- The Constitutional post of the governor is an extremely vital cog in running the state government machinery even though the position is largely ceremonial and mandated to act on the advice of the cabinet. Yes, the role of the governor assumes criticality whilst consenting/dissenting to the merits/demerits of the laws being promulgated by the legislature. Of course, the governor has the authority to send back those bill(s) for reconsideration. However, the governor has to accord consent if the cabinet resends the bill(s) after due reconsideration. This is an established norm duly mandated by the Constitution.
PC: Lalit Panda
- We are also aware of how the governors are appointed by the ruling dispensation at the Centre. More or less, the gubernatorial positions are nothing but post-political retirement sops for the leaders having served the respective parties with distinction is not lost on anyone. There are innumerable past instances when the governors have blindly followed the diktat of the Union Government despite knowing fully well that they must remain apolitical, neutral, and uphold the virtues of the Constitution. Ideally speaking, this should be the primary roleplay of the governors without any parochial considerations coming in the way of discharging their responsibilities.
- Nonetheless, the governors are chosen to keep the opposition state government in perpetually confrontational mode is hardly lost on comprehending lot which is anything but ideal reeking of ambiguity, one-upmanship, discordance, and political undertones. Worryingly, there cannot be any welcome change expected in the status quo as well in the foreseeable future. Of late, certain governors also are known to come out with unwarranted and unnecessary remarks leading to avoidable disturbances in political circles as well as society. One such incident occurred recently when Maharashtra governor BS Koshyari remarked on Rajasthanis and Gujaratis and Mumbai’s financial power.
PC: PTI
- Indeed, it was not only utterly wrong but entirely not in keeping with the ethos of the office he occupies. The governor’s later statement that he didn’t mean to hurt any community is somewhat beside the point. Mind you, this kind of remark is bound to stir the pot in a country where both migrations as an economic multiplier and linguistic/ethnic tensions are ever-present ingredients. The governor should surely appreciate that how a city evolves is a matter of complex history. Note that Mumbai or erstwhile Bombay had emerged as an important trading post during the British rule as part of the Bombay presidency. Early British presidencies also included the Bengal and Madras presidencies, respectively.
- However, both today’s Kolkata and Chennai have evolved differently vis-à-vis Mumbai despite notionally having the same starting point. Moreover, despite Indian states being created along linguistic lines after independence, no one community can lay claim to a state’s success or be blamed for its failure. The country is a free state where communities will migrate wherever they find opportunities to establish settlements. Given this backdrop, the utterances of the Maharashtra governor only further muddy the already enough ugly politics around different communities. Thus, measuring ethnic contributions will only further exacerbate major challenges bogging the Indian cities. As such, the governors should exercise extreme caution and weigh their words before shooting off. And, upholding the dignity of the gubernatorial position.
