Despite his political versatility, Khan’s assertiveness often sparked tensions in Kerala, where the LDF perceived his actions as an extension of the BJP’s ideological reach.
Published Jan 02, 2025 | 12:00 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 02, 2025 | 12:00 PM
Governor Arif Mohammad Khan with Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and former assembly speaker P Sreeramakrishnan. (KB Jayachandran/South First)
Arif Mohammad Khan’s tenure as the Governor of Kerala wasn’t just ceremonial — it was a politically charged period that frequently put him at odds with the Pinarayi Vijayan-led LDF government.
His recent appointment as the Governor of Bihar officially ended this phase leaving behind a legacy of contentious encounters that reshaped the relationship between the Governor’s office and the state government.
The notable absence of Chief Minister Vijayan, members of his Cabinet, and Opposition leaders at Khan’s departure spoke volumes about the strained ties that defined his tenure. While official ceremonies were curtailed due to the state mourning for former prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh, the lack of informal farewells underscored the deep-rooted tensions.
Khan’s new role in Bihar reflects the Union government’s confidence — particularly that of Prime Minister Narendra Modi — in his abilities. As one of the BJP’s most prominent Muslim leaders, Khan’s political journey has been shaped by his vocal support for reforms like triple talaq, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), and the Ram Mandir.
His defiance of traditional orthodoxy and alignment with social reformist causes have made him a rare figure in Indian politics.
Khan’s adaptability is notable. From starting his political career with Chaudhary Charan Singh’s Lok Dal in the 1970s to aligning with Rajiv Gandhi before serving under VP Singh, his path reflects a leader driven by conviction over party loyalty.
His elevation as Governor in two states over the past decade, alongside figures like Anandiben Patel, signals his importance in the BJP’s broader political strategy.
Despite his political versatility, Khan’s assertiveness often sparked tensions in Kerala, where the LDF perceived his actions as an extension of the BJP’s ideological reach.
The Governor’s office under Khan became less of a constitutional sentinel and more of an active participant in state politics, something that Kerala’s ruling dispensation viewed with suspicion.
The Governor’s role in India is often misunderstood as purely symbolic. Constitutionally, Article 153 mandates the presence of a Governor in every state, appointed by the President based on the Union government’s recommendation.
While their term is notionally five years, the reality is that Governors serve at the “pleasure of the President,” allowing for removal at any point.
This duality — ceremonial yet potentially powerful — can become contentious, particularly in Opposition-ruled states. Khan’s tenure exemplified this, as several moments of overreach brought his office into direct conflict with the LDF government.
One significant flashpoint was his decision to summon Kerala’s Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police (DGP) over a statement by Chief Minister Vijayan about alleged anti-state activities linked to gold smuggling. The LDF swiftly objected, arguing that bypassing the Chief Minister undermined the democratic chain of command.
Legal experts cited Article 167, which obliges the chief minister to provide information to the Governor but stops short of allowing direct gubernatorial involvement in day-to-day administration. The incident was seen as an attempt to assert gubernatorial authority, reminiscent of colonial-era practices that bypassed elected governments.
Further controversy arose as Khan continued in office beyond his five-year term, sparking debates over the idea of a “caretaker Governor.” While the Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention such a role, some legal voices suggested that it could be inferred under Article 156.
However, others dismissed the notion, emphasizing that an extended tenure simply reflects the President’s continued trust. For the LDF, Khan’s extended stay reinforced concerns about Union encroachment on Kerala’s political autonomy.
Perhaps the most sustained conflict between Khan and the Kerala government revolved around higher education. As Chancellor of state universities, Khan frequently clashed with the LDF over appointments and policy decisions.
His reluctance to approve key bills restructuring university governance became a major point of contention, with the CPI(M) accusing him of attempting to “saffronise” Kerala’s education sector.
Khan’s decision to withhold assent to several bills, instead of referring them to the President, effectively delayed their implementation. This move was framed by the LDF as a direct attack on Kerala’s legislative independence.
To the ruling coalition, it signalled that Khan was acting less as a constitutional figurehead and more as an agent of the BJP, obstructing the state’s progressive policies through procedural roadblocks.
Education became a proxy battleground for broader ideological contests between the BJP at the Centre and the LDF in Kerala. Khan’s insistence on exercising his powers as Chancellor to veto appointments further deepened the mistrust, with the Vijayan government accusing him of undermining the state’s democratic mandate.
Khan’s departure from Kerala was far from the grand farewells afforded to his predecessors. When P Sathasivam left office in 2019, Chief Minister Vijayan and his entire cabinet escorted him to the airport. In contrast, Khan’s exit was marked by silence, with only Chief Secretary Sarada Muraleedharan present to see him off.
Student Federation of India (SFI) activists waving symbolic goodbyes as his convoy passed reflected the polarisation his tenure inspired. Khan downplayed the lack of ceremony, insisting that his departure was amicable. Yet, the absence of political leaders at his farewell laid bare the lingering tensions between Raj Bhavan and the state government.
Khan’s successor, whose longstanding ties to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and close affiliation with the BJP leadership are well documented, signals a continuation — if not an escalation — of ideological friction in Kerala. This appointment is a strategic move to cement the BJP’s influence in the state’s administrative and cultural institutions.
With the RSS historically at odds with Kerala’s leftist politics, the new Governor’s tenure could further entrench the polarisation witnessed during Khan’s governorship, potentially intensifying disputes over education, governance, and legislative priorities.
The Arif Mohammad Khan era in Kerala leaves behind a complex legacy — one that highlights the evolving role of Governors in Indian federalism. His assertive approach redefined the boundaries of gubernatorial authority, raising questions about the balance of power between state governments and the Centre.
As Khan transitions to Bihar, the dynamics between Governors and opposition-led states remain in sharp focus. His successor in Kerala will inherit a Raj Bhavan that has, over the past few years, been an active player in the state’s political arena. Whether this trend continues or recedes will shape not only Kerala’s governance but also the broader contours of Union-state relations in India.
(Amal Chandra is an author, political analyst, and columnist. Follow him on ‘X’ at @ens_socialis. Views expressed here are personal.)
