Morally-challenging political decisions should at least make political sense. Otherwise, why court the opprobrium? It is baffling in the extreme, therefore, that the Congress applied such pressure on the President to sack four NDA-appointed governors. The government is drawing plenty of deserved flak for this action. But there seems to be no political gain derived from it. The replacement for these ousted governors has not been not decided. So, it isn’t jobs for boys-in-a- hurry.
There is no on-going or impending crisis in the four states — Gujarat, Goa, UP and Haryana — where the action is taken. So, having your own man to interpret laws and rules, a prime motivation in gubernatorial appointments, wasn’t a priority. Was the Congress trying to send a message to the BJP? If that was the case, what difference would a delay of a few more days have made. Especially because the President had reportedly agreed.
The President’s logic, as reported, was that directly sacking four governors would leave an unpleasant impression. None of the four governors who were dismissed had perpetrated anything remotely linked to a crisis or a major scandal. In the absence of substantive apolitical cause, Abdul Kalam had at least wanted government to lend a little dignity to the process by appointing new governors. That would have avoided a presidential warrant to remove existing incumbents.
Kalam’s reported discomfiture is well-grounded. The stink of political vendetta apart, there is the interpretation of Article 156 (1) of the Constitution. There are no technical grounds that bar government from removing a governor by advising the President, who accepts that advice. But in high constitutional matters, propriety and being seen to do the right thing are equally, if not more, important. Since Article 156 (1) says governors hold their office at the pleasure of the President, the head of state must be kept above political controversy.
Ergo, it can be argued that if the fine traditions of constitutional governance are the benchmark, Article 156 (1) enjoins the government not to be arbitrary in gubernatorial appointments. The Congress has clearly been arbitrary. To say that governors with “RSS background” will be sacked does not answer the charge of arbitrariness. Indeed, it is a dangerous argument. This newspaper, as the RSS will testify, has plenty of questions and doubts but this does not mean that a clearly improper course of action should be tolerated. Tomorrow, governors with “Marxist background” may be anathema, and that would be wrong in equal measure.
Indeed, given the absurd hurry and
poor logic that the Congress has displayed in this affair, governors with
“Congress background” should logically be looked at with suspicion!