Ek Phool Do Mali

That the present governance system in J&K is not the norm is well acknowledged. It is an exception and not the rule in the Indian federal framework. Nor is there a well-considered view, administrative or political, that it is a desirable model of governance, let alone a good one. In the case of J&K, it is a transitional arrangement. True, there is irony in replacing one “temporary and transitional” status by another.

That the transitional structure has continued so for six long years is of concern but should not come as a surprise. Even though all political parties, without exception, contested the assembly election on the plank of restoration of statehood, that is not what people primarily voted for. Statehood is a matter of time. The Valley voted to send a message to the Union government. The vote in favour of National Conference was of course an individual political choice, but it was also a collective ideological decision. This was evident not only from a record participation in the elections but also from a decisive though deeply polarised outcome.

Without any ambiguity, NC was chosen as the messenger from the Valley and beyond. To be sure, there was no euphoria on their electoral victory. Everyone was aware of the limitations of diarchic government based on the division of the executive branch of government into elected representatives and an unelected appointee. The word on the street was that it will be a government operated by elected representatives but controlled by the unelected appointee. Hence there were hardly any expectations too.

Yet there was hope.

Having been given a solid mandate, there was hope that this 93-year-old political party – the oldest regional party in the country -- will leverage its experience in governance, breadth of leadership, and the commitment of its cadres to rebuild the social capital of the Valley. That has not been so, so far.

Before the mood in the valley turned sombre after the horrific Pahalgam attack, and the level of business activity collapsed overnight leaving the roads bereft of traffic, the political mood in the Valley had begun to wane. With every passing month disappointment has given way to disillusionment and is not far away from turning into palpable public disaffection for the National Conference.

Sensing the foreboding, its party machinery has gone into overdrive justifying their inability to make a difference as being a systemic constraint. To put it in an unvarnished manner: we have no powers to do anything. This cannot be a justification; it is an excuse. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah made no bones about calling it the “worst form” of governance model. No one believes otherwise, anyway. About a decade back, Chief Minister of Puducherry, in a fit of rage and frustration used the politically incorrect and gender insensitive term “Hijda” to describe a UT government with legislature.

The National Conference spokesperson has pointed out the “contradictory statements” made by the Lieutenant Governor in one day; first saying he decides only security matters and then later in the day announcing the opening up of the seven tourist spots, which come under the Tourism Ministry run by the elected government. There is no apparent contradiction in the two. Apart from being a wrong example to pick – tourist spots were shut on grounds of security and were reopened on the same grounds – underlying this statement is a certain understanding of the power sharing system. It can be gleaned that there is a lack of appreciation and an inadequate understanding of the nature of governance and power sharing system that is in place now.

The National Conference government must review the understanding it has of the power sharing between the elected head of the government and the appointed head of the state.

First, it is the responsibility of the head of the elected government to navigate the policies that it wants and the changes it desires with the head of the state. It is for the elected government to ensure that. Managing the head of the state, weak or powerful, is an intrinsic part of the process of political management. Failure to do so, doesn’t reflect well on the government and its head. The National Conference leadership have been subjected to massive criticism for capitulating to the BJP at the national level. Evidently, they have not been able to have a relationship with the man in the seat on the spot.

Second, in the existing system, the Lieutenant Governor’s concurrence is not envisaged as a part of the process of public policy “transferred subjects”. It is a requirement for implementation. There is a specific context to this: while it is clear that all executive-administrative decision should be of the elected government, it is subject to security clearance by the Lieutenant Governor. It is the last step, at worst a hurdle that needs to be crossed over.

True, the Lieutenant Governor can, should he choose to, be obstructive. In the last eight months, based on information in the public domain, he has not been so. If anything, he may have pre-empted the government a few times. But that is more about propriety and protocol than about interference in elected government’s mandate and domain. The mandate is not to cut ribbons of a repaired transformer! What is required is a pragmatic and realistic approach with full knowledge of the latitude that is available to administer and govern. Not to rule and control. Going by anyone who has a nodding sense of policy making and administrative experience there is still lots that can be done to make a difference.

At another level. with virtually no assembly presence of an opposition party from the Valley, political opponents are using the social media to put National Conference on the mat. What makes matters worse are the squabbles on the social media between the leadership at the highest level. It is not dignified political conduct. Far from bringing sanity to the issues engaging Kashmir, these exchanges are personal and visceral. By the end of the day, they stripped each other of any moral authority to speak on any matter, be it the Indus Water Treaty or job reservation.

They are political adversaries. Let them not behave like personal enemies. They may resist each other, let them not resent one another. It all cascades down to the grass roots. For political parties with the same ideological premise, Valley-centric autonomists, to have such antagonism and animosity towards each other doesn’t augur well. This is not good for Kashmir politics which is going through one of its most transformative phases. It is not good for their parties either.

Tail piece:

The column heading draws from the long association and complex relationship that Kashmir has with Bollywood. Which at one point became an indicator of peace and normalcy in the Valley. While Kashmir gave Hindi films their visual opulence, Bollywood has contributed a great deal to the perceptions of beauty, romance and the mystique of Kashmir in the rest of the country. In this backdrop, the split governance in Kashmir is best described by a Bollywood super-hit film of yesteryears, “EK Phool Do Mali”, an emotional tearjerker. It is symbolic of governance in J&K, with one “mali” trying to assert and the other one reclaim the effective rights to govern.

The author is Contributing Editor Greater Kashmir