Monday, March 25, 2013

Fare the Well, Dear Mr. Governor

Amidst recurring controversies regarding Governors serving The Political Interests of The Centre, A debate to either Abolish or Relook The Constitutional position of The Governor is The need of The Hour.

The position of the Governor which was conceptualised by the founding fathers of India’s constitution to provide for an independent and impartial post which would rise above partisan interests and raise his conscientious voice in the event of a crisis or conflict in a state, has unfortunately disappointed us on more occasions than one. Recurring controversies of Governors being seen working in a partial manner and even dubbed as “political agents” has dampened the integrity of the post and calls for an urgent need for reforms of the highest order to protect the larger national interest of fair governance. The question here is whether it is time for India to totally abolish the post of Governor or not.

While one might believe that the current turmoil in Karnataka has led us to prompt this debate, one look in the recent past reveals cases where Governors of states in both the UPA and NDA regimes have not only acted partially; they have also tried to overrule the electoral mandate. Apart from the recent furore created by the BJP in the case of H R Bharadwaj and E S L Narasimhan, serving governors of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, former governors of Bihar and Jharkhand Buta Singh and Syed Sibte Razi also came under immense scrutiny after having invited a party in minority to form a government, thereby obstructing the NDA to come to power. During the NDA regime too, there was the case of Arunachal Pradesh where the Governor played a very dubious role in the formulation of the government after Gegong Apang switched sides.

According to senior political expert Subrot Kamal Dutta, “The past 20 years have seen people with political background being nominated to the Governor’s post, which has definitely declined its dignity. Even the Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Centre over the conduct of the Bihar and Jharkhand governors in the past. The post of the Governor has to be apolitical, and only people with relevant judicial and constitutional experience should be nominated. Impetus has to be on each individual to keep the post as apolitical as possible.” Taking a fair view on the ongoing turmoil in Karnataka, one could contest that Governor Bharadwaj was only carrying out his duties by acting to ensure that an individual under scanner for alleged acts of corruption to the tune of Rs.5 billion does not stay at the helm of affairs. After all, the constitution legally provides for the Governor to act against corruption, which is what Bharadwaj did. Even if we were to believe that his actions were not influenced by the Congress, his stand invited the ire of the BJP who blamed Bharadwaj of acting hastily only to divert the nation’s attention from reports of the CWG and 2G scams that the UPA was reeling under. Either way, the Governor’s actions, even if justified, stand to lose credibility on account of political gimmicks, the kinds unlikely to end anytime soon.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,