An Elusive Facade of Cooperative Federalism

Raj Bhavan, Kolkata. Photo for representational purposes.

Flashpoints in Centre-State relations have become increasingly common in India’s politico-administrative setup. While the Indian Constitution envisages a federal setup with a strong Centre, the provisions that inherently guarantee and thereby secure the onus of nurturing federal relations have also become dilatory over time. This has led to an unprecedented rise in vested political interests preceding the interests of national administration and has thus, often been at the expense of deteriorating relations with a select set of states. The recent confrontation between the Union Government and the state of West Bengal on the role of the Governor necessitates a close review of such an executive mechanism that has stood out as a prickly point on the fabric of cooperative federalism. In this essay, we shall cardinally look into the worrisome points between the Centre and States on this contentious issue, with an eye on the Sarkaria Commission recommendations.

In the context of India, a gubernatorial position is rather redundant. In fact, the Constituent Assembly had witnessed several debates about the utility of the position. While the President is the Head of State for the entire Indian Republic, the Governor is merely a vestige of the Centre who acts as the constitutional head of the state he is meant to serve. He has no real authority or power, and is in many cases, having lesser powers than the position of the President vis-a-vis his influence on the state. Biswanath Das, who was the Prime Minister of Odisha Province of British India and subsequently became Governor of Uttar Pradesh, prognosticated a situation wherein a Centrally-nominated Governor is not acceptable to a State government, especially if it is ruled by an opposition party having differences with the Centre. “In such circumstances, ‘rub’ can never be avoided if the power to give administrative pin-pricks is vested in the Governor,” he said. He further cautioned the Constituent Assembly that under the provisions of the British-enacted Government of India Act, 1935, there was no restraints on the Office of the Governor once appointed. He remarked that the Governor “had in his hands the nose-strings of the bull so to say. But there is nothing in this Constitution to control the Governor once he is appointed…”.

After a brief hiatus, the role of Governors in the Indian context has once again become a hotly contested issue. Most notably, almost all bitterness with the Raj Bhavans have arose in states ruled by opposition parties. This points to a rather devious undercurrent at play. The image of Governors as being agents of the Centre has been rather difficult to erase, and has only been reinforced with time, opines Rakhahari Chatterji of the Observer Research Foundation (ORF). Apart from a lone judicial intervention that has now become a landmark judgement (SR Bommai v/s Union of India), there generally has not been any censure of the Centre for flagrant violations of its powers when it comes to appointment of Governors. Perhaps out of their contemporaries, Maharashtra’s Bhagat Singh Koshyari and West Bengal’s Jagdeep Dhankhar stand out as being politically-motivated persons holding a Constitutional post supposed to be neutral, independent and a guiding force for the states. Interestingly, both these occupants are former members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, and both have been constant in their criticism and tirades against the governments that they head in a titular manner. Constitutional propriety has been thrown to the wind and the long held tradition of Governors not airing their differences with the elected regime has been junked as well. This was observed very recently, when the West Bengal governor chose to visit Sitalkuchi and express his sympathies with those who had lost their lives in the violence, all the while defaming and lambasting the Trinamool Congress. More often than not, there has been an unfortunate congruency between his actions and the interests of the BJP, whose electoral juggernaut could not match the resistance offered by the Bengali ideology. Such malicious activities do not augur well for the esteem of the Office they hold and paints a blot on ensuing Centre-State relations.

Various well-intentioned attempts to study the role of the Governor in a democratic federal setup and offer suggestions to strengthen his position so as to enhance Centre-state relations were made. The Administrative Reforms Commission (1968), the Rajamannar Committee (1969), Committee of Governors of 1971, Bangalore Seminar of Experts in 1983 are amongst some of the most notable. The Sarkaria Commission, constituted in 1988 to suggest ways of solidying and promoting the spirit of cooperative federalism, also made key recommendations on the question of the Office of the Governor. It was categorical in suggesting that Governors should only be elected from a pool of eminent people who belong to a non-political background. Furthermore, an analysis of profiles of Governors who held office between 1950-2015 reveals that almost one in every two governors belonged to a political background. A quarter of the posts were held by retired Civil Servants, while the remaining pie was split between former judges, defence officers, academicians and others.

A disturbing trend has been picking up of Governors from incumbent Chief Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. This not only erodes trust of the state government in the Constitutional head but is also a major deterrent to the spirit of federalism. Perhaps the most glaring among them is the curious case of Sushil Kumar Shinde, who as the former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, was shunted out of the state as a Governor, and during his tenure as Governor he was again picked to the position of the Union Home Minister. Shivraj Patil, who served the UPA-I as the Union Home Minister, was also subsequently transferred to Raj Bhavan in Punjab. Sheila Dixit, the Congress stalwart who was a three-time Chief Minister of Delhi, lost to Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party in the 2013 polls. Immediately after, she was positioned as the Governor of Kerala.

...such a Governor will have no independence and my point is that the Centre might try to do some mischief through that man
- Prof. Shibban Lal Saxena, Member of Constituent Assembly

While the issue of political loyalties conflict regularly with the ideals of the position, yet another pertinent concern often goes unnoticed in the debate. The Governor of a State has no constitutional remedy against his removal. There is no fixed tenure of the Governor, and he is to ideally hold office for a period of five years in consonance with the “pleasure of the president”. A legal reading of the same would imply that a change in Central Government may imply a natural replacement of existing Governors of states with ones cherry-picked by the Central Government. The Union Government may also call for an immediate shunting out of a Governor, if it feels the institution does not serve its own agenda. The matter was up for an extensive debate in the Constituent Assembly as well. K.T Shah, a member of the Assembly, argued that “so long as a Governor acts in accordance with the advice of the Constitutional advisers of the province (Council of Ministers), he should. . . be irremovable during his term of office, that is, five years”. Professor Shibban Lal Saxena, another member of the CA, was apprehensive that the Central Government may deliberately try and influence the activities, wisdom and discretion of an appointed Governor harnessing the backdrop of an uncertainty in term. He said, “when once a Governor has been appointed, I do not see why he should not continue in office for his full five years and why you should make him removable by the President at his whims. . . Such a Governor will have no independence and my point is that the Centre might try to do some mischief through that man.”

Prof. Saxena’s anatomy and prognosis of the grave faultline has been proven many a times in the workings of the polity. Time and again, the government at the helm of the Centre has blatantly used this very uncertainty of tenure to their advantage, by morally compelling the Governors to go against the ground rules of ethics and constitutional propriety. Statistically, only about 20% of Governors have been able to complete their complete, ideal term of office of five years. Those who have displayed some spine or resistance to intimidatory tactics from the Centre have often been transferred to states considered mostly insignificant, often acting as a demoralising force so much so that many of them would have considered resignation as a viable choice. Post 1967, the average tenure of a Governor has drastically decreased, as analysed by the Sarkaria Commission. It finds that between 1947 and 31 March 1967, out of sixty-six gubernatorial tenures, only thirty-two, that is, about 50 per cent, lasted a full 5-year term. In between 1 April 1967 and 31 October 1986, only 18 out of 88 tenures lasted full 5 years- down to a miserable 20 percent.

The final straw in the tug of war between the Centre and the States has been the imposition of President’s Rule (Article 356). An imposition of President’s Rule means the overthrow of an elected state regime. Imposition of President’s Rule by the Central Government has belied the expectations of the Constituent Assembly, who had hoped that the use of the measure would be highly restrictive, prudent and only in cases of emergent and compelling compulsions for the Centre to take the reigns of states in the spotlight. Except IK Gujral, almost all other Prime Ministers have resorted to the use of this tool at least once in their tenures. Indira Gandhi, who had an infamous track record of sidelining democracy and having a preference for an authoritarian style of governance, used it at wanton will and without sparing a second thought about the ramifications of her actions. The Sarkaria Commission has examined the merits of the imposition of President’s rule in states between 1950 and 1987 and found that only 23 out of 75 instances of its use during the period were inevitable. However, it was during her son Rajiv Gandhi’s term as the Prime Minister that the dissolution of SR Bommai-led government of Karnataka created a massive stir in Indian politics.

Governor P. Venkatsubbiah’s report claiming the breakdown of Constitutional apparatus of the state was contested in the Supreme Court by SR Bommai. In 1994, the Supreme Court laid down strict conditions with regards to the exercise of the Governor’s discretionary power to frame a report against the State government calling for dissolution of the legislature. ‘Floor tests’ became a mandatory requirement post the judgement and the President’s final decision on the report by the Governor became subject to judicial review, which was earlier provided blanket immunity from judicial scrutiny.

A Way Forward

The implications of a biased Governor as the Constitutional head of the basic building block of any federation- a state- amounts to gross violation of the sanctity of his post and only provides impetus to unwarranted impediment of the normal functioning of a democratically-elected popular state legislature. In this regard, advisory committees set up in good faith by past governments have not cut much ice. In fact, the only check against such flagrant violations came in the form of judicial interventions from time to time. One of the more remarkable judgements which created a history was the reversal of the President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh in 2016. A group of rebel Congressmen and BJP leaders colluded together to overthrow the-then government. The Supreme Court swiftly took notice of the incident and after a thorough review of the means and backdrop concerning such an imposition, found the decision by the President as unmaintainable. For the first time, a newly formed government was dislodged only to restore the legitimate previous government that had been a victim of malicious intent of the Centre.

One of the foremost reforms required at this hour is an overhaul to the present system of pick-and-choose by the Central Government when it comes to the appointment of Governors. If Governors are supposed to be an independent Constitutional post, then there is absolutely no necessity for the Centre to have a final say in terms of such appointments. Rather, it should be the prerogative of the Inter-State councils to recommend the names of eminent people who have demonstrated their capability of administration or responsibility to take up such positions. Such a decision tendered by the Inter-State councils should be binding on the President, much like the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers is. This would eliminate clear-cut cases of partisanship during the period of appointment and thus may soothe relations between the Constitutional Head of the state and the presiding executive, i.e, the Chief Minister.

Secondly, it should be mandated by law that Governors are not to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the working of the State Legislature in public. Perhaps, the institution can take a lesson or two from that of the British Monarch, among whose duties come a non-display of any emotion on any matter of governance or administration or event, which either directly or indirectly concerns the State government. Of course, he can put forward his views and recommendations in private to the Chief Minister, or can lend an ear to the Opposition parties and take note of their grievances. By banning any such form of public display of sympathy or emotion, the Office of the Governor would be strengthened because in such a scenario, holders of such a post would not be preoccupied hunting for opportunities to score political brownie points. Thirdly, additional forums for speedy redressal of grievances by State governments against Governors need to be created to ensure harmonious performance of duties as enshrined in the Constitution. At present, the absence of any such dedicated channel compel states to resort to judicial interventions, which are often time consuming and complex. However, allowing for alternative modes of engagement, wherein any pain point highlighted by the State can be considered on its merit and subsequent actions taken, can help reduce a lot of extant friction.

Lastly, Governors need to be given a security of tenure. Even Civil Servants who have been selected into State cadres through the Union Public Service Commission enjoy some security with respect to their posting. However, the variable nature of a Governor’s position allows for greed and political biases to creep into the mind of an incumbent, which is dangerous and contrary to the spirit of federalism. Ensuring a fixed tenure, of course with provisions of dismissal in case of absolute incompetence, would help eliminate such insecurities and rather direct the work of the Governor towards constructive addition to that of the State government’s initiatives.

The Office of the Governor is that of high esteem and is designed to be a guiding force for the State government to take advice from and learn from the experience of the administrator. Instead, the position has been thrown open to slandering and diatribes, in part because of the lackadaisical attitude of those who have held the seat themselves, and the rest because of the misuse of the powers vested in the Governor. Cooperative federalism is a notion that does not come to existence overnight. The Governor’s position and sanctity, as originally envisioned by members of the Constituent Assembly under the leadership of Babasaheb Ambedkar, needs to be restored at the earliest to avoid further corrosion of credibility to the institution, which has already taken a major hit today.

Why Bengal is a ticking time-bomb, and what needs to be done

West Bengal has had for long a volatile political history. With several instances of mass-scale rebellions and violent uprisings against the administration throughout expansive swathes of time, the state has certainly enough potent to be labeled tempestuous. After a spate of gross misuse of power and unabated killings (Sainbari murders, Marichjhapi massacres, Nandigram) for a period of thirty-four years, Mamata ascended to the center-stage of West Bengal politics as the Chief Minister in 2011. Her party, the Trinamool Congress, had ridden to power through the catchphrase, ‘Maa Mati Manush’– promising people development (‘unnayan‘), and an immediate end to administrative high-handedness.

Almost eight years later, the ground reality looks immensely far-fetched from the poll planks of 2011, and murders have once again reclaimed their spot as a political weapon.

Venomous Roots

Mamata has always been a mile away from the bhadralok-zamindar politics of the state; her repute as a militant street-fighter battling for the oppressed and destitute propelled her popularity among the masses. After assuming office, it only metamorphosed into a brand of politics that encapsulated populism, outreach efforts, and loyalty-garnering initiatives. There is no denying that in terms of social ventures, Banerjee has outdone most other politicians of her era; providing opportunities for the girl child (Kanyashree), and offering artisans, craftsman, and folk singers appreciable remunerations for their services. These activities have helped generate an army of party loyalists- being the beneficiaries to the government’s social schemes, these men had a call of obligation. Her party’s base continued to grow naturally until it hit the saturation point. And that is precisely when the trouble started.

With growing support and politicisation of the bureaucracy (much like her Communist predecessors), complacency had begun to sow its seeds among the party ranks. Thus, when the base growth stalled and became evident, workers tried to brute force their way to gain the vote of those in ideological contrast to that of the TMC. Fiery leaders like Anubrata Mondal, TMC’s Birbhum district president, flaunted veiled threats as tools of intimidation. Infighting had already commenced, thus eroding away the electorate’s confidence in the ruling disposition. Brazen remarks made by several high-ranking party members (read, Tapas Pal) had left little to prove that the party functioning was completely arbitrary.

Political greed, coupled with the onset of deplorable complacency, also opened the floodgates for corruption. The Narada sting operation revealed how 11 of her ministers accepted bribes in exchange of unofficial favors for a fake consultancy firm floated by the whistleblower himself. The Saradha scam mired her repute as a leader who takes on corruption- and suicide figures for those who lost all in the ponzi scam reached double digits. Despite such brutal revelations, she miserably failed to take any definite action against the accused, and went on to harbour such men in order to extract political reaps owing to their unprecedented influence.

Appeasement Politics and Support Banks

Prior to Independence, the Muslim population in Bengal was estimated at 29.5%. Post partition, however, that figure dropped to 19.85%. However, after the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war and establishment of Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), the percentage again ricocheted to 20.46%. When Banerjee came to don the hat as a Chief Minister, the demographics resembled a 27% share of the Muslim population, and a 70% share of the majority Hindus.

Sensing an opportunity to lap up the Muslim vote (an electorally significant 27%), the TMC supremo went all guns blazing to provide Muslims with benefits unparalleled. Her brand of appeasement politics is nowhere near subtle; her extravaganza in terms of playing the religion card is downright offensive. Calcuttans have got used to the sight of Mamata draped in a white scarf over her head offering namaz prayers during prominent Muslim festivities. The Dinajpur-Maldah-Murshidabad-Birbhum region has seen specific religion targeted efforts to win over the vote bank. However, such concerted effort towards minority appeasement has weaned off many. In 2016, Firhad Hakim, one of Mamata’s many trusted lieutenants, reportedly described Garden Reach as “mini-Pakistan”. A feature report by THG highlights how in the Falta block of South 24 Parganas, the alleged ‘monstrosity’ of TMC leader Zahangir Khan has accentuated the TMC’s rootless politics. This year, she increased the Eid bonus for all Muslim State employees to Rs. 4000, a 11% hike from last year.

Mamata has one trick up her sleeve that yields her big results: fielding celebrities! It seems to serve two objectives at once: while the stars bring along their own fan following to the advantage of the party, it also helps push party factionalism under the carpet. To take on the BJP’s Asansol candidate, Babul Supriyo, Banerjee placed yesteryear actress Moon Moon Sen as a contestant for the seat. Nusrat Jahan and Mimi Chakraborty, two eminent actresses from Bengal’s film industry, also found a place amongst the 42 prospective MP candidates, contesting the elections from Basirhat and Jadavpur, respectively. Tollywood star Dev Adhikari, one of the industry’s leading figures today (how pathetic!) is also in the fray this time around, from Ghatal. While the strategy is a complete winner in the short term, applying band-aid fixes to rifts within the party ultimately produces defectors, or worse, moles.

For residents of Kolkata and its suburban areas, the anarchy of auto-wallahs is beyond grasp. The auto drivers and toto (e-rickshaw) operators have pacts with local leaders in exchange of uninterrupted ‘do-what-you-may’ regime. Cases of road rage against such people are shelved by the police; in short, their supremacy on the roads remain unchallenged under the patronage of their political masters. Hawker encroachment, also allegedly under the patronage of local leaders, has rendered the wide majority of pavements inaccessible to pedestrians, exposing them to the perils of walking on busy roads at peak hours. These pacts are nothing but purely based out of monetary and vote considerations. As police action is de-facto forbidden, they continue their reign of pandemonium unfettered- and drop the votes alongside.

Industry Aversion and Syndicate Raj

Banerjee’s breakthrough moment in Bengal’s tense political environment was when she single-handedly spearheaded a campaign to drive out the TATA Group from Singur, alleging forced encroachment of farmer’s lands by the CPI(M) government. Her relentless protest ultimately ensured that the Nano project withdrew from Singur, marking a thumping win for her against adversities. Co-incidentally, as fate would have it, a marked decline in industrialization has been the jinx in her term as the Chief Minister.

In her first stint (2011-2016), the contribution of industry in West Bengal’s GSDP shrank from 19.1% in 2012 to 18.8% in 2013. Manufacturing also witnessed a progressive decline from 56% in 2012 to 55.3% in 2013. A report by the Business Standard in 2013 also highlighted a 97% decline in industries since 2010, and an 85% fall when compared to 2011. Since then, efforts were made to salvage Bengal’s flailing economy. The Global Bengal Summit was conceptualized in 2014 and has since been instrumental in attracting investment proposals into the state. In fact, in 2019 itself, the 5th Global Bengal Summit generated investment proposals worth Rs. 2.84 trillion. However, when it comes to implementation, the statistics are no longer rosy as they were on paper: growth and industry expansion is happening at an extremely tardy pace. Bengal has also squandered the opportunity of riding the demographic dividend, i.e. to cash in on the productivity of the working age population, a report from the UNFPA suggests.

The problem is multi-pronged and poses as a conundrum to the political dispensation. If the INTTUC (the party’s trade union arm) is to be strengthened, it will help bolster party recruits and drive support for the party. However, a strong trade union would also ride roughshod over the managerial decisions, and any complications would keep further investor interest at bay. So far, the Trinamool Congress has not been able to find a viable solution to this stumbling block on the road to development.

The Kolkata flyover collapse, allegedly linked to the Syndicate providing inferior-grade materials for the construction

In cities, however, the problem assumes a radically different dynamic. Construction land, building materials, and sand are all controlled by a group of people who remain politically affiliated to the ruling party- termed as syndicates. Extortionism is common, and any buyer who seeks legitimate means of transactions would be compelled to ‘give in, or give up’. Often, these syndicates provide an inferior quality of construction materials at a higher price, widening their pockets with profits. This has inadvertent effects. Repair work done by the State’s Public Works Department turns out to be temporary and inadequate. In 2016, a flyover collapsed over Girish Park- a crowded locality in Kolkata, with later inspections revealing the supply of inferior-grade materials as one of the chief reasons for structural instability.

Rise of the Right Wing

Amidst an atmosphere of uncertainty, the biggest gainer has undoubtedly been the Bharatiya Janata Party. Drawing from its proven formula of polarisation of voters along religious lines, the party primarily projected itself as a binary alternative to Mamata’s Muslim-first policies. It had all the positives in the world to begin its journey with:

The party effectively relied on Modi’s mass appeal, particularly among the youth of the state- promising ‘sabka saath, sabka vikaas‘ (inclusive development for all).
The Left, which was completely routed in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, had its entire vote base transferred to the BJP, and,
The theme of national security and an unprecedented influx of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants into Bengal were repeatedly underscored to rake up jingoistic sentiments.

The Bharatiya Janata Party, which had no significance in Bengal’s poll map, has made a surprising wildcard entry to play an integral role in the complex workings of the State’s politics. It will be interesting to observe how the right-wing, which focuses on the base of Hindutva, fares in a state where Muslims form a significant chunk of the population. Furthermore, the electorate expects the BJP to make the paradigm shift and ensure policy changes, to facilitate rapid industrialization of the state. While Modi’s Gujarat model is easy to sell as an ideal model, Bengal is not Gujarat: the state arm of the BJP will face tough challenges in its quest for acche din.

The Way Forward

Bengal’s explosive mix of greedy politics, minority appeasement and populism is certainly a disaster waiting to happen. Political violence is on the consistent rise. The Panchayat polls in 2018 were one of the bloodiest in Bengal’s history, with 25 people being slain as part of political rivalry. Post-poll violence after the 2019 Lok Sabha elections is so bad that an imposition of President’s Rule is being pondered over as an option to tackle the absolute lawlessness that Bengal is reeling from today.

The fantastic irony lies in the fact that a leader who comes from a background of fighting against heavy-handed establishments, has herself succumbed to the vagaries of electoral rapacity! Under Mamata’s regime, ‘red fascism’ of the Left has merely been replaced by secular fascism, and the Trinamool Congress is essentially old wine served in a new bottle.

To begin with, Mamata must have a hard look at her own policies- often crafted with vested interests- and alter them at the earliest. Second, she must look to fill bureaucracy with competent officers, and not puppets: it will ensure that she gets sound advice on critical issues pertaining to efficient governance. Third, she must reign in lumpen elements operating from within the party, as a party with leaders who are mutually out of sync damages both the party as well as good governance. Fourth, she must make a dedicated effort to stop the syndicate raj and illegal sand mining that rot the State machinery, as her silence only fuels such activities. While her party stands to lose significant amounts of donation amounts coming from such illegal syndicates, she would be free of the moral guilt, and more importantly, the taint of giving a free hand to such elements. Fifth, and most importantly, it is time that she introspects the demographic damage that minority appeasement is doing to West Bengal’s cultural lineage. State security, as well as an irreparable cultural heritage, should never be toyed with in a bid to polish vote banks.

At this hour of desperation, Mamata needs not only an image makeover but also an administrative rejig, to make things work for the TMC. I can only keep fingers crossed, and hope that sense prevails soon. It would be apt to recall Ellen Glasgow, the famed American novelist, who had prognosticated that “… all change is not growth, as all movement is not forward.” If only the Trinamool Congress could draw some lessons.