Partisan governors: The shrinking space for dissent

Conduct of constitutional offices and institutions warrants apolitical bearing and expressions. While legality is imperative, upholding the spirit of constitutional morality and unconstrained ‘voice’ is the key. Is India witnessing the erosion and diminishment of such offices and institutions or are they displaying the spine to question the powers-that-be? The answer lies in the capacity to recollect the last time when a dissenting note was struck against the ruling dispensation at the Centre by the Rashtrapati Bhawan, Raj Bhawan/Raj Niwas, investigative agencies, et al? The displeasures are seemingly reserved exclusively for opposition parties or states run by the same.

To be fair, this is not a new phenomenon as there have always been taints of partisanship in earlier times too. From the infamous surrender on the night of June 25, 1975 (imposition of Emergency) to the then Uttar Pradesh Governor Romesh Bhandari’s ill-advised recommendation to dismiss Kalyan Singh’s government, history is instructive of misuse of constitutional offices.

However, there have been many instances of presidents and governors who refused to kowtow and upheld the dignity and majesty of democratic and constitutional traditions. Examples like KR Narayanan, APJ Abdul Kalam to even Zail Singh, standing up to attempts to reduce their offices to “rubber stamps" are legendary.

But all that was in the distant past. Today, successive occupants to the highest office of the land on the Raisina Hill have quietly endorsed all Bills and debates (some contentious and polarising) with no call to caution, let alone “reconsider". The highest offices in the states and union territories, too, have shown similar acquiescence, with no space to disagree, save for disagreements with opposition parties or against the opposition party-led governments. The timeless adage of a thriving democracy that “disagreement is the highest form of patriotism" has long been buried.

Foundational fathers of the “constitutional idea of India", including Dr BR Ambedkar, had insisted that a governor ought not to use his/her discretion as a “representative of a party" but as the “representative of the people as a whole." It implied a fierce independence that owed no obligation to the partisan persuasion that had elevated them to the high office in the first place.

While competitive politics by all national or regional parties are rumbustious, unsubstantiated, and even unhinged, it was hoped that the constitutional appointees would act like the proverbial “adults in a room" to ensure that constitutional propriety reigned supreme once the dust and din of accusations had settled.

Sadly, recent times have seen a flurry of gubernatorial outreaches that have blurred the essential lines between constitutional posts and politicians. To make matters worse, such partisan derelictions by erring appointees are not shunned. Rather, they are encouraged with telling silences and promotions.

It is not as if it is only the career politicians in gubernatorial roles who are found unhealthily enthusiastic on partisan matters. Even those from professional backgrounds in supposedly apolitical institutions are seen participating in matters which militate against the mandated restraint and sobriety.

One running case of the governor-versus-chief minister saga (obviously in an opposition party-ruled state) is from Tamil Nadu. While the state politicians (irrespective of party) are never a modicum of constitutional morality, given the excesses, “manufactured emotions", and leniencies that they practice, it is incumbent on the “conscience-keeper of the Constitution", ie, the governor, to not retaliate act by act.

Tamil Nadu has had its own complicated history of dissonance, with contentious issues like language, culture, etc, but over time, most sore points had healed and an overarching theme of acceptance and natural inclusivity prevailed.

Today, a sense of reactionary and regional revisionism with perceived impositions by “Delhi" has returned. The agendas of the past are making a comeback. While the regional and national political parties cannot escape blame for the regressive slide, it is conjoining of the gubernatorial offices in the partisan battles that is increasingly discomforting.

Recently, it took the Supreme Court to call out that actions of the sitting Governor of Tamil Nadu as “arbitrary" and “illegal", when ruling that the Governor cannot reserve Bills for the President after withholding assent. The top court presciently reminded, “All actions of the Governor must align with the principle of parliamentary democracy", suggesting a diminishment of the vital federal spirit, as envisaged in the Constitution. On cue, it corrected the action by noting, “All actions taken by the Governor thereto for the 10 bills are set aside. These Bills shall be deemed to be cleared from the date it was re-presented to the Governor."

Incidentally, the said Governor has had a distinguished career in the Indian Police Service in amongst the most politicised states (in terms of Center-state relations), ie, Kerala. Hence, he would be expected to be well versed with the dangers of partisanship. Later, he was to assume very responsible positions in other professional and ostensibly apolitical institutions like the Central Bureau of Intelligence (CBI) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and even a stint as Deputy National Security Adviser, which would have grounded him in the need to maintain the lofty spirit of independence and constitutional morality.

But his gubernatorial stint has been marked by inelegant run-ins with the state government. For example, when he refused convention to deliver a prepared speech and pursuant to the same, omitted words such as secularism, compassion, women empowerment, self-respect and portions on Dravidian leaders and BR Ambedkar. It would be naïve to assume that the selected omissions were not conforming to any partisan preference.

In times that be, valourising the dominant partisan thought is all-pervasive and the crucial power to dissent is seemingly exercised at only the opposition side. If the ruling dispensation truly seeks to be the “party with a difference" (as claimed), it needn’t invoke the playbook of the past. Indians and Indian politics deserve better.

Comments