AAP Rift Deepens as Saurabh Bharadwaj Targets Raghav Chadha Over ‘Soft PR’ and Parliamentary Conduct
AAP leaders Saurabh Bharadwaj and Anurag Dhanda sharply criticize Raghav Chadha over his parliamentary conduct, accusing him of avoiding key issues and engaging in “soft PR,” following his removal as deputy leader in Rajya Sabha.
In a video posted on X, Bharadwaj delivered a pointed rebuke, stating, “We all are soldiers of Arvind Kejriwal, the Centre doesn't care about soft PR or talking about samosas at airport canteens when bigger issues are at stake.” His remarks underscored growing dissatisfaction within the party regarding Chadha’s parliamentary approach.
Bharadwaj further alleged that Chadha failed to align with the party’s stance on multiple issues in Parliament and distanced himself from collective opposition actions. “Whenever the Opposition staged a walkout in Parliament, you (Chadha) did not participate. You did not raise issues concerning Punjab, from where you are elected, and you hid in a foreign country when former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal was arrested,” he said.
The criticism intensified as AAP national media in-charge Anurag Dhanda also questioned Chadha’s commitment, raising concerns about his willingness to confront the Centre. “In West Bengal, the right to vote is being snatched away. When a proposal against the CEC came up in the House, you (Chadha) refused to sign it,” Dhanda stated on X.
He added that parliamentary speaking time is limited and must be used effectively, contrasting serious national concerns with what he described as trivial discussions. “In Parliament,
we get limited time to speak, and it can be used either to fight for the nation or discuss trivial matters like cheaper samosas at airport canteens,” Dhanda said, accusing Chadha of hesitating to address “real issues” for several years.
The remarks came shortly after Chadha asserted that he was “silenced, not defeated,” a day after being removed as the AAP’s deputy leader in the Rajya Sabha. The sequence of statements highlights escalating tensions within the party’s leadership and raises questions about internal cohesion at a time of heightened political scrutiny.

Comment List