Open Forum
New
Delhi, 5 January 2018
Governor & State Govt
POINTLESS POLITICAL CONFLICT
By Dr. S. Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
After Delhi and Puducherry, Tamil Nadu
Governor is in the news now for conducting review meetings in district
headquarters and engaging directly with the public. Black flag demonstrations
and a call to go back greeted Governor Banwarilal Purohit in Thanjavur in the
course of his “inspection” tours this week.
Unlike the usual conflict between the State
Government and the Governor, protests are spearheaded by some Opposition parties
and interest groups mostly of farmers. This time round, the trouble started from
the Governor’s programme of holding review meetings in the districts at the Collector’s
office to be attended by top administrative and police officials of the
district and receiving petitions directly from the people. Cuddalore, Tiruchi,
Coimbatore, and Salem districts have already been covered.
It seems to be an uncommon programme for a
Governor to personally acquaint himself with field-level details of
administration in the State, but not unconstitutional. Such meetings are not concerned
with the formation of a State Government, determination of majority in the
Legislative Assembly, its dissolution and declaration of President’s rule. Instead,
these are related to normal routine matters of governance of the States which
are in the domain of State Governments.
Purohit is reported to have reviewed with the
officials in the district the implementation of Central and State schemes with
stress on the importance of implementing rural-oriented schemes and taking the
people’s feedback into account while executing these. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Corporation Commissioner, Revenue officials, Chief Educational Officer
of the concerned district were among those present in such meetings.
The Governor also visited nearby villages and
distributed pamphlets on cleanliness and Swachch Bharat Mission, and also led
cleanliness campaigns. Noteworthy is the sudden shift in the substance of
criticism normally made against the Governor. The previous incumbent to the post
in Tamil Nadu, Vidyasagar Rao was criticised by some political leaders for
being away from the State and delaying decisions when critical political
situations required his presence and immediate action. The same parties now
criticise Purohit for his extraordinary interest to gather first-hand
information from officials and the public.
The DMK, the principal Opposition party in the
State, takes strong objection to the Governor’s direct involvement in routine administrative
matters condemning it as anti-democratic and anti-constitutional. To several Opposition
parties -- the DMK, VCK, SMK, CPI, etc.-- Governor’s action amounts to encroachment on the autonomy
of the State.
DMK working President Stalin made a scathing
remark that “A goat neither requires a beard nor a State a Governor”. The DMK attributes
lot of meaning to the meetings and expresses strong opposition to the possibility
of the Governor emerging as an alternate power centre within the State. The
very act of Purohit’s “discussions” with bureaucrats in the districts
irrespective of the subject or object of the discussions is unacceptable to the
DMK, the champion of “State Autonomy”.
Having encountered the bitter experience of
losing power after winning a massive electoral victory in 1989 to President’s rule, the DMK has
its own reason to believe that the Governor is no longer a “bird in a golden
cage” as described by Sarojini Naidu from her experience.
On the contrary, the ruling AIADMK, which
presently is not in a position to make any adverse remarks against Centrally-appointed
Governor takes it easy and even welcomes it. It tries to justify its stand by
expressing a hope that he would convey to the Central Government the needs of
the State and recommend more Central assistance.
Between the two sides, Purohit maintains that
he has been holding such meetings and reviewing the progress of projects to
keep himself informed of the State’s progress as he did in his previous tenure
in Assam and Meghalaya. This opens the question of the role of Governor in
normal administration of States.
The post of the Governor in the Indian
Constitution is a slightly modified version of the Governor created under the
Government of India Act 1935 of British India. When the Constitution was framed,
unity and integrity of the nation was the foremost concern, and it was found
necessary to maintain the authority of the Government of India over the
Provinces. It was “in the interest of All-India unity and with a view to
encouraging centripetal tendencies”, the Constitution provided for appointment
of the Governor by the President.
India was to be united politically as well as
by national consciousness. Promoting provincial interests and provincial
thinking were considered detrimental to national oneness. Hence, while adopting
a federal system, care was taken to maintain and foster certain amount of Central
control through several institutions like the All-India services.
The Governor appointed by the President
(practically by the Union Government) was expected to act as a link between the
Union and State Governments. Supposedly impartial and independent, the Governor
became the Union Government’s tool in the States. The tool becoming more and
more important for the holder, Constitutional complications arose in the
functioning of the Governor, which have been sorted out by the Supreme Court
over the years.
The Administrative Reforms Commission
appointed in 1966, which submitted its report in mid-1970s held that the
“office of the Governor is not meant to be an ornamental sinecure”. The Study
Team on Centre-State Relations set up by the Commission recommended that
Governors should keep themselves informed about key sectors of public
administration in the States so that their fortnightly reports could provide
the Union with meaningful information and at the same time give timely advice
and warning, if necessary, to the Chief Minister. The Team held that the
Governors were perfectly within their rights to send reports fortnightly or ad hoc to the President without any
obligation to send copies to the Chief Minister.
The Commission observed that through
fortnightly reports, the Governor should keep the Union Government adequately
informed of the developments and events in the State and the manner in which
the government of the State was being carried on. In making these reports the
Governor was to act according to his own judgement,
taking the CM into confidence unless there were overriding reasons to the
contrary.
However, the role of Governor in State
politics becoming more and more controversial in the 1970s and 1980s, there
occurred reversal of views. To the Sarkaria Commission on Union-State Relations
(1988), the fortnightly report by the Governor to the President was not a “healthy”
practice. But, without abolishing it outright, it recommended that while writing
the report, the Governor should take into confidence the Chief Minister unless
there were overriding reasons against it. The Constitutional Review Committee
(2002) broadly concurred with this view.
Governor’s inspection tours today have become
necessary for arriving at individual judgement on the implementation of
government schemes, which are growing in number. In reporting, he cannot be
reproducing the State government’s views. Personal appraisal of progress and
development are harmless as long as they are non-political.
The problem lies in the style of functioning
of our political parties. They view everything from party angle, which is
increasingly reflecting inter-party animosities in the struggle for power and
not a desire to promote cooperative action for people’s welfare. --INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|