By Mir Gowhar
For me, the period of Governor’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir was nothing short of a blessing in disguise. Having lived through those months, I can confidently say that governance under the Lieutenant Governor’s administration brought a sense of relief and accountability that many people had long given up hope of experiencing. Unlike the usual delays, red tape, and selective attention of elected governments, there was suddenly a system in place where the voices of ordinary citizens mattered.
I vividly remember how routine problems that would earlier take months—sometimes even years—to resolve, suddenly began to get addressed within days. People no longer needed to make endless rounds of government offices, pleading with officials who often showed little interest in their grievances. Under Governor’s Rule, officers were alert and responsive, because they knew inaction would be reported directly to the Lieutenant Governor’s office. This fear of accountability worked wonders. The LG office became a beacon of hope, acting swiftly on petitions and complaints, and in doing so, instilled confidence that ordinary voices were not only being heard but were also being respected.
For many areas, particularly those that had remained underdeveloped for decades, this was the first real taste of change. Roads that had existed only as dusty trails and broken patches were suddenly repaired and macadamised. Drainage systems, long ignored, were finally put in place, preventing the flooding that had been a seasonal nightmare. Big projects—ones that had been gathering dust in files under local governments—saw the light of day and were sanctioned without political bias. For the residents of low-lying or neglected areas, this period felt like being brought into the fold of development after decades of isolation.
I have often heard people say that during elected governments, benefits flowed mostly to the supporters of ruling parties. Development, they argued, was used as a political tool—a reward for loyalty and a punishment for dissent. Entire sections of society, especially those not aligned with a particular political camp, were left behind in this selective model of governance. Governor’s Rule, however, brought a refreshing change. There was no room for favoritism, no weighing of benefits against political allegiance. For the first time in many years, governance appeared neutral, and progress reached places that had never been on the radar before.
Of course, I am not dismissing the value of democracy. Elections and elected representatives are essential, and the people must have a say in who governs them. But one cannot ignore the contrast I witnessed during the Governor’s Rule. It proved that governance could be fair, fast, and impartial when accountability was ensured and favoritism removed. The transformation was so visible in my own area that it almost felt like the long-awaited dawn of development had finally arrived.
Yes, Governor’s Rule is often spoken of as a temporary measure, a stopgap until democracy takes over again. But for the common man, it was more than that. It was a reminder of what governance can achieve when it rises above party politics and petty interests. It gave dignity to those who had been forgotten, hope to those who had stopped expecting change, and faith to many who had grown disillusioned with the system.
That is why, in my personal view, Governor’s Rule was truly a blessing in disguise. It may not be perfect, but it showed us a glimpse of governance that was honest, responsive, and inclusive. And that memory, for people like me, will always remain unforgettable.
Comments are closed.