One year after establishing the Aam Aadmi Party (common man’s party), Arvind Kejriwal, a former engineer turned Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and disciple of anti-corruption figure Anne Hazare, has done what until yesterday seemed impossible, not only in India but in the South Asian peninsula. A party, best described as idealists set out to break traditional parliamentary, dynastic political legacies in India, has set the milestone for all South Asian democracies in my opinion. For the past year, since its creation, the AAP has run a unique and inflexible campaign overthrowing the traditional notion that money, caste, street and muscle power along with corporate blessings dictate electoral results in modern India. Not only did the AAP challenge the ruling Indian National Congress and its rival Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), but went up against a system in which there is little to no room for idealist experiments. First time candidates defeated sitting chief ministers who have returned to office three times, news reporters defeated candidates who have not lost a single election in 40 plus years. Who were these people? The common man. I cannot recall any political party in the subcontinent, which, during fundraising attempts, set out to raise a goal and refused to accept anything more than they needed while clarifying from day one that all donors, big or small, domestic or international, will be shared in public domains, i.e. their website. Kejriwal and AAP candidates contesting the Delhi Assembly election had pledged that, if elected, none of its members legislative assembly (MLAs), even if one of them were to become chief minister, would take red beacon cars, bungalows or security cover. In doing this, the AAP put idealism over what many would call rational decision making. Many, who look to fund political parties that are anticipated to come to power, expect favours or benefits in return and are against idealist experiments. Especially when they know they are entitled to nothing except a donation receipt. Even if the AAP has fallen short by a few single digit numbers, to attain majority to form state government in Delhi, they have already announced that the mandate bestowed upon them is that of an opposition party, and will not directly or indirectly take the support of any traditional party in either forming government of helping anyone else form government. Whether this party will translate its electoral victory nationally in India remains to be seen. Since most Pakistani media persons and political pundits alike love making comparisons between Pakistan and India in almost all fields, does it make sense to do so with regards to an AAP like movement in Pakistan? I am not a pessimist so I would like to believe otherwise but ground realities in India and Pakistan when it comes to politics are similar yet so different. Movements like the AAP in Pakistan, many will argue, have been recent phenomenon. If Pakistani political culture is to transform at all, which many predicted would happen in the 2013 elections with talk of ‘change’ surrounding the national elections, the model laid out by the AAP must be applied practically and theoretically. While one Pakistani anchorperson has already made the comparison between AAP and Pakistan’s PTI, I do see some similarities between the two, e.g. donations for PTI were collected domestically and internationally but PTI did not list the donors. Unknown personalities of the PTI were awarded party tickets but their clout could not guarantee them the same political influence or results that PTI heavyweights who are career politicians experienced. It is also true that the PTI has sent some first time winning candidates to provincial assemblies as well as the National Assembly. To be fair, the security situation in Pakistan is much different from India. Political crime, domestic crime combined with extremism and terrorism make it almost impossible for aspiring candidates or current parliamentarians to file affidavits like Arvind Kejriwal did, stating that no protocol, houses or security cover would be used by him or his party parliamentarians even if they were to become chief minister. However, why should only tax payers have to bear the burden of security cover for members of our politico? Those who can afford it should pay for their own security if it is really needed. India, despite its majority Hindu population, is a secular state — former presidents have been Muslim, while the current prime minister is Sikh. Many citizens of the country are Muslim and Christian while some practice religion openly and others do not. India has a strong caste system in place, which is deeply rooted in Indian society. Pakistan is primarily an Islamic country where both the president and prime minister must be Muslim. We do not have a caste system in place but, unlike India, our zamindari or feudal system is still very much intact, and since we are primarily an agricultural economy both are strongly interlinked. AAP has emerged as a beacon of hope for those who cherish true democratic practices and symbolism, in my humble opinion, both inside India and outside India as well. Professional non-resident Indians (NRI’S), in the professional world and in the field of education returned to their motherland to join this movement and help contribute to its momentum. The victory of the AAP goes to show that the politics of idealism is still very much alive within India and in the subcontinent. Will this commendable idealism have a domino effect in the region or the subcontinent? I can only hope so. The author is a freelance columnist