The governor of Tamil Nadu appears to be wanting to strike at the heart of Dravidian identity and culture while failing to understand that the Dravidian politics is not regressive. Further, he appears to see the demand for more powers and rights to the states as advocated in the constitution as a separatist quest. This is an abuse of the services and sacrifices borne by the people of TN towards the ideals and dreams of India as a free, independent, democratic and secular republic.
He conducts himself as a governor elected by people and as a person at the top of his political career who is not reluctant to act above the elected legislature or as a power to reckon in the state politics. What is more humiliating to the people of the state is that he conducts all these activities in the name of language, culture, religion, nationalism and patriotism.
In legal and constitutional terms, it is necessary to mention here that the pattern of government in the states is the same as that for the union—the executive being a constitutional head that is to act according to the advice of the cabinet responsible to the state legislature except in matters with respect to which the governor is empowered by the constitution to act ‘in his discretion’ (Article.163 (1)).
This raises the question of how the governor could omit names of leaders who contributed to the development of the state and make additions to the speech in the House that has been approved by him and the government. Chief Minister MK Stalin’s decision to pass a unanimous resolution to retain the text and draft of the approved speech on the records of the state legislature is debatable but justifiable under the circumstances of the disregard and disrespect shown by the governor to the names of distinguished state leaders, including the father of the Indian constitution Dr BR Ambedkar.
Stalin’s act was welcomed in the state and in other parts of the country, but not by leaders of the BJP’s TN unit who preferred to defend the governor. Worse, unable to bear the act of resistance, the governor walked out of the legislature in protest even before the national anthem was played.
Last but not the least, is the question as to upon whose advice and guidance this governor is recommending for a change in the name of the state? There are many such questions that may never be addressed, including on the removal of state emblem from Raj Bhavan’s Pongal invite, as long as the BJP holds the reigns of Indian polity. At this stage, there is a simple but core concern. The continuation of RN Ravi as governor will neither serve the ideals of our constitutional forefathers as envisaged in the preamble of our constitution nor will it strengthen the cause of unity and integrity of India.
Footnote is a weekly column that discusses issues relating to Tamil Nadu
Governance pattern in states in India
The pattern of government in the states is the same as that for the union – the executive being a constitutional head that is to act according to the advice of the cabinet
Prof Ramu Manivannan, Professor & Head (Retd), Department of Politics & Public Administration, University of Madras