Civilian Governor in J&K

The appointment of N.N. Vohra as Governor of Jammu and Kashmir marks a welcome new turn in New Delhi’s approach towards the State. Ever since the recall of Jagmohan in 1990, the Raj Bhavan in Srinagar has been occupied by men with an affiliation to either the intelligence services or the armed forces. First, there was Gary Saxena, ex-head of the Research and Analysis Wing; next came General K.V. Krishna Rao, ex-Army Chief; then Mr. Saxena again; and finally retired Lt. Gen. S.K. Sinha, the outgoing Governor. Admittedly, Mr. Jagmohan’s second tenure in 1990 was not the best advertisement for a civilian governorship. Nevertheless, the fact that successive governments at the Centre saw it fit to rely only on men who came from the security establishment sent a clear — and unfortunate — signal to the State’s population that New Delhi considered military tools to be more important than political ones. In recent years, General Sinha added to this perception by overstepping the head of state’s role and turning the Raj Bhavan into an alternative centre of political influence, if not power, within the State, much to the chagrin of the elected government.

Ideally, the head of a sensitive State such as J&K needs to be a constitutionally sensitive political statesman, who can play the kind of constructive role Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma performed with such distinction in Andhra Pradesh in 1984-85. Mr. Vohra may not be a politician but his reputation as a seasoned and fair-minded civil servant with varied experience was strengthened by the independence and power of the Vohra Committee report (1993) on the nexus between criminals, politicians, and bureaucrats. Since 2003, he has served as the Centre’s chief interlocutor in the internal track of the J&K peace process. During the National Democratic Alliance government’s time, his sincere and virtually solo efforts were stymied by the absence of a clear mandate. The United Progressive Alliance government’s Round Table Conference, with which he has been associated, has helped move things along a bit but the whole process is on hold pending the completion of the report of the working group on Centre-State relations headed by Justice Saghir Ahmad. Obviously, as head of state, Mr. Vohra cannot continue in his interlocutor’s role in the peace process. What he can be expected to do is adhere to a strict constructionist interpretation of his office, respecting and keeping good relations with the elected government, irrespective of its hue, and avoid saying or doing anything on contentious issues that can be construed as coming from a parallel power centre. And what he can be counted on to provide is the kind of quiet moral encouragement the peace-and-reconciliation process needs, especially during a time of uncertainty as elections to the State Assembly approach.