The Government has shown a lack of grace in the way it has got rid of two governors after it had lost a majority on the floor of the Lok Sabha. Technically, it may be entitled to do what it did. Past governments have also transferred governors, after they lost the mandate. I.K.Gujral posted A.P .Mukherjee, aide to the then Home Minister Indrajit Gupta, to Mizoram and Satish Chandra, Principal Secretary to H.D.Deve Gowda, to Goa as governors when he was a caretaker Prime Minister. Chandra Shekhar also made gubernatorial transfers in his time.On the face of it, the decision to ask A.R.Kidwai and Mata Prasad to leave makes little sense. Was the decision taken so as to oblige its own favourites, who may now be posted in Calcutta and Ita Nagar? But then there is always the possibility that the next government, if the BJP does not come back to power, can undo these postings.The decision is bad politically, because it could give an advantage to its main adversary, the Congress. Kidwai is a Muslim and MataPrasad a Dalit, and they belong to Bihar and UP respectively, states in which the Congress is trying to woo these very communities.If at all the Government had to act, it could have done so with more tact. Instead of getting their resignations, it could have made fresh appointments, since the term of both the governors is over and they continue in office in the absence of a fresh order. The Government could have done this along with filling up the vacancy in Bihar caused by the transfer of Sunder Singh Bhandari to Gujarat.When V.P. Singh wanted to change the governors en masse, the then President R. Venkatraman had offered to write letters to them himself seeking their resignations. Singh had then retained some and sent others packing. This was done when he was prime minister and not during his caretakership.The exit of the governors, coming as it does after the bureaucratic reshuffle and the proposals for disinvestment, raises fundamental questions about the powers of a caretaker government, whetheror not the term exists in the Constitution.For the common man, it is obvious that the powers of a government that has the confidence of Parliament and one that has been defeated on the floor of the House cannot be the same. According to the norms established so far, a caretaker ministry should not make policy decisions which are binding on its successor government. Former President Venkatraman says that such a government should not go in for any decisions with a heavy financial outlay. I.K. Gujral, on the other hand, is of the view that a government is a government but there should be transparency and probity about the decisions it takes in its caretaker capacity.If there is a grey area, the government should consult the President, says Venkatraman. Gujral does not agree. In a parliamentary democracy, it is better to take opposition leaders into confidence and tell the country why it is having to take certain decisions, while keeping the President informed. If the President discerns an ulteriormotive in, say, transfers, says Venkatraman, he can always intervene. Theoretically, this may be true. Practically speaking, it is more difficult. K.R.Narayanan did not say anything when Gujral appointed Mukherjee and Satish Chandra as governors. He will find it very difficult therefore to question the transfers today.The Left parties which have dubbed the Home Ministry's action as `uncivil' were silent when Mukherjee was appointed Governor. The double standards of the BJP are no less striking. It had gone to town against the decision and L.K.Advani had sharply criticised the UF government, saying that the transfer of two governors was done after it was reduced to a minority.The situation has been compounded by the delay in holding elections. Policy decisions could be put on the hold if polls were five or six weeks away. But to say that nothing but decisions of the most routine nature will take place for six months in a country as large and diverse as India becomes a difficult proposition. And it is anincongruous situation to have a government for 13 months and let it continue in a caretaker capacity for 6 months.One solution is to refer the controversial decisions to the President. The Congress which is screaming against the plethora of decisions being taken by the BJP and its allies has already held that the government cannot sign the CTBT, even though international treaties are within the jurisdiction of the executive and not Parliament. Congress leaders also feel that the various provisions of the Union Budget, which was passed without discussion and without changing even a comma, cannot be implemented without a reference to the President.They cooperated with the Government, they say, to avoid a financial mess in the country and because the President intervened. The BJP, on the other hand, sees nothing wrong in implementing the provisions of the Budget, since it has been approved unanimously.The President's unique position during the period when the Government continues to be a caretaker, eventhough these powers have not been spelt out in the Constitution, stems from the logic that he has asked a defeated Prime Minister to continue till further arrangements can be made.However, there is a body of opinion which feels that pro-activism by the head of state is dangerous. And that it is better for politicians to sort out the tricky areas amongst themselves. The trouble is that evolving a national consensus on any issue becomes that much more difficult in the run-up to elections.It is becoming increasingly clear that more thought is needed on the conventions for caretaker governments, particularly as elections are becoming more frequent.
