickly become flashpoints.
AAP has remained resilient yet fragile
Despite repeated exits, AAP has demonstrated electoral resilience. It has retained strong voter support in key regions and continues to function as a cohesive electoral organisation. Unlike some fragmented regional parties, it has not splintered into competing factions.
However, there is a long-term impact of continuous churn. The party has struggled to institutionalise a deep bench of leadership beyond Kejriwal’s core circle. It also faces recurring questions about internal democracy, succession planning and organisational stability. Each wave of departures reinforces the perception that AAP is internally efficient but dependent on personal leadership of Kejriwal.
AAP’s story is defined by a paradox. It remains electorally stable in key pockets while experiencing repeated internal instability. The exit of Chadha and other MPs is not a sudden anomaly but a continuation of a structural pattern that has existed since the party’s formation. The core challenge for AAP going forward is not merely preventing exits, but reconciling two competing identities of a movement-born organisation that once promised consensus politics and a mature electoral party that relies on centralised control to function effectively. How it manages that contradiction will determine whether future exits remain episodic political events or erode the very organisation.
