Not all is right in the state of Arunachal Pradesh in the Indian Union. Some old British-rule era habits die hard, or maybe they never die, for some imperial habits are essential for maintaining undemocratic dominance over democratically elected undesirables. Thus New Delhi struck again, this time through the office of the governor of Arunachal Pradesh.
Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa, the Delhi School of Economics educated former Indian Administrative Service officer, was appointed as the governor of Arunachal Pradesh by the present BJP-led NDA government at New Delhi. This unelected character toppled the democratically elected government of Arunachal Pradesh, led by Chief Minister Nabam Tuki of the Congress. This was accomplished by convening the assembly without consulting the speaker or the chief minister and using that ‘assembly’ to ‘impeach’ the speaker Nabam Rebia. This governor-convened ‘assembly’ was not actually held inside the Arunachal Pradesh legislative assembly building, but in a random community hall in Itanagar. The Guwahati High Court has stayed these actions for the time being. Thus, this attempt at ‘regime change’ has been stalled.
Why should unelected governors exist at all?
What does one call the toppling of an elected government by an unelected office-holder like the governor? The governor chose to act the way he did based on his reading of the constitution. It is amazing that there exists no method available beforehand to a state government, and hence to the people of the state, to stop a New Delhi deputed governor from carrying out such an act. This is a disease common to all over-centralized multi-ethnic rashtras. These entities show who is sovereign by choosing which of their own rules to violate, and when. They show no regard for the people of the lands that are called Arunachal Pradesh. Even the name of the state, ‘Arunachal Pradesh’, is an imposition. Those two words mean nothing in any language native to the people’s homelands that constitute the area. It came not from people of the area, who should ideally matter, but from the real decision-makers of Arunachal Pradesh – folks who decide its fate sitting in or consulting with New Delhi. Their plight may not even have made it to the so-called ‘national’ radar but for the fact that the ousted government was led by a ‘national party’, and that party now needs to score brownie points against another ‘national party’ that is in power in New Delhi.
Let me state certain things in a question and answer form. Who is the governor of a state? That character is New Delhi’s agent in a state or province. The governor has discretionary powers, which do not flow from wishes of the state’s people, but typically from the wishes of New Delhi.
A Nyishi tribesman holds an Insas-5.56mm rifle of the Indian Army
What is the origin of this position? When the British acquired one sovereign area of the subcontinent after another, after having amassed some serious amount of territory (which would go on to become the Indian Union and Pakistan in 1947), they appointed some loyal and trusted governors that represented the centralized imperial rule, to keep the acquired areas and provinces ‘in check’. These positions had various names in various British-acquired and British-controlled territories in the subcontinent. The 1935 Government of India Act had provincial governors with huge discretionary powers – natural for a colonial centre when dealing with limited but representative native provincial government. The post-partition position of the governor is, in a long range sense, the continuation of that office.
How similar were the pre-partition enforces of British imperialism and post-partition agents of New Delhi? Firstly, post-partition, they were non-white. Also, they answered to New Delhi and not finally to London. But as before, they were almost never from the area which they were appointed to ‘govern’. They also have often done what their pre-partition counterparts did – carry out central rule as per wishes of New Delhi, typically when democratically elected governments of states do things that New Delhi doesn’t like.
Did the Indian Union’s founding fathers want to change or abolish this imperialism-inspired position? Yes and No. If one follows the debates of the constituent assembly, one sees a pattern. The debates started before 1947, and ended much after that. The same Congressites who made many speeches in such debates in support of state rights made an about turn after partition. With their super-majority control of New Delhi, centralizing power was the way to check any opposition. There were the anti-imperialist calls for doing away with the position altogether. There was a democratic sentiment of having a governor elected by the state’s people. After all, how can the constitutional head of the state government be so unrepresentative. True to their character, most of Indian Union’s founding fathers sitting in New Delhi not only wanted the governor’s position to continue, but also made into an unelected position, directly controlled by the centre. They also gave this position the power to recommend the dissolution of elected state governments, often elected by many crores of people. There has been President’s Rule in the states nearly a 100 times with the governor playing a shameful role most of the time. As many as 22 of these instances saw the governors rule the states for a year or more. And the President’s Rule is just one among the many other ways in which New Delhi parks its unwanted nose in state politics.
Such an undemocratic system has no place in a representative federal democracy. It is only after the rise of ethno-national parties in the states that the governors have lost some teeth. But they have not become toothless, as the events of Itanagar show.
The office of the governor is an example of an anti-people undemocratic relic from the British rule. Must we remind ourselves so explicitly that what happened on 15th August 1947 was a transfer of power, its repackaging as ‘independence’ notwithstanding? People of a state, Arunachal Pradesh included, are neither stupid nor apprentice-citizens. They are adults with inalienable rights of democratic representation. Swaraj is a process – not an event. Abolishing the post of governor will be a step in that direction. It is not a ‘bad apple’ issue, but a poison tree issue. Why should unelected governors exist at all?
