<p>The misuse of the Gubernatorial office is an old hat in Indian politics, with all parties and coalitions (without any exception), guilty of the same. While the traditional means of misusing the same entailed invoking Article 356 of the Constitution to dismiss the sitting government and impose President’s Rule, the need for that ham-handed approach has ebbed, and it has evolved to an even more brazen act of the Governor/LG pandering to open biases and supportive partisanship, without resorting to Article 356.</p>.<p>Seemingly, this is a more efficient tact as the dismissal of Government under Article 356 runs the risk of a public backlash and perceptions of overreach, thereby making the dismissed State/UT Government and its party, look like martyrs. Often, the longer the President’s Rule ran and denied the people’s writ in a participative democracy, the more political traction for the dismissed political party, accrued. Whereas, by not dismissing the Government and routinely dissing and spiting its conduct and policies, the Gubernatorial office has emerged as a powerful force against its own Government, at the behest of the Central Government. This is especially true for states/UTs that are run by parties that are in the opposition in the National Assembly. In these national opposition-run states/UTs, the choice of a Gubernatorial appointee who can do the Centre’s bidding, becomes important.</p>.<p>Regrettably, this Gubernatorial activism and hyperventilation is tellingly missing in states/UTs where there is a ‘double-engine’ situation of the same partisan persuasion ruling at Centre and state e.g., Manipur, even though the handling of the local situation by its government has been shockingly ineffective. But, where there is no double-engine arrangement, the relentless concerns expressed by the Gubernatorial appointee force-multiplies the political pressure and a disconcerting narrative gets built against the incumbent state/UT government with invaluable ‘cover fire’ for the opposition party in the state/UT (but the same partisan persuasion at the Centre), as it comes from the office of the supposed ‘constitutional conscience keeper’. It additionally avoids the pitfall of earning public opprobrium that is natural in overusing Article 356.</p>.<p>Therefore, just because the instances of dismissal of state/UT governments under Article 356 have come down drastically over the last decade, to assume that the misuse of Gubernatorial office has also come down simultaneously, is to be partisan or situationally naïve. All earlier instances of gubernatorial misuse by the ostensibly apolitical office notwithstanding, never perhaps have the exchanges with the chief ministers and their cabinet ranks been more bitter, toxic and inelegant in Constitutional propriety. The cynosure of national politics i.e., Delhi, is a citadel the ruling national party has failed to capture, despite winning three consecutive National elections. If the ruling party at the Centre has defied the curse of anti-incumbency, the ruling party in Delhi too has defied its own anti-incumbency traditions, leading to a tense, often explosive situation, where the ends seem to justify all means – even if they were to come from an office that is expected to be above partisan politics i.e., LG of Delhi.</p>.<p><strong>LG vs CM in Delhi</strong></p>.<p>To be fair, the LG-CM spats in Delhi are not a new phenomenon and even afflicted the Tejender Khanna-Sheila Dikshit era when both the Centre-state governments were same, given the uniquely distributed administrative responsibilities amongst both offices, given Delhi’s “half-state” status. These exchanges became a lot more public and bitter when Najeeb Jung took over, only to worsen with his successor, Anil Baijal. Today, the engagement has hit an unprecedented low with Vinai Kumar Saxena as the LG and Atishi Marlena as the CM, as it has acquired a deeply personalised and petty level. Given that Delhi goes to elections in the next month, the timing is ominous and exchanges, extremely partisan. This comes on the back of the who’s-who of Delhi Government having served time behind bars including the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, and Health Minister.</p>.<p>While it would be puerile to say that the Delhi Government has not done enough populist drama and theatrical shenanigans, that is only to be expected from career politicians of all partisan persuasions. However, for the Governor to stoop to the levels of politicking, aspersions and personal commentary (as done by politicians) is a relatively new phenomenon. Not only did the fracas result in a no-holds-barred washing of dirty linen in public, but all traditional means of writing discreetly and directly or couching concerns in restrained and measured language have been thrown to the winds.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In a case of overreach, the LG thought it befitting to comment on Atishi’s predecessor as CM of Delhi i.e., Arvind Kejriwal (also the leader of Atishi’s Party), to pay her left-handed compliments of being a “thousand times better”. He belatedly went on to revive the comment of “temporary Chief Minister” (to posit his “hurt”) though he had expressed nothing of the sort when the comment was actually made, months earlier. Not to be left behind, Atishi responded brazenly by stating that the LG was acting like a “proxy” of the ruling party of the nation and that the LG’s comments focused on “criticism rather than constructive cooperation”.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A needless controversy was stoked and that resulted in lowering the dignity of both the offices of the LG, and the CM. Clearly in the times of winner-takes-all, issues like constitutional majesty, sobriety and dignity are the last things on the minds of the powers-that-be. This is not a case for ‘rubber-stamp’ Gubernatorial appointees, as that is perhaps the only status worse than biased appointees. A certain degree of activism and cautionary oversight (as a means of checks and balances in a democracy) by a Gubernatorial appointee is healthy, but only if the same is done without fear or favour. A hard look at the mess in Delhi is reflective of the unhealthy partisanship and diminishment across all constitutional offices and institutions.</p>.<p class="bodytext"><span class="italic"><em>(The writer is a former Lt Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)</em></span></p>
<p>The misuse of the Gubernatorial office is an old hat in Indian politics, with all parties and coalitions (without any exception), guilty of the same. While the traditional means of misusing the same entailed invoking Article 356 of the Constitution to dismiss the sitting government and impose President’s Rule, the need for that ham-handed approach has ebbed, and it has evolved to an even more brazen act of the Governor/LG pandering to open biases and supportive partisanship, without resorting to Article 356.</p>.<p>Seemingly, this is a more efficient tact as the dismissal of Government under Article 356 runs the risk of a public backlash and perceptions of overreach, thereby making the dismissed State/UT Government and its party, look like martyrs. Often, the longer the President’s Rule ran and denied the people’s writ in a participative democracy, the more political traction for the dismissed political party, accrued. Whereas, by not dismissing the Government and routinely dissing and spiting its conduct and policies, the Gubernatorial office has emerged as a powerful force against its own Government, at the behest of the Central Government. This is especially true for states/UTs that are run by parties that are in the opposition in the National Assembly. In these national opposition-run states/UTs, the choice of a Gubernatorial appointee who can do the Centre’s bidding, becomes important.</p>.<p>Regrettably, this Gubernatorial activism and hyperventilation is tellingly missing in states/UTs where there is a ‘double-engine’ situation of the same partisan persuasion ruling at Centre and state e.g., Manipur, even though the handling of the local situation by its government has been shockingly ineffective. But, where there is no double-engine arrangement, the relentless concerns expressed by the Gubernatorial appointee force-multiplies the political pressure and a disconcerting narrative gets built against the incumbent state/UT government with invaluable ‘cover fire’ for the opposition party in the state/UT (but the same partisan persuasion at the Centre), as it comes from the office of the supposed ‘constitutional conscience keeper’. It additionally avoids the pitfall of earning public opprobrium that is natural in overusing Article 356.</p>.<p>Therefore, just because the instances of dismissal of state/UT governments under Article 356 have come down drastically over the last decade, to assume that the misuse of Gubernatorial office has also come down simultaneously, is to be partisan or situationally naïve. All earlier instances of gubernatorial misuse by the ostensibly apolitical office notwithstanding, never perhaps have the exchanges with the chief ministers and their cabinet ranks been more bitter, toxic and inelegant in Constitutional propriety. The cynosure of national politics i.e., Delhi, is a citadel the ruling national party has failed to capture, despite winning three consecutive National elections. If the ruling party at the Centre has defied the curse of anti-incumbency, the ruling party in Delhi too has defied its own anti-incumbency traditions, leading to a tense, often explosive situation, where the ends seem to justify all means – even if they were to come from an office that is expected to be above partisan politics i.e., LG of Delhi.</p>.<p><strong>LG vs CM in Delhi</strong></p>.<p>To be fair, the LG-CM spats in Delhi are not a new phenomenon and even afflicted the Tejender Khanna-Sheila Dikshit era when both the Centre-state governments were same, given the uniquely distributed administrative responsibilities amongst both offices, given Delhi’s “half-state” status. These exchanges became a lot more public and bitter when Najeeb Jung took over, only to worsen with his successor, Anil Baijal. Today, the engagement has hit an unprecedented low with Vinai Kumar Saxena as the LG and Atishi Marlena as the CM, as it has acquired a deeply personalised and petty level. Given that Delhi goes to elections in the next month, the timing is ominous and exchanges, extremely partisan. This comes on the back of the who’s-who of Delhi Government having served time behind bars including the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, and Health Minister.</p>.<p>While it would be puerile to say that the Delhi Government has not done enough populist drama and theatrical shenanigans, that is only to be expected from career politicians of all partisan persuasions. However, for the Governor to stoop to the levels of politicking, aspersions and personal commentary (as done by politicians) is a relatively new phenomenon. Not only did the fracas result in a no-holds-barred washing of dirty linen in public, but all traditional means of writing discreetly and directly or couching concerns in restrained and measured language have been thrown to the winds.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In a case of overreach, the LG thought it befitting to comment on Atishi’s predecessor as CM of Delhi i.e., Arvind Kejriwal (also the leader of Atishi’s Party), to pay her left-handed compliments of being a “thousand times better”. He belatedly went on to revive the comment of “temporary Chief Minister” (to posit his “hurt”) though he had expressed nothing of the sort when the comment was actually made, months earlier. Not to be left behind, Atishi responded brazenly by stating that the LG was acting like a “proxy” of the ruling party of the nation and that the LG’s comments focused on “criticism rather than constructive cooperation”.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A needless controversy was stoked and that resulted in lowering the dignity of both the offices of the LG, and the CM. Clearly in the times of winner-takes-all, issues like constitutional majesty, sobriety and dignity are the last things on the minds of the powers-that-be. This is not a case for ‘rubber-stamp’ Gubernatorial appointees, as that is perhaps the only status worse than biased appointees. A certain degree of activism and cautionary oversight (as a means of checks and balances in a democracy) by a Gubernatorial appointee is healthy, but only if the same is done without fear or favour. A hard look at the mess in Delhi is reflective of the unhealthy partisanship and diminishment across all constitutional offices and institutions.</p>.<p class="bodytext"><span class="italic"><em>(The writer is a former Lt Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)</em></span></p>
