Not just Tathagata Roy, time to rethink if we need governors at all

There have been several instances of governors acting at behest of the Centre to weaken state govts run by opposition parties.

Meghalaya governor Tathagata Roy with President Ram Nath Kovind | @tathagata2/Twitter

Meghalaya governor Tathagata Roy’s controversial tweet about boycotting Kashmiris after the horrific Pulwama attack drew criticism not just from the BJP’s foes, but also one of its allies. But the debate stopped right there – somewhere between outright condemnation, awkward disagreement and conspicuous silence. The logical trajectory of the debate should have, instead, led us to a deeper question: Is it time for an informed, civilised debate on the very need to get rid, once and for all, the office of governor itself?

A senior leader of the BJP’s oldest ally Shiromani Akali Dal, Naresh Gujral, even planned to write to President Ram Nath Kovind, asking him to remove Roy from his post.

There is little chance of any strong action being taken against Roy – no one from the government even condemned his statement. All that Union minister of law and justice Ravi Shankar Prasad said was he didn’t “agree with his tweet” and hence the “matter ends there”. Prasad stopped short of condemning Tathagata Roy, a serial offender who is not likely to tone down his rhetoric.

A governor is appointed by the Centre and is supposed to be apolitical. But time and again, Tathagata Roy has spoken words that were clearly political – and, on many occasions, were seen to be in conflict with his oath to uphold the Constitution. And President Kovind appears to be failing in his constitutional duty by letting Roy continue breaching his oath.

However, Tathagata Roy isn’t the only governor playing partisan politics or failing to uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

In recent years, there have been several instances of governors acting at the behest of the central government to weaken or, if possible, even bring down democratically elected governments run by opposition parties. And, no, it isn’t just the current Narendra Modi-led NDA government that is guilty of having plied the Raj Bhawans with its chosen men and women. The Congress had a similar track record as well.

That is why the question arises: Do we even need political appointees, many of whom have outlived any real use for their parties, sitting in state Raj Bhawans, plotting to harass political opponents of the ruling party at the Centre? And every time an elected state government is destabilised, it is one more nail in the coffin of the federal structure that the founders of our republic dreamt of. Time has come to jettison these expensive excellencies. Far too many times, these agents of the Centre have misused the discretion granted to them under Article 163 of the Constitution to further the interests of the party ruling at the Centre.

Incidentally, not many would be aware that while finalising the clauses pertaining to the office of the governor, the Constituent Assembly actually debated if the governor should be appointed by the president or elected from among a panel of names.

In fact, the Drafting Committee headed by B.R. Ambedkar even came forward with a second alternative to the proposal in the first draft – the governor should be nominated by the president from among a panel elected by the provincial legislatures (current state assemblies). Eventually, the Constituent Assembly went with the amendment, which said the nomination of the governor by the president should be unqualified.

However, members of the Constituent Assembly were also of the view that a person to be nominated as governor should be acceptable to the state government, and that the chief minister should be consulted before the appointment is made.

Successive governments have ignored this view.

In fact, the first Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) also highlighted this recommendation, saying that while the appointment should remain the discretion of the Centre, the convention of consulting the chief minister should be strengthened. This suggestion too remains only on paper.

Even though several commissions have recommended that non-partisan, apolitical men and women of integrity only should be appointed governors, the fact remains that most governments at the Centre have filled the posts with their own people. These are people who, when the time comes, can be expected to do whatever is required to be done without bothering about legal and constitutional morality.

But, in the case of Tathagata Roy, the repeated statements are not aimed at destabilising the government of Meghalaya but to be the cheerleader of bigoted, divisive politics.

The Justice R.S. Sarkaria Committee on Centre-State Relations recommended in 1988 that only persons of some eminence and who “have not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past” should be appointed governors.

Take a look at the list of existing governors and you will find leaders of the political party or group in power at the Centre residing in the various Raj Bhawans.

Kiran Bedi was the face of the BJP’s campaign in the Delhi assembly elections, a face rejected by the voters and later, the party. After her loss, she was immediately sent to Puducherry, which is very similar to Delhi in its lack of adequate standing as a full-fledged state. As lieutenant governor (LG), she is engaged in combating the democratically-elected government.

The same is true of many other governors.

In its report on Centre-state relations, the Justice M.M. Punchhi committee sharply criticised the practice of sending active politicians to Raj Bhawans.

“The result has been the politicization of Governorship and sometimes people unworthy of holding such high Constitutional positions getting appointed,” the report said.

Nine years after the Punchhi panel submitted its report, Roy and others like him continue to thrive as governors, free to say whatever they want without any fear of repercussion from those who appointed them in the first place.