Tushar Charan

As governor of Tamil Nadu, Patna-born Ravindra Narayan Ravi has been frequently in the news—for wrong reasons. Not only the opposition but even the pro-government sections of the mainstream print media have criticised his decision to dismiss jailed DMK cabinet minister Senthil Balaji. The home ministry was rattled by the adverse political fallout from his action and asked him to reconsider his decision. After first holding his order ‘in abeyance’ and talking about seeking opinion of the attorney general, he withdrew it. It needs to be noted that he spoke of seeking legal opinion only after he had acted, well, thoughtlessly.

His U-turn did not save him from receiving brickbats. He was accused of being cavalier about his constitutional obligations and a deliberate attack on the idea of cooperative federalism which the BJP-led NDA has promised to promote and strengthen.

Ravi, a former police officer, fuelled the widely held belief that the Raj Bhavans in the states ruled by non-BJP parties have been instructed to unsettle the local governments. The almost non-stop confrontation between the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and the Governors of West Bengal, Punjab, and Telangana can be cited as proof.

Ravi has also ignited an old debate about the need to appoint governors. Despite all the fury against the functioning of the governors expressed by opposition parties, it is, however, unlikely that any serious step would be taken to abolish the office the governor.

In any case, the urgent issue is not deciding about the fate of ‘selected’ governors but ensuring that they do not misuse and misinterpret their duties enshrined in the constitution and tend to act like potentates not bound by rules.

Of all the on-going clashes between Raj Bhavans and popular governments the ugliest which is also the more frequent must be the daily exchange of un-pleasantries in the union territory of Delhi—a ‘half’ state.

The ‘LG vs. CM’ issue has reached such a stage that the appointing authority of the LG brought an ordinance on services matters when parliament was not in session. The ordinance is likely to be introduced in parliament as soon as the monsoon session begins later this month.

The ordinance issue has become so important that it dominates the crucial discussions on opposition unity. The party that rules in Delhi, Aam Admi Party, has threatened to disassociate itself from these unity talks if the Congress does not declare its stand  straight away.  As things stand, the ordinance could well be passed in both houses of parliament whether or not Congress opposes it.

What impact that will have on opposition unity, considered vital to defeat the Modi-led BJP, will be keenly watched. But what is more important and a matter of far reaching consequence is what happens to ‘cooperative federalism’? How will the brittle relations between the centre and the states ruled by non-BJP states pan out?

Ravi may have tried to do something to please the ruling party but a person of his administrative experience (governor of two states and a former deputy national security advisor) is expected to know full well his limitations as governor. He and other governors at odds with the chief ministers ought to know that they cannot function as super chief ministers or run parallel administration.

There is no doubt at all that the Tamil Nadu government has faulted by not dismissing a cabinet minister who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on serious charges. But a moral wrong by a chief minister does not give the governor the power to sack a minister without receiving the request from the chief minister.

A governor who likes to act as a moral guardian and mentor cannot assume a role not approved by the constitution. Let the opposition parties take up the moral issues which almost always have a strong political angle. Protests and agitation against errant ministers can whip up public sentiments which may lead to the exit of a minister accused of misdemeanour.

What a governor like Ravi does not seem to realise is that their action against the state government fails to achieve the objective of fanning anger and discontent against the state government and leading to its defeat at the polls.

The Tamil Nadu chief minister M.K. Stalin and his DMK do not seem to have suffered any appreciable loss of public support after the governor took up a moral issue.

The blatant partisanship of governors becomes apparent in saffron ruled states facing serious law and order or any other problem. By no stretch of imagination the continuation of the chief minister of Manipur can be justified in view of what has been happening there since May 3. But the state governor has not thought it fit to ‘dismiss’ or remind the chief minister of his downright failure in quelling unrest in the state. The tiny border state in the North-east seems to be moving in a dangerous direction. The principal communities are so deeply that chances of reconciliation appear remote.

• The writer is a political commentator