Karnataka government vs Governor: Was latest showdown avoidable?
The face-off between the State Government and Raj Bhavan – now renamed Lok Bhavan – is not new. It was observed earlier during Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s current tenure and before that, when the BJP was in power. Such frictions are more apparent in neighbouring Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
In Karnataka, the strained Centre-State relations manifested in a showdown over the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission-(Gramin) Act (VB-G RAM G Act), replacing the former Congress-led UPA government’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) on the opening day of the joint session of the state legislature. Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot refused to read the full speech drafted by the government. Instead, he restricted his address to just three sentences before exiting the Assembly Hall.
The Governor’s action and the developments that followed emphasise the need to evolve a mechanism to ensure the smooth functioning of constitutional posts. The latest development must be viewed in a broader perspective, including a fresh look at the necessity of the governor’s mandatory address to the joint session at the beginning of every year. Simultaneously, lawmakers should reflect on allegations of using such occasions for political messaging and the questionable conduct of a few legislators.
On the face of it, it appeared like an avoidable confrontation, with both sides making efforts. A day before the session, the Governor’s office expressed reservations over certain references to the VB-G RAM G Act in the draft speech sent by the State Government, asking it to be reworked. Soon after, a government delegation held talks with the Governor. The government claimed that Lok Bhavan asked them to remove 11 paragraphs, especially those with reference to the new Act, from the speech, which they refused.
The State Government is expressing its opposition to the new Act, which it feels is likely to have significant financial implications. However, those privy to the developments say the government could have conveyed its message by avoiding a confrontational tone in the Governor’s speech.
Nine out of 122 paragraphs of the speech were about the new Act. Though much of the speech is devoted to the government’s work, the cause of concern seems to be with the references, such as “… unconstitutional conduct,” “push the national interest towards destruction,” and “…facilitates large-scale corruption”.
It goes on to declare: “By repealing the MGNREGA Act, which was a monumental chapter in rural India’s development journey, the rural life of India has been weakened.” It is unclear on what basis the State Government came to that conclusion, even before the implementation of the new scheme.
It is common for such sweeping statements to be made in political speeches, but is it appropriate to do so in the Governor’s address? Unfortunately, the harsh reality of party politics makes such nuances appear almost irrelevant. Given the strong view taken by the Congress’s high command, there is a competing enthusiasm among party leaders to show that they are at the forefront of the fight against the new Act.
As a political party, Congress has every right to take the stand it deems appropriate, and the State Government can oppose what it feels is not in the best interest of its citizens. However, the concern is with mixing party politics with governance and alleged attempts to use the legislative forum to amplify political messaging.
On its part, the Governor’s office should have been more accommodating, and not insistent on the State Government removing references to the new Act from the speech. They could have suggested replacing the words or sentences they deemed inappropriate for the Governor to mention about the Act, which has already been assented to by the President of India.
Congress legislators have accused the Governor of violating Articles 163 and 176 of the Indian Constitution. Some even raised slogans like “Governor, go back!” in the Council. The charges against the Governor have been outright rejected by the opposition BJP lawmakers, who defended his action of reading the first two sentences and the last sentence of the speech prepared by the government.
In the ensuing chaos in the assembly, marshals and security personnel had to strenuously make way for the Governor. Some Congress legislators allegedly rushed and tried to stop him while he was exiting the hall after his brief address. All eyes are on the action to be taken by the Presiding Officers of the Assembly and Council, who are responsible for ensuring decorum.
Law Minister HK Patil was right in stating on the floor of the House that they do not draft speeches to please the Governor, and there were no personal allegations in the address. However, in doing so, shouldn’t the government exercise caution with its tone and tenor?
In hindsight, both sides could have been a little more forthcoming to avoid the showdown, while maintaining their respective stands. The after-effects were felt in heated exchanges during proceedings in the Assembly and Council during the first two days of the session. It has also set the tone for the remaining five days of the session next week, when they are likely to discuss the VB-G RAM G Act. Both sides are eager to go that extra mile to make their point as the political stakes remain high.