It's all talk and show at the governor's address to the legislature

Chennai: The customary governor’s address to the state legislative assembly at the beginning of a new year-session has turned out to be an exercise in futility and reduced to a farce. A colonial legacy, it could as well be converted into a chief minister’s address, since it is prepared by the cabinet and not the governor.

It is only the media, political circles, and a section of the intelligentsia, which is aware that the governor is merely reading out the text prepared by the state government, and the views expressed are not his at all.

The public image is of the governor having supported the policies and projects of the state, though the governor and the chief minister belong to different parties, wedded to different ideologies.

All ruling parties, even those like the DMK which in the past were opposed to the very institution of governors, have tended to use the motion of thanks to the governor for his address as an endorsement of its own policies and schemes. The AIADMK MLAs led by the ministers thump the benches whenever the governor reads out portions, hailing its achievements or its leaders like M G Ramachandran, J Jayalalithaa, especially when the governor describes her as Puratchi Thalaivi (revolutionary leader). During the DMK rule, its MLAs thumped the desks and rejoiced when the governor referred to M Karunanidhi as ‘Doctor Kalaignar’. The ruling parties derived a sense of vicarious pleasure when they got the governors (from adversarial parties) to hail their leaders.

Tamil Nadu has had a history of governors and chief ministers getting along well, barring the brief tenure of Channa Reddy, who accorded sanction to prosecute the then CM J Jayalalithaa in a corruption case. She even accused him of misbehaviour.

In fact, other governors had such a good relationship with their CMs, that there were charges of gifts being exchanged. Those that shared a bonhomie included, S L Khurana, who went out of his way to carry out the Centre’s move to bring back MGR as CM though he underwent a major surgery in the US. But the good times lasted only till it made sense to the Centre’s political calculation. For instance, Fathima Beevi was allowed by the NDA-government at the Centre to invite Jayalalithaa to form the government after the 2001 elections (though she was disqualified as an MLA). Fathima was later removed, apparently under pressure from the BJP’s Delhi ally, the DMK. K K Shah, too, was on good terms with the then chief minister, M Karunanidhi, even during the Emergency. He had praised the Karunanidhi government one day, but the next day was asked to give a report seeking dismissal of the DMK government. He did so to oblige his bosses at the Centre.

Some governors, like Surjit Singh Barnala, had more problems with the ruling parties at the Centre than in the state. When the Chandra Shekhar government at the Centre directed him to send a report recommending dismissal of the DMK government in 1991 for supporting the LTTE, Barnala refused to comply. He chose to resign rather than bow to Delhi’s orders.

The stand of the DMK in the 1950s and the 1960s was in favour of abolition of the posts of governors. “Where is the need for goats to have beards and for states to have governors” was the refrain. There is even less need now for governors to make addresses to the legislature when the text is prepared by the state cabinet. It makes even less sense now when the presentation of the budget has been advanced in many states to early February, when the ruling party can spell out its policies and schemes.
The voting on the motion of thanks to the governor for his address to the assembly is a mere formality almost throughout the country. Governors can seek changes of some words or a phrase, but it is up to the ministers to make them. In the long run, it would be less hypocritical to change the format from the governor’s address to the CM’s address.

By R. Rangaraj

January 16, 2020