How Nehru viewed role of governors

GOVERNORS continue to trigger controversies over their apparent attempts to disturb the federal balance of power. The latest example is a detailed report sent by West Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose to the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the law and order situation in Murshidabad, which witnessed violence recently after the enactment of the Waqf (Amendment) Act. Bose toured the state before submitting the report, in which he stated that the “twin spectres of radicalisation and militancy” posed a serious challenge to the state.

Advertisement

A flashback is instructive: In 1952, then Governor Sri Prakasa swore in a 152-member Congress government led by C Rajagopalachari in the 375-member Madras Legislative Assembly, ignoring United Democratic Front leader T Prakasam’s claim of support of 166 legislators. Gian Singh Rarewala’s coalition government in PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union) was dismissed in 1953 by invoking Article 356 (pertaining to President’s rule) of the Constitution. In 1959, the Union Government dismissed the EMS Namboodiripad government in Kerala on the pretext of deteriorating public order.

Following the fourth General Election in 1967, the Governor’s office was misused to dismiss coalition governments in seven states. Then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had no qualms about removing a non-Congress government. Later, the brazenness of Governors Thakur Ram Lal (Andhra Pradesh, 1983-84) and Romesh Bhandari (Uttar Pradesh, 1996-98) led to their removal. The unabashed misuse of Article 356 prompted the Supreme Court to deliver a landmark judgment in the SR Bommai case (1994). In a recent significant judgment on withholding of Bills by the Tamil Nadu Governor, the apex court redefined gubernatorial powers.

Since 2014, when Narendra Modi took charge as Prime Minister, several governors have tried to exceed their Raj Bhavan brief. As the Governor of West Bengal, Jagdeep Dhankhar (now Vice-President) — and now his successor Ananda Bose — made it a routine to tour the state without taking the state government into confidence. They have used their visits to comment against the government while addressing the media.

Did the makers of the Constitution envision the Governor’s role outside the Raj Bhavan, on the streets? If yes, how was his/her role defined vis-à-vis the elected state government?

India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru reflected on this question in his fortnightly letters to provincial/state premiers/chief ministers. He used to write long letters to provincial/state governments, dealing with a wide range of issues, including those being discussed in the Constituent Assembly, the policy measures being carried out by the Union Government regarding agriculture, food, refugee resettlement, foreign policy and industrial production, the way the UN Security Council dealt with the Kashmir issue in a partisan manner, and so on.

Obviously, the Governor’s office did not escape his attention. First and foremost, he looked at governors as non-partisan constitutional functionaries. He did not endorse politicking by them, particularly parallel politics in states, as political activities of governors that could make the Raj Bhavan a centre of partisanship would destroy the constitutionally designed power balance, equilibrium and ecosystem of governance.

After attending a Conference of Governors, he wrote on May 14, 1949: “As was natural, the question of the relationship between the governors and ministers was considered. There was no question, of course, of the governors interfering with the work of the ministry. He had to function as a constitutional Governor. At the same time, it was pointed out that it would be undesirable and wasteful of talent if we did not utilise the governors’ experience.”

He stressed that the premiers/chief ministers must keep the Governor of their state informed. Governors should also keep themselves informed. This is when he stressed that the governors should be touring the state within the bounds of the dignity of their office. However, he ruled out interference by governors in the work of the provincial/state ministries: “The Governor shall do all that in him lies to maintain standards of good administration, to promote all measure making for moral, social and economic welfare and tending to fit all classes of the population to take their due share in the public life and government of the State, and to secure amongst all classes and creeds cooperation, goodwill and mutual respect for religious beliefs and sentiments.”

The following paragraph, included in the draft Constitution, reflects the mindset of the drafting committee: “It should be desirable, therefore, for provincial premiers and ministers to keep governors informed of all important matters relating to policy and administration and to consult them before any decision in respect of such matters is taken. This does not mean interference by the governors and the views of the ministry no doubt prevail. All that it means is that we should take full advantage of the experience of the eminent man or woman who is the Governor before coming to final decisions in respect of major matters of policy and administration.”

Nehru believed that there was one other way in which governors could be helpful, and that was by touring. “I do not mean the type of touring in which previous governors indulged with great pomp and circumstance. A certain dignity, of course, has to be maintained in keeping with the high office, otherwise we are likely to be sloppy. Governors’ tours can be of great help to a ministry from many points of view. A Governor naturally must support his Government. Nevertheless, he can support it as a person above parties and groups,” he wrote.

But with or without Nehru’s consent, the instances of Madras, PEPSU and Kerala belied his noble words.

Ajay K Mehra is a political scientist.