Thread: India's partisan governors

In India, governors are appointed to office in states for a five-year term by the president on the advice of the prime minister, and their conduct is supposed to be, in principle, above politics.
That is often not quite the case.

The latest example is the political row involving the governor of the northern state of Jharkhand, who has appointed a ruling party alliance member as chief minister.

Governor Syed Sibte Razi appointed regional Jharkhand Mukti Morcha party chief, Shibu Soren, even though there were doubts about whether he would be able to cobble together a majority.

The Congress-led alliance, of which Mr Soren is a member, won only 26 of the 81 assembly seats, against 36 for the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), in recent state polls.

'Debasing'

This has predictably kicked up a storm, with the BJP-led opposition crying foul, stalling parliament and using colourful language - a senior politician called Mr Razi a "contract killer".





It is self-defeating politics for Congress. The party has invited rancour and critique out of sheer myopia

Ashutosh Varshney,
political scientist

The opposition also paraded in front of President APJ Kalam and the media 41 number-tagged legislators, including one lying in an ambulance, who claim to be supporting the NDA.


President Kalam called Mr Kazi to Delhi to explain his controversial decision.


The case has seen Indian politics once again plumbing the depths of partisanship, with public discourse being trivialised.

At the root is the colonial legacy of partisan governors who have frequently acted as agents of the ruling party in Delhi.

Under limited-self rule, which gave Indian provinces a system of democratic, autonomous governments, elections were held in 1937. Congress was voted into power in seven of the 11 provinces.

In the 1940s, the governors, acting under orders of the viceroy, dismissed a number of these Congress governments on the viceroy's orders.

Analysts say that in many cases governors have become agents of the governing party today in place of the viceroys.

This is especially so when there is a split electoral verdict in a state.


Party lines

The Congress party, say analysts, carried on the colonial legacy of appointing pliable governors to make or break state governments.


There are doubts whether Shibu Soren can get a majority

The problem lies in the informal convention of appointing former, out-of-work politicians as governors.

"Why are ex-politicians appointed as governors? They are like consolation postings. This trend began in the late sixties and led to the politicisation of the post," says analyst Mahesh Rangarajan.


This politicisation now finds favour across party lines.

When the National Front government replaced the Congress government in 1989, the new prime minister, VP Singh, asked 18 governors to resign so he could replace them with his own men.

And when the Congress Party alliance swept to power last May, one of the first things it did was to remove three state governors and replace them with, as one newspaper said, "old Congress hacks".


Changing times


Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, governors appointed by the ruling Congress party had a hand in dismissing several governments.

Now, India's chaotic political culture is influenced by round the clock news, stronger opposition parties, increased assertiveness of presidents and the judiciary, and more informed public opinion.

"I think it will be hard for any party, let alone Congress to return to the politics of the 1970s and 1980s. The times have changed forever," says Ashutosh Varshney who teaches political science at the University of Michigan.


Indian papers have been critical of the governor's decision

"If Congress has indeed made an arrogant error, I expect a self-correction."

A number of senior Congress leaders privately admit they are deeply embarrassed by the developments in Jharkhand.

They feel the governor acted in "unseemly haste" and the image of the party has taken a hit.

"Congress has lost considerable prestige. Every action should have legitimacy. The one in Jharkhand did not have one," a senior Congress leader and member of the highest decision- making body, told BBC News Online.

The political fiasco in Jharkhand, coming within days of the government presenting a reformist Union budget, points to a disconnection between Congress' old-world, almost feudal political culture and modern governance values under a technocrat prime minister.

While the party's reform-friendly ministers try to pursue modern policies, the politics of the party seems to be shrouded in secretive backroom politicking by the old guard, who steadfastly keep out bright, young leaders from having a say in party affairs.

Gains made on the government front are easily frittered away by political public relations disasters like Jharkhand.

"This is not just a crisis of constitutional morality, but also Congress culture itself," says political philosopher, Pratap Bhanu Mehta.

"All of Congress' policy initiatives will come to a nought if it always appears so desperate for power."

Article

Two weeks of pure political theatre. The Congress seems to be determined to grab power even if that means a serious miscarriage of democracy.

Shameful.