The import of the constitutional impasse in Arunachal Pradesh goes beyond the technicalities of gubernatorial action and powers that the Supreme Court is ascertaining. It also goes beyond the bogey of anti-national actions in vulnerable border-states on the basis of which constitutional liberties are taken and decisions politicised (e.g. Jammu and Kashmir in the early ’90s).
It goes beyond the debate of strained Centre-state relations in a federal set-up.
This is a deeper issue of national conscience, national agenda and the commitment to adhere to the sworn constitutional spirit.
To reduce the issue to semantics of the ostensible “breakdown of governance” and the hilarious allusion to “cow slaughter” — which was cited by governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa as a sign of complete collapse of law and order in Arunachal Pradesh — is to trivialise and reduce the more fundamental issue of upholding the sublime “idea of India”.
As recently confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Arunachal case, the appointment of a governor is borne out of a “political” decision and individual preference by the ruling dispensation. So to that extent, it is a “political” appointment albeit mandating uncompromising apoliticalness and shedding of any political predilection or prejudices in conduct.
To be fair, violations of the spirit of the Constitution have taken place and thrived under all political dispensations to perpetuate the ruling political dispensation’s agenda. So gubernatorial actions are often reflective of the ruling parties’ political and ideological agenda.
Many years ago, in a landmark Supreme Court judgment pertaining to the then governor of Meghalaya, the Supreme Court noted, “The unflattering episode shows in unmistakable terms the governor’s unnecessary anxiety to dismiss the ministry and dissolve the Assembly and also his failure as a constitutional functionary to realise the binding, legal consequences of and give effect to the orders of the court” — the operative grouse and term being the “unnecessary anxiety” and not necessarily the technicalities of the powers, immunity or constitutional clauses of reference.
Therefore, contextually, the Arunachal episode is a continuation from the past that belies the current ruling party’s claim of being a “party with a difference”. Same old loyalties and prejudices abound.
K.N. Tripathi, the governor of Tripura, personifies the continuing politicisation of the post. On his Twitter handle he states his credentials as, “Governor of Tripura. Yes to Uniform Civil Code, No to double standards (Arts 44 & 14 of Constitution). Praised and damned equally. A proud bhakt & Swayamsevak”.
Such thoughts and announcements are not limited to Tripura or Arunachal Pradesh. Last November, P.B. Acharya, the governor of Assam, while claiming that he had been misquoted on his ostensible remark of “Hindustan is for Hindus”, noted rather inelegantly that the, “Indian Muslims are free to go anywhere, including Pakistan and Bangladesh.”
Further, Ram Naik, the governor of Uttar Pradesh, felt it important to state that the Ram temple should be made in Ayodhya soon as “it was the wish of Indian citizens”. Clearly, these learned men have not sheathed their respective political sabers even after being appointed governor.
The Arunachal case has also exposed a religious angularity that warrants deeper inquiry — the axed chief minister, Nabam Tuki (first Christian chief minister of Arunachal), and Speaker Nabam Rebia (again, a Christian) are an augury of the latest demographic change that places Christians at 30 per cent population, which is the largest religious group in Arunachal, similar to Mizoram and Nagaland.
That this puts the numbers against the ruling right-wing party and in favour of the Congress is obvious. Incidentally, while Mizoram is ruled by the Congress, Nagaland has a local party ruling that is part of the National Democratic Alliance at the Centre.
Earlier, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh resolution on Arunachal Pradesh said, “People of ‘religions of Bharatiya origin’ were 99.21 per cent in 1951, but the figure came down to 81.3 per cent in 2001 and 67 per cent in 2011.”
The Sangh contented that the Christian population had grown by “almost 13 percentage points”. Seen in this light, the accusation of partisanship and incumbents of the Raj Bhavan being “agents of the Centre” acquires a dangerous but true ring.
Therefore, resolution of the Arunachal impasse in terms of the restored perceptions of impartiality and constitutional sobriety will be felt beyond the confines of Itanagar, on the larger canvass of the national conscience.
The national debates over intolerance, majoritarianism and an overt sense of centralisation is interlinked. We should showcase our finest constitutional instincts and spirit in the sensitive border-states (e.g. Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, J&K, etc.) to inculcate positive sentiments towards “Delhi”. Political battles can await political opportunities and domains.
The Arunachal Pradesh issue will determine the direction we seek for the nation and the national leadership’s commitment to adhere to the sanctity of the Constitution over everything else.
India derives and subscribes its moral conscience to its hallowed Constitution — a document that mandates citizens’ rights and safeguards all constituents with a strong emphasis on pluralism and multiculturalism.
Arunachal Pradesh is a test of our political maturity and wisdom to avoid tinkering with the constitutional proprietary and sobriety of the gubernatorial office — already faultlines are surfacing and whenever the designated apolitical institutions like that of the judiciary or the defence forces get “politicised” in conduct, is when we regress into the morass of alternative agendas to the one defined in the liberal, democratic spirit of India.
The entire edifice of cooperative federalism is at stake — underscoring President Pranab Mukherjee’s New Year message to governors to play their assigned roles, whilst respecting the distinct authority and responsibility vested in the executive, the judiciary and the legislature.
