One-sided opinion
Apropos 'Arbitrary Appointment of Governors' by Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu. The biased notion is evident in the write up in appointment of Governors, in the views of the writer, to be causing hindrance in the functioning of states as a result. But, it is difficult to agree with statistics mobilised by Madabhushi in justifying his allegations in this regard.
It has become fashionable by non-BJP ruled states , like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, TS, WB and Maharashtra to fault-find Governors for standing in the way of federal structure that is being enjoyed. But, the fact remains that the states in question are overdoing their part in propagating a selective agenda that is in radical deviation of established rules and norms – and they also want the Governor to be a party to it, in passing such orders.
The problem crops up when the Governor returns the file, when he or she is not entirely in agreement with the logic of the political party that is in power. Similar is the case in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, J&K, Telangana and Maharashtra. How come, such situations are not being faced by other states, wherein the Governor is not being viewed as a villain in the works of the established governments ?
The popular notion to view a Governor as an agent of the Centre is wrong; even though this is a legacy of the British, it is serving a good cause. The Governor cannot be viewed as a rubber stamp to be always in agreement with radical and non-constitutional interpretations of some states that are bent on giving a grotesque picture of the Governor, with a view to settle scores with the Centre.
Some states like Kerala are even contemplating to do away with this Constitutional authority in their states, whom they think to be proving cantankerous to their professed agenda, that is not always in tune with the welfare and well-being of the state and the nation, to be merely governed by petty and untested political considerations that are generally borrowed ones, and have no relevance in the present time.
K R Parvathy, Mysuru