India’s federal structure calls for the division and sharing of powers on a territorial basis between the Centre and states. After Independence, the predominance of a single party in the national narrative ensured a strong centrifugal system that was given to its own agenda, arbitrariness and biases. It also fuelled regionalism and gave rise to anti-Delhi sentiments. The larger issue of a tenuous Centre-state relationship came to the forefront only in the late 1960s, when the state Assemblies saw the rapid emergence of Opposition and regional parties beyond the Congress. In 1969, the flag of concern was raised by three non-Congress chief ministers from Orissa, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. They insisted on decentralisation of power and transparency in the financial doles meted out to the states.
Given the increasingly fragmented political landscape and natural impulses and instincts of all sides, constitutional appointments like governors and the provision requiring presidential assent for bills passed in the state Assemblies became invaluable political tools. Often, the constitutional resources and processes were deployed to checkmate and suppress the states’ autonomy and the federal framework — tainting the hallowed spirit of the Indian Constitution and militating against popular sovereignty. The frequent invoking of Article 356 through the state governors’ recommendation to impose President’s Rule in a state is one such contentious Centre-state flashpoint. It was prophetically pre-empted by the chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar. He had wished that the use of Article 356 be a “dead letter” — only to be used when all other means had been exhausted. The partisan behaviour by parties of all hues, denominations and combinations has been responsible for the misuse of this provision.
The recent instances of gubernatorial overreach in both the Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand Assemblies has given fresh ammunition to disgruntled chief ministers (belonging to Opposition parties) to voice their concerns on the mirage-like reality of the oft-quoted principle of “cooperative federalism”. With the Supreme Court indictments in sail, Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar launched a meaningful debate, that questioned the relevance, role and conduct of those appointed as governors. The debate in the 11th Inter-State Council saw riled Opposition chief ministers invoking several parts of the unimplemented findings of the Sarkaria Commission and the Punchhi Commission, and alluded to the Supreme Court’s guiding principle in the landmark S.R. Bommai case. Clearly, the ruling dispensation has boxed itself into a corner with the questionable conduct of some of its new appointees in the past couple of years.
To appoint any individual as governor is the sole prerogative of the ruling party as long as the individual meets the basic criteria of eminence and hails from outside the state and its politics. However, what has really raised hackles is the post-appointment conduct of these individuals, including questionable political preferences and the constitutional compromises they have made. The familiar, rote and protracted quasi-purge of removing the appointees of an earlier government was justified on the grounds of similar behaviour by previous dispensations — an opportunity to correct a historical malaise was lost. The demonstrated gubernatorial actions have now taken on hitherto unseen and brazen levels of politicisation and deep tones of ideological colours, that are being projected, unconvincingly, as a “nationalistic” imperative.
Comments like “Hindustan for Hindus” or that Muslims “are free to go to Pakistan” by one governor, or such as “whatever gave you notion that I am secular? I am a Hindu...” by another — the list of avoidable opinions that are rooted in ideological beliefs is unfortunately long. The popular notion of Raj Bhavans being “old-age-homes” for party lions in the winter of their lives, or as dens of the Centre’s apparatchiks, is both regrettable and true in parts. However, given the proliferation of parties and the accompanying mathematics of permutations and combinations of cobbling together electoral numbers — the presence of an apolitical and constitutionally upright “wise man” cannot be overemphasised.
Given the political nature of the domain, the induction of erstwhile political warlords who have sheathed the sabre is also kosher; it is not wrong as a certain political understanding is required to handle the constitutional quandaries that can emerge in a multi-party coalition or in an Assembly. Certain border states with a strong democratic culture and regional parties (with “soft-secessionist” tendencies) are always susceptible to testing the limits of constitutional, territorial and sovereign frameworks — herein, the role of a Delhi-appointed governor who can rein in the political enthusiasm to within the contours of constitutional fences is invaluable. Neither a “rubber-stamp” nor “politically active” governor is needed. On the contrary, “textbook” conduct, like that by late President K.R. Narayanan (who defined himself as a “citizen President”), who had the wisdom, moral courage and political sagacity to “return” files relating to President’s Rule twice — once to the United Front government trying to dismiss a BJP state government, and again to the NDA government, seeking to remove a RJD government in Bihar — in both cases, given the strict impartiality and “textbook” adherence to the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution, no taint of individual or political bias were attributed to the constitutional conscience-keeper.
Bihar CM Nitish Kumar has raised a valid point in pre-aligning chief ministers on gubernatorial appointments, purely from the perspective of healthy Centre-state ties, the dignity of the post and the respect for decisions taken by the constitutional head of the state. These points are in conformity with ignored and forgotten portions of the Sarkaria Commission report. The operative words in Nitish Kumar’s pitch was “transparency” and “consultation” — reminiscent of 1969 trust deficits in the Centre-state relationships. Now, with judicial intervention leading to the restoration of Opposition-led governments in Dehradun and Itanagar, the Centre has an opportunity to mend fences, and walk the talk on “cooperative federalism”, and indeed on the BJP’s claims to be a “party with a difference”.
