Arvind Kejriwal's decision to resign for a second time within a decade is undoubtedly a high-stakes political maneuver. His resignation can be viewed through several lenses:

Blunting BJP’s Attacks: kejriwal has been facing significant heat from the BJP, which has been trying to portray him and his party in a negative light, especially with allegations surrounding corruption and national security issues. By resigning, kejriwal could be trying to project himself as a victim of political targeting, seeking sympathy from voters. This is a tactic to shift public focus away from the allegations and onto the narrative of persecution by powerful forces like the BJP.

Resurrecting Image: Kejriwal’s rise to prominence was initially built on his anti-corruption crusade, which resonated with urban voters. Resigning at a time of crisis may be his attempt to reignite that old image of a principled leader willing to sacrifice power for his beliefs. However, the challenge here lies in whether voters still buy this narrative, given the repeated controversies surrounding his leadership.

Jail & Perception: His potential imprisonment, accusations of being a powerless cm, and the controversy over appointing an alleged terrorist sympathizer as cm have certainly damaged his image. Being portrayed as weak or compromised on security could alienate a large section of voters, especially the middle class, who once saw him as a clean, competent administrator.

Voters’ Perception: It's a gamble whether the public will believe his claims of innocence or see his actions as manipulative. kejriwal is likely banking on the idea that voters see him as a victim of the ruling party's vendetta, but this will only work if people still view him as a clean, anti-establishment figure. The risk is that voters may indeed feel disillusioned by the repeated resignations, controversies, and the perception that Kejriwal’s government has not delivered on its promises.

Ultimately, whether this strategy will help kejriwal regain his image depends on how effectively he can control the narrative in the run-up to the next election. The question of whether voters are "fools" or will believe in his innocence hinges on the strength of his messaging, the power of his grassroots support, and the ability of his opposition to capitalize on the controversies surrounding him.