Delhi’s pollution politics: Eloquence, gaffes and the same failed ideas

New Delhi: Arvind Kejriwal’s latest comment on Chief Minister Rekha Gupta’s “temperature” remark on air quality has reopened a familiar debate in Delhi – whether a chief minister’s eloquence is enough to solve people’s problems, or whether it only helps a leader survive longer despite failing to fix basic issues.

The recent controversy began with Gupta’s description of the Air Quality Index (AQI) at the HT Leadership Summit. She linked AQI to “a temperature which can be measured from any instrument”.

It appeared as an attempt to break jargon for ordinary people, but it backfired and turned into a fresh round of ridicule.

Kejriwal posted the clip on X, asking: “When did this new science come about that AQI has now become temperature?”

पहली बात - मुख्यमंत्री जी ने ये तो स्वीकार कर लिया कि जहां-जहां AQI मॉनिटर लगे हैं वहीं पानी का छिड़काव कराया जा रहा है ताकि दिल्ली के लोगों तक प्रदूषण का सच ना पहुंच पाए। यानी आंकड़ों को छुपाकर “हवा साफ़” दिखाने का खेल चल रहा है।

दूसरी बात - ये नया विज्ञान कब आया कि AQI अब… pic.twitter.com/L0DylAsQ3e

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) December 8, 2025

AAP leaders and official handles amplified the video with the now-familiar “pappu CM” tag, presenting it as further proof that Gupta is not up to the job.

This fits a pattern that AAP has followed since losing power in February 2025. The party routinely picks up Gupta’s verbal slips, packages them with memes and captions, and circulates them to reinforce a picture of a foolish and immature chief minister.

However, the same voters who removed Kejriwal from office might not necessarily see the contest as “eloquence versus stupidity”.

Many of those who appeared relieved by his defeat say they are no longer impressed by sharp speeches if they do not lead to results.

Within Delhi’s political circles, Kejriwal is often described as more eloquent than many national leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Over time, he appeared to treat this eloquence almost as a qualification in itself, first for the chief minister’s post and then for a possible prime ministerial role that never materialised.

Critics point out that this skill was frequently used to defend his inaction on key issues. Press conferences and speeches projected small or short-term measures as major breakthroughs. Those who were unconvinced felt their questions were being talked over, not answered.

In that context, some voters now appear to be convinced that they prefer visible gaffes over polished answers.

Gupta’s clumsy sentences are seen by them as a lack of polish, not as an effort to deceive. Kejriwal’s polished sentences, in contrast, are seen as a way of keeping people calm while fundamental problems remain unchanged.

The same contrast runs through the current dispute over water-spraying near AQI monitoring stations.

AAP has been alleging that Gupta’s administration is “artificially lowering” AQI figures by spraying water around the machines to improve readings.

Gupta has said sprinklers and monitoring stations are both placed near pollution hotspots, so their physical proximity is expected.

On method, there is continuity. Under Kejriwal, the Delhi government also relied on targeted sprinklers and mist cannons at hotspots and highlighted these actions in publicity material.

Odd-even schemes, anti-dust drives and publicised “innovative” measures were central to his anti-pollution narrative.

The administrative structure has not changed with the change in chief minister. The same officers and engineers who implemented Kejriwal-era plans are now carrying out directions under Gupta.

This makes it harder for him to claim that techniques he previously showcased as serious interventions have suddenly become instruments of fraud.

This is the basis for the counter-charge from BJP supporters and some officials that Kejriwal knows how such measures can be misused because he had the chance to use them.

In this view, he is now attacking methods that resemble his own earlier approach. The line that “the thief knows best where theft can be done” is a blunt political description of that argument.

Whatever the wording, it was the public, not a rival party, that ultimately removed him in the February election.

None of this means Gupta’s approach is working. In several instances, she has repeated the same ideas that critics say failed under Kejriwal.

Her decision to attempt “artificial rain” in October 2025 is one example.

Reliance on sprinklers and water spray as headline actions falls in the same category. For many residents, these steps appear as surface-level responses that look active but do not address core sources such as farm fires in neighbouring states, vehicle emissions, construction dust and waste burning.

NewsDrum has earlier reported that similar measures during Kejriwal’s tenure pressed the wrong buttons and were not backed by strong work at the source.

Net-net, Gupta risks stepping into the same pattern every time she uses a previously tried-and-tested idea from the Kejriwal years. Each time she repeats a low-impact measure that was already criticised, she strengthens AAP’s claim that she is copying without understanding and adds to her own image problem.

The gap that both leaders have struggled with is not about announcements but about delivery. Kejriwal had almost a decade to push the system on pollution and basic civic services.

The air in peak winter remained hazardous despite repeated campaigns and schemes. Gupta has been in office for a much shorter period, but early signals show the same tendency to choose visible actions first.

There is, however, a structural difference now. The BJP controls the Delhi government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi together.

This gives Gupta more room to align departments and hold the bureaucracy to account. It also removes a layer of conflict that Kejriwal often cited when things did not move.

If she continues to respond to Kejriwal with words while relying on his set of ideas on the ground, she will face the same outcome he did.

Voters who rejected eloquence without delivery are unlikely to reward gaffes without delivery.

To avoid that, she will need to drop the old list of “instant” solutions and focus on what was not attempted seriously earlier: sustained action on waste management, transport planning, industrial emissions and inter-state coordination on stubble burning, backed by a firm grip over the administration in both the Delhi government and MCD.

Delhi’s residents measure leadership not in press statements or social media clips, but in the number of days the city spends in “severe” AQI, the frequency of health complaints, and the basic functioning of roads, drains and public services.

Kejriwal’s eloquence did not change those numbers enough. Gupta’s gaffes will not change them either. The only real difference will come if the current government stops repeating failed experiments and forces the system to act where it did not under her predecessor.