At Raj Bhavan in Mumbai | Photo Credit: File Photo: Prashant Nakve
The governor is once again becoming a spectacle of the public. In many states, as seen earlier in Punjab, Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Delhi and some other states. Three issues stand out in their magnificence with the elected governments in the states in question.
First, these are states where non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governments are in power. Second, the paradoxical interference of governors in the name of perceived powers of the Union or constitutional correctness. And third, their disagreements come out openly to the media, fueling political divisions. Recently, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi has opened another front to defy the idea of Indian nationalism and provide a lesson to the Tamil people. Fortunately, there are some governors, even in states under non-BJP rule, who have shown the foresight to resolve issues with their respective governments without attempting to muddy the waters.
While there have been endless arguments as to whether or not the governor has discretionary authority – and if he does, under what constitutional and legal provisions – he may not be able to satisfy the argument on an issue because They don’t necessarily rule out contrarian stances. , One of the examples of populist posturing is playing the blame game and accusing the other party of doing so when it was in power. While such an allegation may be factually correct or close to the allegation, bad examples may not be good examples to follow. These accusations also do not take into account the great churning that has been going on in Indian politics over the years and the challenges that institutions face that remain with them.
sea change in the states
From the late 1980s there was a turning point in the relative autonomy of the states formally without much change in the constitutional framework. This change was manifested in the emergence of new political parties with a focus on the states, liberalization of the economy and greater devolution of economic responsibility to the states. States were made to realize that they could not delegate this responsibility elsewhere.
This shift of power and responsibility was also reflected in policy measures such as the authorization of local government by the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution, incorporation and devolution of powers; reforms initiated by the PV Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh team on the economy; and judicial decisions such as the Bommai case, which mandated that the imposition of President’s rule in states required broad political consensus.
Of course, the relative autonomy of states has increased their presence as well as responsibilities. This increased role of the states does not in any way challenge the powers of the Union, but generally complements and complements the new challenges and opportunities it faces. As far as the wider expansion of India is concerned, the fear of the centrifugal tendencies that marked the early years of independence holds no good any longer. Atal Bihari Vajpayee detected this change early and made a remarkable effort at coalition building (1999–2004), showing great sensitivity to the new role that the states were asked to play.
The initiative was also an endorsement of strong regional leadership in general and regional parties in particular. Strong states were not seen as an affront to national unity, but the latter concept was created through strong regional bonds. In fact, Vajpayee’s political initiative jolted the Congress party from its focus on a centralized politics to pre-poll alliances at its Pachmarhi (1998) and later Shimla conferences.
While the rise of the BJP and the change in form of its ideological framework to Hindutva since 2014 has influenced the reconfiguration of Indian federalism, the basis for an appreciation of state autonomy remains intact. Sound logic reiterates loud and clear that states can no longer be locked within the confines of the Centre’s mandate.
state leadership at the forefront
Given the metamorphosis of politics that India has recorded, the state leadership, be it of the ruling party at the Center or regional parties, is always called upon to assume greater initiative and responsibility. Its performance affects not only the respective states but the entire country. State-based initiatives also have a cascading effect on neighboring states. If a regional party has done well, the Center should try and beat it by promising to do better. Interestingly, India’s constitutional framework – and in particular its interpretation by the judiciary so far – has been consistent with this change in the political sphere.
a reality check
In the changed context, governors’ belief that they know better than the elected state leadership goes against a reality check, and may not even serve the interests of the ruling party at the Centre. If they invoke constitutional provisions in defense of their actions, such a reading often turns out to be a shibboleth.
While the constitutional arguments resulting from the institution of the Governor in India may still be valid today, it calls for a reorientation. As the constitutional head of state, there are myriad concerns, particularly the Directive Principles of State Policy, which may be the framework for the governor’s interactions with his government. However, such interactions should be in the form of engagement with his government and state legislature rather than projecting him as an independent power centre. In the changed context, instead of insisting on the constitutional position in the State and elsewhere, there is a need to listen to and closely follow the voices of the people. Furthermore, as a link between his state and the Centre, a governor brings to the attention of the Center as well as the public at large the state’s wider concerns and promises, which partisan politics may have sidelined.
Editorial | Lines and Roles: On the Governors
To be consistent with these demands, governors must not only pay attention to the ground but also be attuned to the underlying idea of the common good manifesting in their institutions and public culture. It is not difficult to find such people in a country like India. It is easy for these posts to be occupied by veteran politicians who are extras in the ruling dispensation or retired bureaucrats and public servants who are subordinate to their political masters. Though criticized for some of his administrative preferences and political views, the one governor I can remember who measured up to the mark in the changed context was TN Chaturvedi, Governor of Karnataka (2002–07), both the change of governments During a difficult period in the State as well as at the Centre.
Valerian Rodrigues is a former professor at Mangalore University and Jawaharlal Nehru University