A bitter internal feud in the Aam Aadmi Party has escalated dramatically after former AAP Haryana president Naveen Jaihind alleged that party MP Raghav Chadha was physically assaulted, even being “made to stand like a rooster,” in two separate locations linked to the party’s leadership. Jaihind, speaking to a news agency, claimed that Chadha was first beaten in Delhi and later attacked in a “secret mansion” in Chandigarh, describing the dispute as being about money “extorted” from Delhi and Punjab rather than ideology.
What Jaihind is alleging
Jaihind claimed that Chadha, whom he called Arvind Kejriwal’s “maaldaar” (wealthy) and “raazdaar” (confidant), was involved in a financial dispute over funds that were allegedly meant to go to Singapore but were instead sent to London. He asserted that the alleged assault in Delhi and the subsequent beating in the Chandigarh mansion were part of pressure tactics connected to this alleged money trail. The “stand like a rooster” phrasing has become a viral hook in the narrative, symbolising a humiliating form of punishment, though no independent‑source evidence has yet emerged to substantiate the physical‑abuse claims.
Context: Chadha’s fall from favour
The allegations have surfaced amid a sharp rupture between Chadha and the AAP top brass. Just days earlier, the party removed him from the post of deputy leader of the AAP’s Rajya Sabha group, a move widely interpreted as a sign of growing distance rather than a mere organisational reshuffle. Chadha has responded by accusing the party of trying to silence him, while some senior AAP leaders, in turn, have suggested he is afraid of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and acting under pressure.
Chadha’s denial and party fallout
Chadha has dismissed the accusations, describing them as part of a “scripted” and coordinated smear campaign against him and urging the public not to take repeated allegations at face value. The back‑and‑forth has exposed fractures within AAP between a faction that sees the MP as a key national‑facing figure and another that appears to be sidelining him, raising questions about unity as the party contests multiple state‑level elections. The claims of a “secret mansion” and physical abuse, while still unproven, have already entered the public discourse as a potent symbol of the alleged toxicity behind the party’s polished image.
With no formal police complaint yet on record regarding the alleged beatings, the episode remains a swirl of political accusation, counter‑narrative, and moral‑posturing, underlining how internal fissures in AAP are now spilling into the public domain in unusually graphic terms.
