|
POLITICAL DIARY
Governor’s Baneye Ghulam….
NEED TO SET DOWN RULES
By Poonam I Kaushish
New Delhi, March 18, 2008
Whoever said different political strokes for different
political folks was dead on. Specially when it comes to the
high Constitutional office of the Governor. Wherein handpicked
loyalists do whatever their mai baaps sitting on India’s Raj
gaddi want. Never mind, if the Governor has been reduced to
being the Centre’s chaprasi. Governance, after all is one big
nautanki which has rewritten the basic time-honoured rules of
authority and turned democracy on its head. Bend them, break
them, who cares!
Instances are aplenty. Circa 2008: Meghalaya, Circa 2007:
Karnataka, Circa 2005: Goa, Bihar and Jharkhand. The common
denominator? Each Governor interpreting or should one say
misinterpreting the rule book any which way he wanted, drawing
his own conclusions based more often than not on delusions as
long as he and his benefactors at the Centre could rule the
roost.
Meghalaya. The Governor SS Sidhu has attracted charges of
unfair practice because he invited the single largest party,
the Congress to form the Government while brushing aside the
claims of the NCP-led Meghalaya Progressive Alliance (MPA)
which had a support of 31 of the 60 MLAs before him. Earning
the ire of the NCP, which moved the Supreme Court against him
for “clear breach and violation of the provisions of the
Constitution and the convention followed of calling a
group/alliance having the majority of legislators to form the
government.”
Undoubtedly, Governor Sidhu was correct in inviting the
Congress as it had emerged as the single largest party.
Recall, 1996 when the then President Shankar Dayal Sharma had
invited the BJP as it too had the maximum number of MPs. No
matter, that the Saffron Sangh lost the vote of confidence in
the Lok Sabha. Besides, the NCP’s post-poll alliance with
other regional parties to form the MPA smacked of an
afterthought to partake the crumbs of office.
At the same time, Sidhu was wrong in giving the Congress clear
10 days to prove their strength on the floor of the Assembly
and inviting the charge of willy nilly being party to
horse-trading that was bound to take place. Arguably, if the
Congress had the numbers as claimed by it, why wait for 10
days to prove its majority in the Assembly? Is one to infer
that the 30 MLAs paraded by the MPA before the Governor was a
false claim? Or had the Governor followed the Centre’s diktat
to invite the Congress and give it time to muster a majority.
Why blame Sidhu? Remember what Governor Rameshwar Thakur did
in Karnataka last year after the BJP-JD(S) coalition paraded
129 MLAs, which is more than half of the 225-member Assembly,
at Bangalore’s Raj Bhawan? Instead of doing the Constitutional
right thing of reviving the suspended State Assembly and
asking the BJP-JD(S) coalition to prove their majority on the
floor of the House, as opined by the Supreme Court in the
landmark SR Bommai judgment, first he made them wait for over
a week, then stated that he had to “consult the Centre.”
Forgetting that the right course of action was to revoke
President's rule and swear-in a BJP-led coalition Government.
Why? He had to take instructions from Delhi on what to do
next. Also, most oddly, thereafter Governor Thakur, sent a
‘statement of facts’ to the Centre rather than ‘his report’
and recommendation. On the facetious plea that the BJP-JD(S)
formation could lead to “horse-trading of the worst kind.”
Bluntly, isn’t this the MPA’s charge against the Congress in
Meghalaya and yet the Governor Sidhu invited it to form the
Government?
Just as his fellow Congressmen Governors SC Jamir, Buta Singh
and Syed Sibtey Razi had done in 2005 in Goa, Bihar and
Jharkhand. In Goa, the former Chief Minister of Nagaland, SC
Jamir was handpicked by the Congress as Governor to watch out
for the Party’s “interests” in the BJP-ruled Goa. In less than
four months, he delivered to his “mai baaps” in Delhi what
they wanted.
He dismissed the Parrikar-led BJP Government which had proved
its majority on the floor of the Assembly and swore-in the
Pratapsinh Rane-led Congress Government in a late night drama.
Not only that. He gave Rane 30 days to prove his majority, as
against three days to Parrikar. After Rane won his trust vote
(rightly or wrongly), Jamir recommended President’s Rule
reportedly at the behest of the Centre.
The abuse of the gubernatorial Constitutional power touched a
new low in Jharkhand where Governor Syed Sibtey Razi, former
Congress Rajya Sabha MP did one better in 2005. Ignoring the
fact that the BJP-led NDA paraded a clear majority of 41 MLAs
in the 81-member Assembly, he appointed the JMM-Congress
leader as the Chief Minister on the basis of a list of 42 MLAs.
The list included two Independents who had only three hours
earlier committed their support for the BJP-led NDA. Even
after meeting these MLAs individually, the Governor swore-in
the JMM leader, Shibhu Soren as the Chief Minister. As long as
it earned Razi kudos from Delhi, it didn’t matter that his
action was a gross violation of his high office. Matters
didn’t rest there. The BJP leadership smuggled out its brood
of 41 MLAs and paraded them before the then President Kalam at
Rashtrapati Bhavan to prove the Governor’s mala fide who was
summoned by the President for an explanation. In stepped the
Apex Court leading to the installation of the BJP Government.
Words fail when it comes to the outrageous and unprecedented
midnight dissolution of Bihar’s Legislative Assembly and
continuance of President’s rule in the State. Thanks to the
Centre brazenly used its jo hukam darbari Governor Buta Singh
to break all the rules. When reports of the NDA inching
towards formation of a Government in the State trickled in
courtesy defections from the Steel Minister Paswan’s LJP,
Governor Buta Singh hurriedly recommended dissolution of the
Assembly, the Union Cabinet promptly accepted it and President
Kalam, away in Moscow, speedily gave his assent.
Worse, Buta Singh’s action was based on bazaar gossip of
horse-trading. Shattering in one fell stroke the glass ceiling
of his high Constitutional office. No matter that he himself
was indicted by a Court for horse-trading in the infamous JMM
case.
Expectedly, this new nadir has once again raised questions
about Governor’s role, his qualifications and his
Constitutional obligations and duties. Raising a moot point:
Are they the Centre’s chaprasis? Or, are they the keepers of
the people’s faith as the Constitutional head of their
respective States. Importantly, are there any laid down clear
rules to underscore some semblance, coherence and uniformity
in gubernatorial actions? A charter of directions and
guidelines.
Sadly, in a milieu of you scratch my back and I yours, over
60% of the present lot of Governors are active politicians and
the rest ‘pliable’ bureaucrats, police officers and Army
Generals. Thus, the Governor, willy-nilly, has become a
convenient tool of the Centre. Specially in Opposition-ruled
States. He runs the administration by proxy. By playing the
I-spy game---petty politricking, gross interference, open
partisanship---at the Centre’s behest. Sending for files,
summoning Ministers and bureaucrats. To hear, entice, provoke
and register the voice of dissent against the State Government
to their political patrons in Delhi. Bluntly, make life hell
for the Chief Minister at every step and use it as a
springboard to return to active politics.
Top experts affirm that the basic role of the Governor is not
just to represent the Centre but, as the head of the State, to
serve his people and fight their battles with the Centre, not
vice versa. He has to bear in mind the overall national
interest, not partisan party interests. The Constitution
empowers him to influence the decisions of an elected
Government by giving him the right “to be consulted, to warn
and encourage” His role is overwhelmingly that of a “friend,
philosopher and guide” to his Council of Ministers with
unrivalled discretion.
As noted by Sarkaria Commission and endorsed by the Supreme
Court, the Governor’s role is that of “a Constitutional
sentinel and that of vital link between the Union and the
State…Being the holder of an independent Constitutional
office, the Governor is not a subordinate or subservient agent
of the Union Government.”
In sum, the office of the Governor desperately needs to be
revamped and restored to its old glory. Keeping in mind the
trends of coalition politics, it is time now to lay down clear
rules and a charter of directions. It needs to be underscored
that the ultimate test of a Party to form a Government does
not lie in petty politricking by the Governor in the State’s
Raj Bhawan nor in a Party parading it’s numbers before the
Governor but in the Party’s ability to command a majority and
win the floor test in the Assembly. All in all, we need to
remember that the Governor has a distinct role in ensuring the
country’s unity and the well-being of the people of his State.
But he is no chaprasi or a jee huzoor. ----- INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
E-Mail :
newseditor@sarkaritel.com |
