The institution of governors for the States of India is as redundant and anachronistic as the idea of bicameral State legislatures. A governor in India is very different from a governor in the United States, where governors are the equivalent of our chief ministers, and have to be elected. In India, a governor is imposed on the State by the ruling political party or coalition. We create a political dichotomy by having a head of State and a head of government, though the Constitution stipulates that the “Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as the head” shall “aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions…” (Article 163). As such, a governorship is really no more than a ceremonial sinecure. The decisions are always taken elsewhere. So why do we need a governor for every Indian State? Just to make a recommendation for President’s rule?
However, a more important reason for underscoring the redundancy of governors is the kind of governors we have had in the Northeast in recent years. There has been a surfeit of former generals and old party functionaries no longer capable of winning elections. And we have recently had the most lamentable comedowns from earlier governors like LP Singh and BK Nehru. We recently had an army general as governor of Asom who was in complete charge of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous District Council for about seven months. There are serious allegations of his having misappropriated substantial sums of money from the district council with the help of a pliant officer. It does not matter what really happened. The very fact of a stigma is bad enough for a governor’s reputation. The present Governor of Asom who has just come in from his earlier Jharkhand posting, also seems to be in trouble. Soon after he left for Guwahati, there were raids on the houses of his officer on special duty and his personal secretary. His predecessor, octogenarian Governor Mathur, should not have been posted here at all. He was quite unwell, and passed away within months after joining, thus leaving the State government holding astronomical hospital and cremation bills. A State can do without such ceremonial liabilities. We can do with an Ombudsman in place of a governor. And until such time as we can dispense with the institution of governors, let us at least have a retirement age for them as for most other public servants. THE SENTINEL
However, a more important reason for underscoring the redundancy of governors is the kind of governors we have had in the Northeast in recent years. There has been a surfeit of former generals and old party functionaries no longer capable of winning elections. And we have recently had the most lamentable comedowns from earlier governors like LP Singh and BK Nehru. We recently had an army general as governor of Asom who was in complete charge of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous District Council for about seven months. There are serious allegations of his having misappropriated substantial sums of money from the district council with the help of a pliant officer. It does not matter what really happened. The very fact of a stigma is bad enough for a governor’s reputation. The present Governor of Asom who has just come in from his earlier Jharkhand posting, also seems to be in trouble. Soon after he left for Guwahati, there were raids on the houses of his officer on special duty and his personal secretary. His predecessor, octogenarian Governor Mathur, should not have been posted here at all. He was quite unwell, and passed away within months after joining, thus leaving the State government holding astronomical hospital and cremation bills. A State can do without such ceremonial liabilities. We can do with an Ombudsman in place of a governor. And until such time as we can dispense with the institution of governors, let us at least have a retirement age for them as for most other public servants. THE SENTINEL
No comments:
Post a Comment