Satyapal Malik will be remembered as a governor who showed courage to speak against the government

     When the news came on Tuesday that former Governor Satyapal Malik died after a long illness at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in New Delhi, not only did a chapter of Indian politics come to an end, but the discussion on the legacy of a person who was known for adopting an anti-establishment stance even while being at the center of power began again. The life of 77-year-old Satyapal Malik was like a theater, where many characters were played simultaneously, from a student leader, MP, Governor, and finally as a vocal critic.

 

    Satyapal Malik was born on 24 July 1946 in Hisavada village of Baghpat district of Uttar Pradesh. After the death of his father, he acquired education and political consciousness under difficult circumstances. Influenced by Lohiaite socialist ideology, he started his political life from Meerut College Students Union. This was the same period when leaders like Chaudhary Charan Singh were emerging as the voice of farmers and rural India in Indian politics. Satyapal Malik imbibed these ideas.

    In 1974, he reached the Vidhan Sabha for the first time on the ticket of Chaudhary Charan Singh's party 'Bharatiya Kranti Dal'. Becoming an MLA at the age of just 28, that too from a Jat dominated area, shows that Malik's politics was grassroots. Joining the Rajya Sabha and then the Congress in 1980 was the beginning of his political experimentalism. Satyapal Malik's political life flowed between the poles of ideologies. The journey from Congress to Lok Dal, Jan Morcha, Samajwadi Party and finally to the Bharatiya Janata Party shows that he preferred political relevance over ideological commitments. In 1987, when V.P. Singh opened a front on the Bofors issue, Malik joined him, and played an active role in the Janata Dal. In 1989, he reached the Lok Sabha from Aligarh, but the crushing defeat from Baghpat and Aligarh in 1996 and 2004 dealt a severe blow to his image of Jat leadership.

    This reality keeps him 'in place' in national politics, but not as a 'mandate holder' politician. Joining the BJP in 2004 and then being appointed to various posts in the party was a return for Satyapal Malik. Being appointed Governor of Bihar, then Jammu and Kashmir, Goa and finally Meghalaya in 2017 was a sequence in which he remained associated with institutional posts, but at times crossed the limits of these posts and also kept criticizing the power.

    While being the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, the removal of Article 370 became his biggest administrative challenge and identity. He was the only governor who revealed that he was informed about this decision only a day in advance. This allegation not only raises questions on the transparency of constitutional processes, but also shows that he was reduced to a mere 'signing authority'. Malik's allegation on the central government regarding the martyrdom of 40 CRPF soldiers in the Pulwama attack in 2019 emerged as his most controversial comment. His claim that the attack could have been averted if the CRPF had been allowed to airlift was a severe dig at the Indian security establishment. He also claimed that when he told the Prime Minister about this, he was advised to keep quiet.

    Home Minister Amit Shah questioned why Malik kept quiet when he was the Governor. This question gives rise to a debate not only on Malik's moral responsibility but also on the limits of the constitutional role of the Governor. When the farmers' movement was going on at the borders of Delhi against the controversial agricultural laws of the Center, Satyapal Malik openly supported the movement. He became vocal against the central government's insensitivity over the death of farmers. He publicly said that not even a letter came from Delhi, and he also had a debate with the Prime Minister on the death of farmers.

    It was an exception that a sitting governor was speaking against the government from an open platform, crossing the limits of his constitutional impartiality. This was the other aspect of Satyapal Malik's personality, who could stand against the power even while being a part of it. Malik made another sensational claim that while he was the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, people close to the Prime Minister had come to him with a proposal for brokerage for a project, and he was offered a bribe of Rs 300 crore. He rejected it and informed the Prime Minister about it, but no action was taken. This allegation not only raises questions on the transparency of the Modi government, but also shows what kind of 'attractions' are presented to persons holding constitutional posts in India.

    Although some of Satyapal Malik's statements are a symbol of his frankness, but many times his language and style of presentation also affected his dignity. Statements like Governor drinks alcohol or saying that the Governor has no work, damage the institutional dignity, this creates his image of an unbalanced critic, who can even forget the dignity of his post for the sake of immediate popularity.

    Satyapal Malik's political journey is actually a mirror of the multifaceted tendencies of Indian democracy. He was neither a purely ideological leader, nor a mere power-hungry opportunist. His personality represents a stream in which a mixture of ideas, opportunity and wisdom is visible. His life leaves the question whether a person holding constitutional posts has the moral right to oppose the government? Should a governor's 'later' awareness on a serious issue like Pulwama be considered sufficient? Was speaking in favour of the farmers a 'violation of constitutional decorum' or an attempt to save the soul of democracy? Overall, Satyapal Malik's political and administrative journey was full of debates and rebellions. At times, he appeared as a person who told inconvenient truths, and at times entangled in self-contradictions. He was perhaps the first governor who made 'democratic use' of his constitutional position by going against the government.

    His legacy leaves behind a lasting debate—is position important in politics or honesty? And can a person become the voice of truth even while being within power? India will remember Satyapal Malik as a 'governor' who showed the courage to speak against the power, even if he had to endure institutional loneliness for that. His silences are as important as his words. Now after his departure, the country is left with the echo of his statements, which will continue to act as a bridge between the government and the people for a long time.