BY Ravichandran Raman
Many pundits say that it is visible that during the 2 terms of Modiji Govt., the Govt makes all out effort to turn all independent Govt. agencies like CBI, IT , Enforcement, RBI, Election Commission, Governorships, etc. into subordinates of Executive Branch, headed by Prime Minister. Govt. tests to penetrate and troubles to the maximum one of the 3 Constitutional pillars Supreme Court. The other pillar Legislature is totally controlled by BJP. In States where the Legislature and Executive is in opposition hands, BJP under Modiji makes it a hell for those Governments through the extra constitutional autocracy of Governors. Latest in this episode of relentless attack on opposition ruled States is by Tamil Nadu Governor.
Mr. Ravi has been voicing controversial political views for quite some time. His indiscreet remarks in recent days to the effect that the State should not call itself ‘Tamil Nadu’ and that its politics was “regressive” portended tension when he came to address the House. What was unfortunate about Mr. Ravi’s approach was that his baiting of the DMK regime was carried into the legislature, of which he is an integral part -his party politics he has carried above Gubernatorial post duties and etiquette. Mr. Ravi chose to skip portions of the Government prepared text, including a reference to the “Dravidian model of governance” and words commending the law-and-order situation in the State. There have been instances of Governors deviating from the prepared texts, but unlike in other States, this evoked an immediate backlash from Chief Minister Mr. M.K. Stalin. The constitutional convention is that the President or the Governor should not depart from the text, as it is nothing but a statement of policy of the elected government. How come a Central Government appointed Governor change or twist the elected Governments policy statement? BJP is caressing and creating a breed of Governors who don’t believe in constitution but oblige to the hidden agenda of Modiji Government’s politicking in the State. Some Chief Ministers have in the past avoided confrontation despite the occasional departure from the convention. But Mr. Stalin, however, chose to act swiftly in the very presence of the Governor through a resolution that said the House record would reflect only the prepared text, and not the one with impromptu additions or deletions made during delivery by the Governor.
As soon as Mr.Ravi realised the import of Mr. Stalin’s speech in Tamil, Governor walked out. It is rare for Governors react to show their anger by walking out. It shows the in-equilibrium of the person vs his position. This is the latest trait BJP is inculcating on its appointed Governors The Governor need not have reacted in such a manner, as there is no reason why a deviation from convention on the Governor’s part should not be met with an immediate response that was also a deviation from convention. A confrontationist attitude on the part of constitutional functionaries is not good for any State. If Governor gives up his penchant for making politically loaded remarks and is heedful of the State’s political sensibilities, these controversies can be avoided. Suo Moto, Supreme Court is requested, humbly ,to take up it as a case to clarify the constitutional role of the Governor bunching all the controversies of the opposition ruled states and its Governors’ reported controversies from Kiran Bedi to Ravi so as incumbents in Raj Bhavan give up their sense of overlordship and focus on their core constitutional functions such as granting assent to Bills.
To coming back to the headline question, the tendency is called autocracy but so far Indian constitution is escaping by a thin margin, to be called as such.