I

The position of the Governor of a State in the Indian polity has been a subject of much controversy almost since the inception of the office. There are some who adopt the language of ridicule and sarcasm and others of bitter criticism. Different opinions have been expressed on the office of the Governor. Certain individuals and parties advocate total abolition of the Governorship. As early as 1947, Principal Sreeman Narain Agarwal stated that “there is no necessity for a Governor” and the P. S. P. holds a similar view today. There are some who stand for the retention of the Governor’s office, but advocate certain changes; and others are satisfied with the present constitutional position of the Governor.

The suggestion for the abolition of the post of the Governor is primarily based on economic considerations. Under the new Constitution, a Governor is paid Rs. 5,500 per mensem. In addition to this he is paid an allowance of Rs. 1,600 on appointment, to purchase clothes; Rs. 70,000 at the time of appointment, for furnishing the Raj Bhavan; and Rs. 4,92,900 per annum, to meet the expenses over his residence, tours etc. All this is considered to be avoidable expenditure. The force of the argument lies in the fact that so much amount is spent on an individual whose presence is not required and that the administration does not suffer by his absence. Under the new Constitution the Governor is a nominal executive and so it is argued that it is not right to spend such large sums over an individual whose business is to say ‘yes’ to what the Cabinet says. It was said of the French Presidency that it was “an office with the sole virtue of impotence. Its incumbent must neither act nor think.” The same is said to be the case with a Governor. Sri Sri Prakasa when he was the Governor of Madras once remarked, “Nobody cares for Governors. While Governors under the British regime said ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with authority, in the present set-up of constitutional Governorship, what can poor Governors say?” In a more pungent tone Sri J. B. Kripalani remarked, “After the advent of democracy, the one person most ridiculous is the Governor. He has no power to govern his own actions. Any speech he has to make anywhere has to be approved by his Chief Minister...What are the functions of the Governor then? These include opening of girls’ schools, hotels, cinemas and sometimes even sweetmeat shops.” As the Governor’s post is thus a costly superfluity, the sooner it is abolished the better.

There are others who stand for the retention of the Governor’s post, but advocate certain changes in its nature. Serious objection is raised against the present system of choice of the Governor. The method of nomination is the very negation of democracy and deprives the people of the democratic freedom of self-expression. Elections are considered as the life breath of democracy and their absence its demise. The upholders of this view take their inspiration from the system that prevails in the U. S. A. The Governor of a State in the U. S. A. is elected by the people of the State. It is further argued that the appointment of the Governor by the President of India cuts short the autonomy of the States and goes against the principle of State autonomy. On this ground it is further pointed out that the Governor of a State must belong to that State. A more considerate view about the appointment of the Governor is that the President of India should appoint the person that is elected by the Legislature of the State. This method will have the double advantage of introducing the democratic procedure, while preserving the bond of unity between the Centre and the States.

As the attack on the Governorship is primarily based on economic grounds, an odd suggestion is made for honorary Governors by Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, ex-Governor of Madhya Pradesh. Today in every branch of administration there are honorary officers in responsible posts. In local administration, the Chairman of a Municipality is not paid. In judicial administration, there are honorary magistrates. The President of a Co-operative Bank or Co-operative Stores holds an honorary post. In all these cases public spirit and integrity count more than monetary considerations and those occupying the honorary posts have established a noble tradition in public service and honesty. The system of honorary Governors may also prove a success, if men of integrity and public spirit are chosen.

II

A study of the proposals for a change in the position of the Governor shows that they are unsound in theory and unworkable in practice. The economic factor looms large in the criticism levelled against the Governor. Sound political conclusions can hardly be drawn by judging institutions in terms of rupees and naya paise. If monetary considerations alone are to be the guide in determining political institutions, democracy itself has to be given up, for of all systems of government it is the costliest. India’s first General Election cost Rs. 10,40,00,000. Every member of Parliament is paid Rs. 40 per day when the Parliament is in session besides the travelling allowances. Compared with such expenditure, the salary of a Governor, Rs. 5,500, pales into insignificance. In fact the Governors of several States have voluntarily cut their salaries and Mr. C. M. Trivedi, ex-Governor of Andhra Pradesh, was drawing only Rs. 1,530 per mensem. However, in a country like India, where there is devastating poverty, it would be a sound economic principle to fix the maximum salary of an individual at Rs. 1,000 per mensem.

The critics of the Governor who describe him as a figure-head view that office with a jaundiced eye. Viewed in the right perspective, the Governor, far from being a “sleeping partner”, acts as a balance wheel of the State Government. Under the new Constitution he is a factor to be reckoned in administrative, legislative and financial matters. All executive action of the Government of a State is to be conducted in the name of the Governor. He appoints the Chief Minister, and other Ministers on the advice of the Chief Minister. He is empowered to lay down rules for the convenient transaction of business and for the allocation of business among Ministers. It is the duty of the Chief Minister to furnish to the Governor all information relating to administration and proposals for legislation. According to the letter of the Constitution the Governor is vested with supreme legislative powers. He has a right to address the legislature and send messages to it. He possesses the triple legislative powers of assent, dissent and reservation of bills. Any bill can be entered in the statute book only on receipt of his assent. In financial matters also the powers of the Governor are worthy of note. He causes the Annual Financial Statement showing the receipts and expenditure to be placed before the legislature of the State. Every demand for a grant must be made only on his recommendation. Like any other Head of a State, the Governor has the privilege to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishments. Above all, he occupies a unique position as a co-ordinating agency between the Centre and the States. The Governor under the British rule was a benevolent despot and the Governor of today is the constitutional Head of the State. Today he is not expected to override the Ministers, but as the highest dignitary in the State, he can advise and admonish the Cabinet. He can exercise influence, though not power. As Gandhiji remarked, the Governors will be in a position to exercise “all-pervading moral influence.”

The working of the Constitution during the last seven years has proved the significance of the Governor in the administration of a State. In times of political instability the Governor acted as a great stabilising factor. Certain States like the Punjab and Kerala have become problem States and the smooth working of Government in those States has depended on the ability and tact of the Governor. Today a problematic position has arisen by the formation of a Communist Government in Kerala, and it is the ability and resourcefulness of the Governor that go a long way in promoting understanding and harmony between the State Government and the Centre. The fact that the wise counsels and wide experience of Sri C. M. Trivedi contributed not a little to maintaining smooth administration in the infant State of Andhra, is another instance to prove that the Governor is not an ornamental figure-head. So on pragmatic considerations, if not for any other reason, the retention of the Governorship has justification.

Under the parliamentary system of Government there is need for a nominal executive, because the tenure of the real executive is not fixed. With the fall of the Cabinet a vacuum will be created in the administrative field, in the absence of the Governor. It is he who maintains continuity in administration and enables a smooth change-over from the fall of one Cabinet to the establishment of another. Due to this reason, in every country having the parliamentary system, a nominal executive which provides stability for the Government, has been established. The Governors in Australia and the Lieutenant Governors in Canada are illustrative of this fact. There is no parliamentary federation without a nominal executive corresponding to the Governor in an Indian State. Is it wise to abolish an institution which is of a universal nature?

The need for a permanent executive like the Governor, is all the more necessary in a parliamentary democracy having the multi-party system. Cabinet instability is inescapable under the multi- or poly-party system, as is evident from the history of France and some of the States in India like the Punjab, Kerala, Andhra and Orissa. In view of the large size of the country and diverse interests of the people, India may have in future the multi- party system. So there is a prima facie need for an officer having experience and commanding popular respect, to maintain continuity in administration. Moreover a high and experienced dignitary is necessary in a parliamentary system of Government to form the Cabinet. The formation of the Cabinet is “a work of great time, great labour and great responsibility.” What Disraeli said a century ago holds good even today. Under the two-party system, the choice of Ministers is made in a rather mechanical way. But when no party commands an over-all majority in the legislature, a man of great courage, tact and imagination is necessary for the formation of a stable Cabinet. This can be well illustrated from what happened in the Madras State in 1952 when the Congress party in the legislature faced the formidable opposition of the United democratic Front led by the veteran leader, the late Sri T. Prakasam. The choice of Sri C. Rajagopalachari as Chief Minister by Sri Sri Prakasa, the then Governor of Madras, averted parliamentary anarchy in the Madras State.

Several of the suggestions made for a change in the nature of the Governorship are unsound in principle. One such is the proposal to have an elected Governor. Those that make this proposal are led a way by the system that prevails in the U. S. A. It would be inappropriate to imitate the American system, for while the U. S. A. has a non-parliamentary executive, India has adopted the parliamentary type. In the former the States have adopted the type of ‘strong’ Governor. In some States even the budget is prepared by the Governor and in legislation “he is hardly second to the legislature itself.” Quite different is the case in India. The Governor of a State in India is expected to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. It would be sheer waste of money if the method of election is adopted for the choice of a nominal executive. Politically also the principle of election may prove injurious, for an elected Governor may become a rival to the Cabinet. So the principle of election in the case of the Governor will be economically a waste and politically it may prove dangerous.

The Constitution does not prevent the President of India from appointing a person of a State as the Governor of that State. However, during the last half-a-dozen years of the working of the Constitution, a very healthy convention has been set up, of the appointment of a person belonging to one State as the Governor of another State. This procedure helps a great deal in preventing localism and promoting inter-state understanding. Moreover, the Governor must establish a name for his detached and impartial outlook and this will be possible only when an outsider is appointed.

The appointment of the Governor by the President is further criticised as an encroachment on State autonomy. It is no exaggeration to say that arguments like these are based on parochial considerations and ignore the wider interests of the country. Localism and provincialism which led to disunity and division in the country, have been the root causes for India’s enslavement in the past. So the makers of the Indian Constitution took great care to curtail narrow provincialism and preserve the unity of the country. It was with this object that India was made a co-operative and not a competitive federation. Moreover, in every country, due to the growth of international tensions, the trend is towards vesting more and more powers in the Central Government and all proposals for greater State autonomy go against the time spirit.

The economic argument in the case of the Governor has taken curious turns and an odd proposal like the appointment of honorary Governors, is made. The protagonists of this view fail to realise that no responsible post can be efficiently managed by an honorary officer. This was realised long ago in all countries and consequently the system of payment to members of parliament came into existence. The analogy of the Municipal Chairman is misleading for local administration does not involve heavy responsibilities. But even in that limited sphere, the need is felt for the appointment of a paid officer called the Commissioner. So the idea of appointing honorary Governors is not practicable.

Another erroneous view about the Governor is that the pomp and pageantry connected with his post will be an anomaly under the socialist pattern of society. A correct understanding of the concept of equality requires a sense of proportion. Equality has never been understood in any country to mean complete identity, and even in Soviet Russia, the Head of the State does not live in the same way as a factory labourer or a peasant. Moreover, with the growing international contact and the visits of foreign dignitaries, the maintenance of an establishment befitting the dignity of the Head of a State is indispensable.

III

The abolition of the Governor’s post will necessitate the appointment of another officer of a similar nature. What is taken away by the right hand has to be replaced by the left. The storm of argumentation that raged in Britain over the abolition of monarchy has calmed down, for the abolition will not make Britain any more democratic than she is today. Nor will it result in any appreciable saving of resources. Similar considerations lend support to the retention of the Governor of a State in India. Though the present expenditure over the Governor is inconsequential, any possible reduction in it should be welcome in a poor country like India. While the dignity and status of the Governor have to be maintained, pomp and splendour have to be severely cut down. Under the socialist pattern of society, there should be no officer in the style of the Grand Mughal. The maintenance of expensive establishments at different places for the stay of the Governor during the different seasons, the expenditure over addresses of welcome, and all kinds of pomp and pageantry, have to be curtailed.

The post of the Governor should not be an avenue for the party in power to favour its own party men. The dignity and honour of the Head of the State can be retained only when persons of high character, great mental calibre and meritorious service are appointed. The Governor’s post should not be converted into a coveted job for party men or an asylum for those defeated in elections. It should be occupied by those who have earned a name for integrity and public service.

The Governor as the chief executive of a State, must be able to give sound advice to the Ministers and safely pilot the ship of State through all kinds of political storms. This requires sound understanding and long experience. So the tenure of the Governor of a State should be sufficiently long so that he may act as a reservoir of experience. Healthy conventions should be set up in matters of appointment and tenure of the Governor.

Back