
In the three years and four months that R N Ravi has been governor of Tamil Nadu, his conflicts with the ruling DMK government have become a wearying matter of public discourse, with the Raj Bhavan appearing bent on thwarting every other act of the elected government. The state government has sought recourse in the judiciary more than once.
Last week, the Supreme Court directed the two parties to resolve the issue of forming search panels for vice-chancellors of state varsities - six of which are without heads due to the intractable standoff - by the next hearing on January 22, or the court would do so itself.
This comes days after Raj Bhavan described Chief Minister M K Stalin as ‘arrogant’ in response to the latter terming Ravi ‘childish’ for walking out of the assembly for the third year in a row.
Indeed, the grounds for the governor’s walkout this time were as unconvincing as earlier and at odds with the conventions set on prior occasions.
He complained that the governor’s address was preceded by the state anthem instead of the national anthem, although he had been informed last year that this is the convention followed by the Tamil Nadu House, where the national anthem is sung at the end of the address.
Subsequently, the Raj Bhavan charged Stalin and his “coalition” of neither respecting nor accepting “Bharat as a nation”, a loaded accusation to make of a democratically elected government.
Raj Bhavan’s further claims of insult to the Constitution come even as the government contends before the Supreme Court that the governor’s action on pending bills and files from the state have been unconstitutional.
Given the politically charged nature of his frequent criticisms of the state government and the ideology of the ruling party, the question about his role arises again. His actions as a representative of the Union government have only served to support the DMK’s contention of political motives; Stalin went so far as to say that his speeches help the DMK “expose the BJP” and convey the validity of its demand for state autonomy.
With the continuation of the governor in the state appearing counterproductive to governance and state-Centre relations, a question mark hangs over the reason for his continuation in the post.