FOCUS
GOVERNORS AS TOOL OF PARTY IN POWER
The recent ongoing debate on the removal or otherwise of Governors of states by the incumbent government has prompted us to revisit this institution to put in public domain, how some of the governors appointed by the government of the day played their constitutional role so very unconstitutionally in tune with the agenda of the ruling party at the centre.
We all recognize that governorship of any state is a kind of reward for an old war-horse or to rehabilitate a retired babu, who has been a partner in the past with their political masters in their wheelings and dealings. Also at times to send a troublesome party leader into political ‘vanavaas’, this governorship was rewarded.
Governors playing politics or appointed to play politics was started by Indira Gandhi and continued through Rajeev Gandhi to the latest government of Sonia/Manmohan combine.
Looking back over the shoulder, walking down the memory lane, there have been many governors, acting on instructions from their political masters, played nasty. From Thakur Ram Lal to Sardar Buta Singh to Hans Raj Bharadhwaj were all trouble making governors, besides others, who were not as diabolic as the former three. All of them were politicians first and constitutional heads later.
Thakur Ramlal, who was an MLA from Himachal Pradesh, elected continuously six times, and was Chief Minister twice, was sent to Andhra Pradesh, where N.T. Rama Rao had become a kind of nemesis of Congress party. N.T. Rama Rao’s Telugu Desam Party had won 203 of the 294 seats in Andhra Assembly, against the 56 seats won by Congress Party, in the Dec. 1983 election. Congress had lost power in Andhra for the first time.
On 15th Aug. 1984, exactly one year after Ramlal came to Hyderabad as Governor, he dismissed the Telugu Desam government, when NTR, the Chief Minister was on a foreign trip. Ramlal installed a former Congressman, Nadendla Bhaskar Rao as the Chief Minister stating that he had the support of majority, which was not true. This move had the blessings of Indira Gandhi.
On his return NTR mobilized all his supporters and paraded them at Raj Bhavan. An unmoved Ramlal rejected his claim. There was wide-spread condemnation across the country. Most opposition political parties supported NTR in his fight for restoration of his democratically elected government. In the crisis that remained for almost a month, Indira Gandhi was forced to remove Governor Ramlal and Shankar Dayal Sharma, who was to become the President of India in later years, was sent to Hyderabad as new Governor, who restored NTR as the Chief Minister in Sept. 1984.
Sardar Buta Singh was sent by the centre to Bihar to try and install the government of its choice, and see that it survives without any hiccups. Unfortunately the figures at the hustings did not add up to the required equation. However, since Governor Buta Singh did not want the opposition to have a fair chance to form the government, using his legislative powers he dissolved the assembly, leaving the opposition NDA in lurch. Thus the Governor Buta Singh not only went against the constitutional propriety but also imposed on an impoverished state, a huge expenditure of crores of rupees for another, completely avoidable, election on the state. Of course as the luck would have it, NDA romped home with a comfortable majority on its own. Both Congress and the Governor were disgraced.
Here it is important to recount the Supreme Court intervention in the Bihar imbroglio. According to PTI “The apex court has held that Bihar governor Buta Singh’s decision to recommend dissolution of the state assembly under the garb of checking defection was obviously perverse and taken in bad faith,” observed a five judge constitution bench, in a majority verdict. “On facts, the inescapable inference is, that the sole object of the governor was to prevent the claim (of NDA) being made to form government and the case would fall under category of bad faith” said the judgment.
Rebutting the contention of the centre that the governor was in the know of the state of affairs in the state which was ‘destroying the very fabric of democracy’, (Governor’s report to the centre) the judgment observed that, “it had not reached that stage and the governors report was intended to forestall any voting and staking of claim to form the government”. The judgment further held that, “There was no material, let alone relevant , with the government, to assume that there was blatant distortion of democracy by induced defection through unethical and unconstitutional means”.
It was a damning indictment of the governor, and exposed the culpability of the central government. The very fact, that it met at midnight to discuss the issue and woke up the President (APJ Abdul Kalam) in a foreign country to sign the ordinance to impose President’s Rule smacks of its being more than a willing partner in this rape of democracy.
Looking to the case of former law minister of UPA-I Mr. Hans Raj Bharadhwaj, it is unparalleled in many ways. He was appointed governor of Karnataka on 24th June 2009, replacing Rameshwar Thakur, a Chartered Accountant Congressman. Thakur was transferred despite his term not having been completed. So, was there a plan in place in sending Bharadhwaj, a lawyer by profession, to the only BJP ruled state in the south? Or at least, an appearance of an agenda was not misplaced.
There was this report in the print media, “with governor’s nod, failed BDS student gets another chance”. It was about a student who had failed, but had an IPS officer for a father, with close intelligence proximity to the Governor. Despite being a lawyer, former Union Law Minister Bharadhwaj as Governor of Karnataka did not blink, before asking the university (RGUHS) to constitute a committee and look into it and report back in a week’s time to re-examine the student. It is another matter that former V.Cs were aghast at this unprecedented gubernatorial intervention. And come to think of it, it was the same governor who had earlier in the month admonished the state government on law and order and other issues. Admonishes, advises and other irritating interventions, the governor Bharadhwaj continued and it culminated with Bharadhwaj writing to Election Commission to disqualify Reddy brothers, who were ministers in Karnataka government, ostensibly for holding office of profit, in other words, their business interests. Based on a complaint by a Congress MLC, alleging misuse of office by Reddy brothers in furthering their business interest, Governor issued a notice to Reddy brothers, and since they did not respond, wrote to EC to disqualify them. Now, as a Governor, ‘a friend, philosopher and guide’ that he is, could have called up the Chief Minister for a report and then act accordingly. But the Congressman in him, and the lawyer in him, probably prompted him to ‘act’.
Then there is this tasteless and arrogant dressing down Bharadhwaj gave to the Vice Chancellor of Mysore University in public. There was widespread condemnation of it in the media and in public space, which described the Governor’s action ‘most uncivilized and autocratic’.
Because of his incessant and on-holds barred missives and irritating interventions he has been described in a section of the media, that ‘Bharadhwaj is probably the noisiest governor any state in India had’. Sometime in September 2010, he returned a bill sent to him for ratification, which was probably anybody anywhere wouldn’t have returned unsigned. The Akrama/Sakrama bill, which is the bill to regularize illegal construction or occupation of government land over a long period of time against some hefty fine and other charges is a normal legislative process anywhere in India, and all political dispensations, present and past, have done this, rightly or wrongly. Here we have governors like Bharadhwaj fishing in troubled waters. However, a similar bill by the Congress that came in to power a year ago was cleared without questions, which clearly exposed his duplicity.
He opted for a course of open confrontation, all along his term, then of less than two years. The latest being the recommendation of the Governor to impose President’s rule in Karnataka, in the wake of Supreme Court judgment on 16 MLAs of Karnataka assembly reversing their disqualification back in Dec. 2010, by the Karnataka Speaker, and
later upheld by Karnataka High Court. Of course, whether the judgment is right or not is not the concern of the Governor. But he took a unilateral decision that on the last date of confidence vote in Dec. 2010, the BJP didn’t have the majority since these 16 MLAs who were quali
fied to vote and that they had withdrawn their support. Now this was an interpretation nobody asked for, and although
the centre would have wanted to act on the recommendation, they didn’t, knowing fully well the explosive possibilities. No wonder the news papers gave a call “Bharadhwaj has to go”. One news paper even called him ‘serial offender’ and hence ‘should be recalled’.
Here it is very pertinent to reproduce what The Hindu editorial said, quote “Unabashedly partisan in his motives and actions, Karnataka Governor H.R. Bharadhwaj has been for a long time now, a disgrace to the constitutional office he holds. At every available opportunity, he has been abusing the authority of his office to unseat the BJP government of B.S. Yediyurappa” unquote.
Before concluding on governor Bharadhwaj, a reproduction of a recent editorial view of a Mumbai based English daily is of interest. Quote “You have a failed mofussil lawyer, whose sole claim to the plum gubernatorial assignment was that while specifically nominated to the post of law minister in the Narasimha Rao regime, he had systematically gone about burying the Bofors case a million fathoms deep. Once he had accomplished the task of judicially killing the Bofors investigations, there was no point retaining him as an active politician, so he was given the high sinecure as governor of a key southern state. "unquote.
To argue that, why governors positions are hardly the need for the purpose of governance, except as an office to misuse for political ends of ruling dispensation, above narratives should be enough.
GOVERNORS
WHY DO WE NEED THEM?
Election 2014, has come and gone, but left in its trail, unprecedented arithmetical formulae. Suddenly after 30 years, single party government is in the Centre, although for the record it is National Democratic Alliance (NDA) of some half-a-dozen parties. The supreme leader of the party has been saying all right things and made right noises. But the action-reaction replay on Governors has brought out the old tit-for-tat approach to the fore.
Governors being replaced, when the new government takes over, is not a new phenomena. It has been there since 1977, when the first non-Congress government of Janata Party came to power. So it was not Congress which started the treatment of governors as political footballs. However, it was Congress, more than anybody else, who ruined the office of governor by blatant and brazen politicization of this constitutional position, for their partisan politics.
But quite frankly, what is the earth shattering role of this gubernatorial position that there is a raging national debate on their replacement?
Going back in time informs us, that in the Indian context, it was the Crown of England, as colonial masters, imposed Governors under the Governor General, vide their Government of India Act of 1935 enacted by British Parliament. Under the said law, the Governor wielded enormous power in the administration of the province and was responsible to the Governor General, who was the representative of the Crown. The position also came with immense prestige, privileges and perquisites. Post 1947, swadeshi version diluted governor’s role as an agent of the Union Government to protect constitutional norms while keeping the 3 Ps (prestige, privileges, & perquisites) alive. Thus hankering for these gubernatorial spaces remained high among oldies of respective political party in power. These oldies whose political utility was on the decline, but useful all the same, were rehabilitated in Raj Bhavans. Political parties also obliged former bureaucrats and judges who have helped the party in different ways while in power. Those were acts of ‘thanks giving’. But invariably these ladies and gentlemen were in their 70s and 80s. Thus the sobriquet ‘Old Age Home’ to these royal mansions of the yore.
Under the constitution, the governor of a state has both legislative as well as executive powers. There are three most important powers that a governor has. The power to call the meeting of the state assembly, the adjournment of the assembly and the dissolution of the assembly, are these powers. Of course, constitution empowers him to actively interface with the state government to be consulted and advise as and when such occasion arises. But truly speaking, it is a life of comforts and some power without any responsibility, except keeping the Centre in good humour and occasional demands on his time. And whenever he is not available or his position remain vacant, the Chief Justice of the state, acts as Governor. Thus in terms of involvement in the governance, it is so few, a Governor’s absence is never felt.
The constitutional powers imply twin roles for a governor, one as the de-jure head of the state, he shall perform his duties as per the recommendations of the state cabinet or the Council of Ministers. Another role is that of being an ear and eye of the Union Government. Thus the state government empowers a governor to call the meeting of the assembly and to adjourn the same. But to dissolve the assembly depends upon the direction of the Union Government. Hence, it is the third power that is greatly misused by the Union Government, making the governor, a mere tool to achieve its nefarious goal of destabilizing opposition parties ruled state governments.
There are any number of instances, where a governor’s office was misused by the Union Government to dismiss an elected government. The union governments of Congress Party, at different occasions, was the most notorious in trying to destabilize an elected government, usually of an opposition party. Here it is pertinent to note that although for record ‘The governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President,’ in actual practice both the appointment and dismissal is based on the recommendation of the federal government at New Delhi.
But the 2010 Apex Court intervention stopped such moves by the incumbent government and hence made any removal, so much more difficult. But then, if the government of the day at the Centre, is not on the same wave-length, then a dignified exit by the governor is the best option. Does this mean, the governor is succumbing to pressure? May be yes and no. It depends, how you look at it.
Look back at the history of appointment of Governors. These ladies and gentlemen, who were appointed or are being appointed, were invariably retired babus, judges, or senior politicians, who have already enjoyed their life during their active life. Now they are retired, and many of them even tired. In all fairness, having had a good life materially, with the changes in the government with none of their friends and well wishers at the helm, it is but fitting, that they leave the space in dignity, instead of being pushed around with all kinds of machinations by the new government and make them helpless to quit.
As we already know, responding to the calls by Union Home Secretary, two of the state governors have already sent in their papers, while some have refused to quit. What approach ‘Abki baar Modi sarkar’ shall have, has to be seen.
However, as a rational exercise, it is important to understand the role of this gubernatorial office and the cost involved in keeping it going. We have already discussed the limited function of a state governor’s office. Now we shall see the financial implication on a wider scale.
Governor’s bungalow, the Raj Bhavan, is situated on prime real estate property in every state. When sold, it can generate some big money for the state. Then the cost of furnishing it, can be equally big, because of its size. The manicured garden with, attendant gardeners and battery of other personnel for the upkeep of the Bungalow, like the security staff, office staff, medical staff etc, with all of them having hardly any occupancy in terms of job.
Thus the amount of monumental waste that goes on in Raj Bhavan is really very huge. The salary, the monthly allowances and other benefits besides terminal benefits provided, from the Governor at the top to the security man on the gate, at the bottom, is a huge amount, month after month. Add to these, are the fleet of vehicles, 2 wheelers to 4 wheelers, fuel, spares, maintenance, and insurance cost besides misappropriation through illegitimate means, if any, makes it indeed very very huge, and we are talking about 30 states plus union territories! Can you imagine the mind boggling recurring expenditure, besides the capital expenditure? That’s easily hundreds of crores of rupees every year. And it’s been happening for all the 66 years. Can’t this money be saved and put into better use by simply scrapping the office of Governor? After all this humongous cost is incurred on men and women in their 70s & 80s, not in their best of health either, only to enjoy the state largesse in exclusive ‘Old Age Homes’ called Raj Bhavan. Indeed, India do not need Governors, especially when Chief Justice of High Courts can double up when needed, at no extra cost.
The recent ongoing debate on the removal or otherwise of Governors of states by the incumbent government has prompted us to revisit this institution to put in public domain, how some of the governors appointed by the government of the day played their constitutional role so very unconstitutionally in tune with the agenda of the ruling party at the centre.
We all recognize that governorship of any state is a kind of reward for an old war-horse or to rehabilitate a retired babu, who has been a partner in the past with their political masters in their wheelings and dealings. Also at times to send a troublesome party leader into political ‘vanavaas’, this governorship was rewarded.
Governors playing politics or appointed to play politics was started by Indira Gandhi and continued through Rajeev Gandhi to the latest government of Sonia/Manmohan combine.
Looking back over the shoulder, walking down the memory lane, there have been many governors, acting on instructions from their political masters, played nasty. From Thakur Ram Lal to Sardar Buta Singh to Hans Raj Bharadhwaj were all trouble making governors, besides others, who were not as diabolic as the former three. All of them were politicians first and constitutional heads later.
Thakur Ramlal, who was an MLA from Himachal Pradesh, elected continuously six times, and was Chief Minister twice, was sent to Andhra Pradesh, where N.T. Rama Rao had become a kind of nemesis of Congress party. N.T. Rama Rao’s Telugu Desam Party had won 203 of the 294 seats in Andhra Assembly, against the 56 seats won by Congress Party, in the Dec. 1983 election. Congress had lost power in Andhra for the first time.
On 15th Aug. 1984, exactly one year after Ramlal came to Hyderabad as Governor, he dismissed the Telugu Desam government, when NTR, the Chief Minister was on a foreign trip. Ramlal installed a former Congressman, Nadendla Bhaskar Rao as the Chief Minister stating that he had the support of majority, which was not true. This move had the blessings of Indira Gandhi.
On his return NTR mobilized all his supporters and paraded them at Raj Bhavan. An unmoved Ramlal rejected his claim. There was wide-spread condemnation across the country. Most opposition political parties supported NTR in his fight for restoration of his democratically elected government. In the crisis that remained for almost a month, Indira Gandhi was forced to remove Governor Ramlal and Shankar Dayal Sharma, who was to become the President of India in later years, was sent to Hyderabad as new Governor, who restored NTR as the Chief Minister in Sept. 1984.
Sardar Buta Singh was sent by the centre to Bihar to try and install the government of its choice, and see that it survives without any hiccups. Unfortunately the figures at the hustings did not add up to the required equation. However, since Governor Buta Singh did not want the opposition to have a fair chance to form the government, using his legislative powers he dissolved the assembly, leaving the opposition NDA in lurch. Thus the Governor Buta Singh not only went against the constitutional propriety but also imposed on an impoverished state, a huge expenditure of crores of rupees for another, completely avoidable, election on the state. Of course as the luck would have it, NDA romped home with a comfortable majority on its own. Both Congress and the Governor were disgraced.
Here it is important to recount the Supreme Court intervention in the Bihar imbroglio. According to PTI “The apex court has held that Bihar governor Buta Singh’s decision to recommend dissolution of the state assembly under the garb of checking defection was obviously perverse and taken in bad faith,” observed a five judge constitution bench, in a majority verdict. “On facts, the inescapable inference is, that the sole object of the governor was to prevent the claim (of NDA) being made to form government and the case would fall under category of bad faith” said the judgment.
Rebutting the contention of the centre that the governor was in the know of the state of affairs in the state which was ‘destroying the very fabric of democracy’, (Governor’s report to the centre) the judgment observed that, “it had not reached that stage and the governors report was intended to forestall any voting and staking of claim to form the government”. The judgment further held that, “There was no material, let alone relevant , with the government, to assume that there was blatant distortion of democracy by induced defection through unethical and unconstitutional means”.
It was a damning indictment of the governor, and exposed the culpability of the central government. The very fact, that it met at midnight to discuss the issue and woke up the President (APJ Abdul Kalam) in a foreign country to sign the ordinance to impose President’s Rule smacks of its being more than a willing partner in this rape of democracy.
Looking to the case of former law minister of UPA-I Mr. Hans Raj Bharadhwaj, it is unparalleled in many ways. He was appointed governor of Karnataka on 24th June 2009, replacing Rameshwar Thakur, a Chartered Accountant Congressman. Thakur was transferred despite his term not having been completed. So, was there a plan in place in sending Bharadhwaj, a lawyer by profession, to the only BJP ruled state in the south? Or at least, an appearance of an agenda was not misplaced.
There was this report in the print media, “with governor’s nod, failed BDS student gets another chance”. It was about a student who had failed, but had an IPS officer for a father, with close intelligence proximity to the Governor. Despite being a lawyer, former Union Law Minister Bharadhwaj as Governor of Karnataka did not blink, before asking the university (RGUHS) to constitute a committee and look into it and report back in a week’s time to re-examine the student. It is another matter that former V.Cs were aghast at this unprecedented gubernatorial intervention. And come to think of it, it was the same governor who had earlier in the month admonished the state government on law and order and other issues. Admonishes, advises and other irritating interventions, the governor Bharadhwaj continued and it culminated with Bharadhwaj writing to Election Commission to disqualify Reddy brothers, who were ministers in Karnataka government, ostensibly for holding office of profit, in other words, their business interests. Based on a complaint by a Congress MLC, alleging misuse of office by Reddy brothers in furthering their business interest, Governor issued a notice to Reddy brothers, and since they did not respond, wrote to EC to disqualify them. Now, as a Governor, ‘a friend, philosopher and guide’ that he is, could have called up the Chief Minister for a report and then act accordingly. But the Congressman in him, and the lawyer in him, probably prompted him to ‘act’.
Then there is this tasteless and arrogant dressing down Bharadhwaj gave to the Vice Chancellor of Mysore University in public. There was widespread condemnation of it in the media and in public space, which described the Governor’s action ‘most uncivilized and autocratic’.
Because of his incessant and on-holds barred missives and irritating interventions he has been described in a section of the media, that ‘Bharadhwaj is probably the noisiest governor any state in India had’. Sometime in September 2010, he returned a bill sent to him for ratification, which was probably anybody anywhere wouldn’t have returned unsigned. The Akrama/Sakrama bill, which is the bill to regularize illegal construction or occupation of government land over a long period of time against some hefty fine and other charges is a normal legislative process anywhere in India, and all political dispensations, present and past, have done this, rightly or wrongly. Here we have governors like Bharadhwaj fishing in troubled waters. However, a similar bill by the Congress that came in to power a year ago was cleared without questions, which clearly exposed his duplicity.
He opted for a course of open confrontation, all along his term, then of less than two years. The latest being the recommendation of the Governor to impose President’s rule in Karnataka, in the wake of Supreme Court judgment on 16 MLAs of Karnataka assembly reversing their disqualification back in Dec. 2010, by the Karnataka Speaker, and
later upheld by Karnataka High Court. Of course, whether the judgment is right or not is not the concern of the Governor. But he took a unilateral decision that on the last date of confidence vote in Dec. 2010, the BJP didn’t have the majority since these 16 MLAs who were quali
fied to vote and that they had withdrawn their support. Now this was an interpretation nobody asked for, and although
the centre would have wanted to act on the recommendation, they didn’t, knowing fully well the explosive possibilities. No wonder the news papers gave a call “Bharadhwaj has to go”. One news paper even called him ‘serial offender’ and hence ‘should be recalled’.
Here it is very pertinent to reproduce what The Hindu editorial said, quote “Unabashedly partisan in his motives and actions, Karnataka Governor H.R. Bharadhwaj has been for a long time now, a disgrace to the constitutional office he holds. At every available opportunity, he has been abusing the authority of his office to unseat the BJP government of B.S. Yediyurappa” unquote.
Before concluding on governor Bharadhwaj, a reproduction of a recent editorial view of a Mumbai based English daily is of interest. Quote “You have a failed mofussil lawyer, whose sole claim to the plum gubernatorial assignment was that while specifically nominated to the post of law minister in the Narasimha Rao regime, he had systematically gone about burying the Bofors case a million fathoms deep. Once he had accomplished the task of judicially killing the Bofors investigations, there was no point retaining him as an active politician, so he was given the high sinecure as governor of a key southern state. "unquote.
To argue that, why governors positions are hardly the need for the purpose of governance, except as an office to misuse for political ends of ruling dispensation, above narratives should be enough.
GOVERNORS
WHY DO WE NEED THEM?
Election 2014, has come and gone, but left in its trail, unprecedented arithmetical formulae. Suddenly after 30 years, single party government is in the Centre, although for the record it is National Democratic Alliance (NDA) of some half-a-dozen parties. The supreme leader of the party has been saying all right things and made right noises. But the action-reaction replay on Governors has brought out the old tit-for-tat approach to the fore.
Governors being replaced, when the new government takes over, is not a new phenomena. It has been there since 1977, when the first non-Congress government of Janata Party came to power. So it was not Congress which started the treatment of governors as political footballs. However, it was Congress, more than anybody else, who ruined the office of governor by blatant and brazen politicization of this constitutional position, for their partisan politics.
But quite frankly, what is the earth shattering role of this gubernatorial position that there is a raging national debate on their replacement?
Going back in time informs us, that in the Indian context, it was the Crown of England, as colonial masters, imposed Governors under the Governor General, vide their Government of India Act of 1935 enacted by British Parliament. Under the said law, the Governor wielded enormous power in the administration of the province and was responsible to the Governor General, who was the representative of the Crown. The position also came with immense prestige, privileges and perquisites. Post 1947, swadeshi version diluted governor’s role as an agent of the Union Government to protect constitutional norms while keeping the 3 Ps (prestige, privileges, & perquisites) alive. Thus hankering for these gubernatorial spaces remained high among oldies of respective political party in power. These oldies whose political utility was on the decline, but useful all the same, were rehabilitated in Raj Bhavans. Political parties also obliged former bureaucrats and judges who have helped the party in different ways while in power. Those were acts of ‘thanks giving’. But invariably these ladies and gentlemen were in their 70s and 80s. Thus the sobriquet ‘Old Age Home’ to these royal mansions of the yore.
Under the constitution, the governor of a state has both legislative as well as executive powers. There are three most important powers that a governor has. The power to call the meeting of the state assembly, the adjournment of the assembly and the dissolution of the assembly, are these powers. Of course, constitution empowers him to actively interface with the state government to be consulted and advise as and when such occasion arises. But truly speaking, it is a life of comforts and some power without any responsibility, except keeping the Centre in good humour and occasional demands on his time. And whenever he is not available or his position remain vacant, the Chief Justice of the state, acts as Governor. Thus in terms of involvement in the governance, it is so few, a Governor’s absence is never felt.
The constitutional powers imply twin roles for a governor, one as the de-jure head of the state, he shall perform his duties as per the recommendations of the state cabinet or the Council of Ministers. Another role is that of being an ear and eye of the Union Government. Thus the state government empowers a governor to call the meeting of the assembly and to adjourn the same. But to dissolve the assembly depends upon the direction of the Union Government. Hence, it is the third power that is greatly misused by the Union Government, making the governor, a mere tool to achieve its nefarious goal of destabilizing opposition parties ruled state governments.
There are any number of instances, where a governor’s office was misused by the Union Government to dismiss an elected government. The union governments of Congress Party, at different occasions, was the most notorious in trying to destabilize an elected government, usually of an opposition party. Here it is pertinent to note that although for record ‘The governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President,’ in actual practice both the appointment and dismissal is based on the recommendation of the federal government at New Delhi.
But the 2010 Apex Court intervention stopped such moves by the incumbent government and hence made any removal, so much more difficult. But then, if the government of the day at the Centre, is not on the same wave-length, then a dignified exit by the governor is the best option. Does this mean, the governor is succumbing to pressure? May be yes and no. It depends, how you look at it.
Look back at the history of appointment of Governors. These ladies and gentlemen, who were appointed or are being appointed, were invariably retired babus, judges, or senior politicians, who have already enjoyed their life during their active life. Now they are retired, and many of them even tired. In all fairness, having had a good life materially, with the changes in the government with none of their friends and well wishers at the helm, it is but fitting, that they leave the space in dignity, instead of being pushed around with all kinds of machinations by the new government and make them helpless to quit.
As we already know, responding to the calls by Union Home Secretary, two of the state governors have already sent in their papers, while some have refused to quit. What approach ‘Abki baar Modi sarkar’ shall have, has to be seen.
However, as a rational exercise, it is important to understand the role of this gubernatorial office and the cost involved in keeping it going. We have already discussed the limited function of a state governor’s office. Now we shall see the financial implication on a wider scale.
Governor’s bungalow, the Raj Bhavan, is situated on prime real estate property in every state. When sold, it can generate some big money for the state. Then the cost of furnishing it, can be equally big, because of its size. The manicured garden with, attendant gardeners and battery of other personnel for the upkeep of the Bungalow, like the security staff, office staff, medical staff etc, with all of them having hardly any occupancy in terms of job.
Thus the amount of monumental waste that goes on in Raj Bhavan is really very huge. The salary, the monthly allowances and other benefits besides terminal benefits provided, from the Governor at the top to the security man on the gate, at the bottom, is a huge amount, month after month. Add to these, are the fleet of vehicles, 2 wheelers to 4 wheelers, fuel, spares, maintenance, and insurance cost besides misappropriation through illegitimate means, if any, makes it indeed very very huge, and we are talking about 30 states plus union territories! Can you imagine the mind boggling recurring expenditure, besides the capital expenditure? That’s easily hundreds of crores of rupees every year. And it’s been happening for all the 66 years. Can’t this money be saved and put into better use by simply scrapping the office of Governor? After all this humongous cost is incurred on men and women in their 70s & 80s, not in their best of health either, only to enjoy the state largesse in exclusive ‘Old Age Homes’ called Raj Bhavan. Indeed, India do not need Governors, especially when Chief Justice of High Courts can double up when needed, at no extra cost.
Comments