Ruling Raj Bhavans

As the standards of political conduct fall, the natural tendency is to make more and tougher rules in the hope of defeating the low cunning...

As the standards of political conduct fall, the natural tendency is to make more and tougher rules in the hope of defeating the low cunning of individuals. But merely adding new rules to the book will not bring about good behaviour.

A few sound rules should be more than enough if they can be regularly enforced. The inter-State council is in the process of examining the role and powers of Governors. The white heat of the Uttar Pradesh experience is clearly not the best time for rational thought judging by some of the proposals emerging from the latest meeting of the standing committee of the council. It has come out, for example, against giving Governors a second term. Obviously Romesh Bhandari, whose highly political performance in Tripura and UP can be matched by few others, loomed large at the discussion. But what may be a good way of dealing with the Bhandaris is not necessarily desirable in all cases.

Raj Bhavans need individuals whose primary loyalty is to the Constitution. If such persons are found and appointed, and prove themselves capable in office, a second term would be justified and, indeed, desirable. Honest, upright individuals with the appropriate experience are hard to find in these depressing times.

It is not difficult to understand how the standing committee arrived at its one-term rule. As with choosing persons from outside the State for governership, the idea is to try and depoliticise the function. Ideally, all temptation should be removed by legally barring Governors from politics once they quit office. Since that is not possible, the only recourse is to choose candidates from outside the arena of politics and trust they will not develop an appetite for power. To give a person one term as Governor and yet not be able to restrict his or her future career choices will prove to be no restraint on the biased actions of the Bhandaris of the world. It could even exacerbate partisanship.

The inter-State council is also of the view that a strict time limit of five to seven days should be given by Governors to chief ministers to prove their majorities in the House whereas the Sarkaria Commission was content to recommend 30 days at the utmost for this process. Once again, recent events seem to have had an inordinate amount of influence on the deliberations.

There is certainly no explanation other than political bias for Kalyan Singh being given two days to obtain his vote of confidence while Dilip Parikh had the luxury of more than a fortnight. What needs examination in all such attempts to restrict the area of discretion in gubernatorial decision-making is whether it is necessary and how far it is possible to micro-manage Raj Bhavans in this fashion. It would be wiser in the long run to attend to the process of selecting Governors by laying down more rigorous criteria there. Experience shows career politicians rarely make ideal candidates. Obtaining the approval of incumbent chief ministers is one way of checking the tendency to appoint political cronies. A process of wide consultation in making appointments is essential.