Sarkar vs Sarkaria: Opposition cries foul over Governors elected by Centre
CHENNAI: At a time when politicians of every hue were hailing the appointment of BJP State president Tamilisai Soundararajan (she has since resigned) as Telangana governor, Puducherry Chief Minister V Narayanasamy was the lone voice against it. Even as he congratulated her, he charged that the BJP-led NDA government at the Centre had been violating the Sarkaria Commission recommendation that political functionaries should not be appointed as governors. Admitting that the Congress, to which he belongs, had also made similar appointments, he claimed that the BJP was more blatant in going against the commission’s recommendations.
His comments have revived the debate on what kind of personalities should be appointed as Governors of State and whether politicians, specifically, should be made Governors. Centered around this question are the unsettled debates on the role and power of Governors and their contentious relationship with the autonomy of the States.
Governors being agents of the Central government, some, such as the Dravidian movement leaders, have always argued that the existence of the very post of governors posed a danger to the autonomy of State governments. The Sarkaria Commission, set up in 1983, was exactly dealing with such concerns when it remarked, on Governors, “Discarded and disgruntled politicians from the party in power in the union, who cannot be accommodated elsewhere, get appointed. Such persons, while in office, tend to function as agents of the Union Government rather than as impartial constitutional functionaries.”
The emphasis on avoiding politicians for the post is to prevent the impression that the Governor is from the party that is in power at New Delhi and hence that her actions are directed at promoting the interests of her parent party in the State in which she is Governor as well.
The commission argued that eminent personalities from various walks of life, especially those detached from politics, must be appointed as Governors so that they act neutrally. The commission’s recommendations were not fully accepted by the Central government, but they still hold weight because of endorsements from the Supreme Court and instances of Governors crossing the line.
DMK founder and late Chief Minister CN Annadurai once famously remarked “aattukku thaadiyum, naattukku governarum thevaiyillai” (the beard is unnecessary for a goat and so also the Governor post for the country). The questions on the conduct of the Governors rose as early as 1952 in the South when the then Governor Sri Prakasa invited Congress leader C Rajagopalachari to form government even though the Congress did not have a majority in the then Madras Presidency and Rajagopalachari had not even contested the elections. Sri Prakasa had also served in various other capacities in the Congress government.
In Tamil Nadu, where State governments have been dismissed four times, the debate on the role and powers of a Governor heated up last year when Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit, a veteran BJP politician from Maharastra, started holding direct meetings with State government officials. At the height of the furore, the Raj Bhavan released a contentious legal opinion declaring that the Governor was head of the Executive in the State and enjoyed powers equal to the State ministers.
“Whatever the Executive can do, the Governor can also do. The Executive powers of the state are vested in him. Same powers available to the State which are available to the Governor,” the statement said. This challenged the settled understanding that the Governor is only a “figure head” in the State and it is with the Chief Minister and Cabinet that the real power rests. Interestingly, after the AIADMK and BJP joined hands in a poll alliance, Purohit has been less vocal than before.
“Political appointment does not mean a person with political background. Sometimes, retired judges are appointed as Governors. So, any appointment made with ‘political intention’ is a political appointment and that person will act as per the wishes of the Centre. So, the larger issue for debate is about the relevance of the Governor post rather than on political appointments to the post,” said political analyst Tharasu Shyam.
In this connection, he explained that the post was a remnant of the British Raj. During the transition from British rule to Indian rule, there was a need for a stronger Central government and a representative of the Centre at each State. “Now, there is no threat to the country, such as sedition, since any political party can be registered only by accepting the sovereignty of the country. So, the Governor post should be abolished,” he said.
However, senior advocate Tamilmani rejected the view that the post of Governor was unnecessary. He even finds no fault in the appointment of those with a political background. “An ambulance is waiting at a big factory where three shifts of work are going on. Can anyone claim that the driver of the ambulance is being paid for sitting idle? His role is important when there is an emergency. Similarly, when there is a constitutional emergency or instability in the government, the Governor’s role becomes necessary,” he argued.
“An expert in a field will know his subject well. In other spheres, their knowledge is limited. To manage a politically significant responsibility, there is nothing wrong in appointing a person from a political background,” he said, adding that, as in any field, among politicians too there were good and bad people. “Excluding a section (from selection) would be like practising untouchability.”
One figure who cannot be overlooked in any debate on “good Governors” and “bad Governors” is Surjit Singh Barnala. As Governor of Tamil Nadu in 1991, he refused to send a report seeking dismissal of the DMK government, despite pressure from the then Chandrashekar government. It is said that the Congress, with whose support Chandrashekar’s government was surviving, was behind the pressure.
Still, without the Governor’s report, the Centre dismissed the government and Barnala had to resign. Analysis of this episode shifts the focus from the persons holding the office of Governor to their masters — the Union government and party in power. Over the decades, it has become routine for political parties to change Governors when they come to power at the Centre. So Governors also take the cue, or only those who are ready to take the cue get appointed.
“Earlier, the government utilised the services of intellectuals. Ramasamy Mudaliar, Lakshmana Swamy Mudaliar and CP Ramaswamy Iyer held significant posts. Though their political leanings were different, the government used their knowledge for India. But over a period, this has changed. Everyone is running after power. So, political power overtook intellectual power. Only when people raise their voice against such trends in a massive, democratic way, will change come,” said K Thirunavukkarasu, historian of Dravidian Movement.
‘Critical of quality of governors’
The Sarkaria Commission, in its report, said “Most of the replies to our questionnaire received from a cross-section of the public, are critical of the quality and standard of some of the persons appointed as Governors.”
What Sarkaria commission said
A person appointed as a Governor should be:
1. Eminent in some walk of life.
2. A person from outside of the State.
3. Detached figure and not too intimately connected with the local politics of the State; and
4. A person who has not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past.
5. In selecting a governor in accordance with the above criteria, persons belonging to the minority groups should continue to be given a chance as hitherto.
A post with a Colonial legacy
The Sarkaria Commission traced the post to the Government of India Act, 1858 which transferred the responsibility for administration of India from the East India Company to the British Crown. The Governor became an agent of the Crown, functioning under the supervision of the Governor-General. The Governor of India Act, 1935, introduced provincial autonomy. The Governor was now required to act on the advice of Ministers responsible to the legislature. In 1937, the Congress commanded a majority in six provincial legislatures. It agreed to assume office after an assurance from the Viceroy that the Governors would not provoke a conflict with the elected government.
Why not an elected governor?
The Constituent Assembly discussed at length the various provisions relating to the Governor. One of them was whether there should be an elected Governor. It was recognised that the co-existence of an elected Governor and a chief minister responsible to the Legislature might lead to friction and consequent weakness in administration. The concept of an elected Governor was therefore given up in favour of a nominated Governor. Explaining in the Constituent Assembly why a Governor should be nominated by the President and not elected, Jawaharlal Nehru observed that an elected Governor would, to some extent, encourage the spearatist provincial tendency more than otherwise.