Ever since the creation of the high office of the Governor as 'the fulcrum of Indian federal system' it has remained an ever controversial one. After the call by West Bengal's CPM for 'redefining the role of governors in the states', the old debate thus has been brought back to life again. This has come in the wake Governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi's voluntary imposition of a two-hour power cut in his official residence - the Raj Bhavan.

When, by doing it the Governor has gestured to share the ordeal and to express solidarity with the problem faced by Kolkata residents owing to power cuts, the government, on the other hand, regards this 'Gandhigiri' as a publicity stunt. The party even has gone to the extent of saying that West Bengal doesn't need a governor at all. Senior CPM leader Biman Bose initiates a debate 'whether Governors posts are necessary' at all after 60 years of India's Independence.

However, a parliamentary system of government and a federal structure like ours does warrant the existence of an office of a nominal/ figure head like Governor (in case of a state) or President ( in case of the Centre) to coexist with the real heads i.e. Chief Minister and Prime Minister respectively. It is said that the Governor (Article 153) is to the state what the president (Article 52) is to the Union. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during a debate in the Constituent Assembly had made a similar remark that "the position of the Governor is exactly the same as the position of the President".

The Governor has a very vital constitutional role to play in certain abnormal/emergent situations. During emergency in the states and between the exit and entry of representative governments in the states the office is looked upon as the guardian of the interests of the state. According to Sarkaria Commission report, "As a bridge between the Union and the state, the Governor can foster better understanding between them and remove such misunderstanding as may be souring their relations."

But in comparison to the office of the President the high office of Governor has been found to be a more disputed one. Governor is not an elected office and one is appointed in that capacity by the Central Government mostly on political considerations. Only favoured political figures and the members of the ruling party at the Centre are appointed on this prestigious post. Even during Nehru's time this practice was in vogue. Therefore, some regard the post of the Governor as 'a retirement haven for politicians'.

It is a fact that Governor's office in normal times performs some ceremonial functions only. Leaving this, this expensive office appears to be redundant where the same party rules at both the levels and where there is a clear cut majority having a consensual leader to lead the Assembly. It was during Nehru's era that Governors like Sri Prakash and Vijay Laxmi Pandit expressed the view that the office of the Governor was somewhat 'superfluous and redundant'. It should either be abolished or the Governors in the states be given some functions to perform.

The credibility of the Governor's office is often question because the office is being used as a 'resident agent' of the Centre in the states. Several Governors in the past have dragged this pious and sagacious constitutional office into controversy by lending their services to fulfill the partisan ends of the ruling party at the Centre. Who has forgotten that decade (1971-80) i.e. the days of the Congress Government at the Centre(1971-77) under the leadership of Indira Gandhi and the Janata Government (1977-80) that succeeded it, during which over 27 state governments were toppled/dismissed for political ends by the Governor.

Till November 1983, as statistics shows, 'President's Rule (under Article 356) was imposed seventy times' in which the office of Governor did play a villain role. The office was instrumental in causing the downfall of several State Governments' having majority in their respective Assembly. The dismissal of N.T.R government by the then Governor of Andhra Pradesh Ram Lal in 1984 was one of such unpalatable experiences. The Governors of West Bengal (1967), Sikkim (1984), Jammu and Kashmir (in 1984 under Governor Jag Mohan) and Karnataka (in 1989 under Governor P. Venkatsubbiah) too had fallen prey to the mischief of the Centre.

Among the recent ones - the cases of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (1996) are still alive in our mind. Such incidents did shake the people's faith in democratic institutions. The polity began to wonder whether the Governor was worse than an expensive superfluity. In view of such incidents, some state governments had demanded for the abolition of the office of the Governor or for a Constitutional Amendment to impeach the Governor by the members of State Legislative Assembly. Accordingly, the matter was then referred to the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relationship.

This too reminds of the initiation of a Private Member's Bill in the Rajya Sabha on 25th April, 1986 titled as the Constitution (Amendment) Bill which suggested to amend article 159 by adding the following that "A Governor shall be impeached (by the concerned Assembly) for the violation of the Constitution or on the ground of proved misbehaviour and incapacity."

Therefore the CPM's demand to abolish or to have an elected Governor has not been altogether a new one but the background here is a different one. West Bengal is having a pro-active Governor in Gopal Krishna Gandhi. He is found to have practiced gubernatorial activism. He is never content to be a figurehead, and regards himself as the guardian of the welfare of the state since he is under an oath to 'devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of West Bengal'. His role was prominent during the Nandigram incident. His strong stand against Nandigram violence helped shake national conscience and caused great embarrassment to the West Bengal Government'. Under such circumstances, the Governor's self imposed power cut might have been misconstrued as a political stunt by the party in power in West Bengal.

Let's now delve into the pages of history to find out some pro-active Governors. It is said that "the office is what the person chooses to make it to be". It is also true in case of the office of Governor. There are therefore instances of persons debasing and also glorifying this august office. Nani A. Palkhivala, in his book "We, the Nation: The Lost Decades", has given a narrative on an ideal Governor. He has appreciated the role played by the then Governor of Maharashtra C. Subramanian in 1990. He cites some occasions where the Governor even had acted against the protocol. Subramanian openly expressed his embarrassment to be addressed as 'His Excellency'; he too did not put on black convocation robe in a gesture to indicate that nothing important lied in the raiment.

Palkhivala observed, "Mr. Subramanian's tenure as the Governor was stamped by one great quality. No one worked harder to advance the cause of the essential unity of all religions." In a similar way the role played by Shriman Narayan (as Governor of Gujarat) in promoting economic welfare of the Scheduled Tribes and V.N. Gadgil in influencing policy decisions are also noteworthy. Signifying this Soli Sorabjee said, "A good Governor under the constitution has a key role to play in ensuring smooth administration in the state." A careful reading of the constitutional provisions will so that the Governor is neither a mere figure head nor a rubber stamp, but a functionary designed to play a dynamic and creative role in the administrative affairs of the state.

Instances of such Governors who have played a dynamic and creative role are though countable few but the difference between them and Gopal Gandhi is that when the former were able to take the Chief Ministers with them the latter is a case of rivalry between the real and the nominal heads. Gandhi is regarded as a thorn in the flesh of Buddhadev. The Governor needs to act in caution. If they go together that would have been a different story. While appreciating the role played by C. Subramanian, Nani Palkhivala made a remark that "If the Governor and Chief Minister of every state had the vision, knowledge and capacity of Mr. Subramanian, India would be transformed into a wholly different country".

With regard to an elected office of the Governor as demanded by the ruling party in West Bengal following an American Model, there was a suggestion in the Constituent Assembly that Governors were to be elected directly by the people of the state or by members of the Assembly. However, such a proposal was not acceptable to the Constituent Assembly as it would give rise to duplicity of authority and other problems that would impede Indian federation. It preferred to go for the appointment of the Governor by the President on the advice of Council of Ministers at the Centre.

Since the Indian federation is of a unique kind in its genesis. With regard to the autonomy of the Governor like that of its American counterpart, the following Supreme Court judgment is of relevance. Through its judgment in the Dr. Raghukul Tilak's Case (A.I.R.1979 S.C.1109), the Supreme Cout clearly explains the constitutional position of the Governor: "the Constitution of India intends that the Governor should be the instrument to maintain the fundamental equilibrium of the people of the state and to ensure that the mandates of the Constitution are respected in the state".

In the background, however, it does not seem that Governor Gandhi has acted beyond or has forgotten the limitations of the duties and responsibilities of a governor. He rather has not chosen to make or accept the post of the Governor as a retirement compromise for politicians. The present allegation against the Governor seems baseless if he had no such political intent to interfere in this matter concerning the state government. It might have been his personal preference to opt for that being the grand son of the Great Mohandas Gandhi.

The office of the Governor in no way deprives a person from taking a decision that suits his liking. He is not supposed to be criticized for not being behaving as a so called 'Governor'. This has seriously 'up set' him as he had no such 'political agenda' to pursue. The criticism by CPM leaders against Gandhi is a blatant misuse of our right to speak and criticize. It is also too unconvincing to accept the reaction by CPM general secretary Prakash Karat that he is going to take up the issue with the centre-state relationship panel.

If this tendency of criticizing constitutional authorities when they act against whims and fancies of politicians is not checked, it would erode the trust and respect people have on constitutional institutions and might invite instability to our political system. It is an irony that a person-a-grata and a person chosen by a Central Government in which the CPM is an ally or partner is still not acceptable to West Bengal!

At the same time, an ideal Governor needs to act in caution. The incumbent of the high office must have in mind the criterion suggested by the Sarkaria Commission Panel to choose a Governor that "he should not be connected with the local politics of the state." It too suggested the necessity of consulting the Chief Minister of a state before giving appointment to a governor. If such norms and restraints are being observed by both politicians and the Governors, that would not have caused such hue and cry over the generous acts of a Governor.

In conclusion, however, we are at home to say that Governor still enjoys a position of influence in state politics. A big reaction shown to such a trivial matter, like in West Bengal, proves without an iota of doubt that the 'Governor like the British Crown' though is above politics and power but is in a position to influence both. This is how Gandhi has become an exception in course of his self imposed decision to make 'the Raj Bhavan no exception' to the city's electricity supply situation. Of course, this issue has added a new dimension to the ongoing debate on the role of the Governor in Indian states so far as his social and moral duties towards the public are concerned.

Dr. Anil Kumar Mohapatra is Head, Department of Political Science, Government Women's College, Jeypore, Orissa. He can be contacted at anilmohapatra68@gmail.com.