Guv, yours is to guard the Constitution, not sabotage it

Guv, yours is to guard the Constitution, not sabotage it. Article 159 of the Indian Constitution spells out the oath for Governors before entering office: “I, xyz, do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of Governor (or discharge the functions of the Governor) of (name of the state) and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and the law, and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of (name of the state)."

The centrality of their job is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” and not to opine on the same, whatever their personal or ideological concerns about the elements of the same.

This specific oath raises their role above previous partisan affiliations and biases, as upholding the tenets of the Constitution becomes their sole and Holy Grail. For good reasons, apolitical and constitutional posts like the President of India or the Governors/Lt Governors are insisted upon as the “conscience keepers of constitutional morality."

The brilliant Constitutionalist and former President, K R Narayanan, noted his scope of work to be “within four corners of the Constitution.”

Many upheld that constitutional sanctity fearlessly, and sadly, many didn’t. Many were guilty of openly partisan stances or maintaining a deafening silence when the onus was on speaking up against constitutional diminishment or questioning.

All national and regional political parties since Independence have been guilty of misusing the gubernatorial offices towards partisan ends; only the intensity and scale of misuse (or ensuring telling silences) have varied in tenures of different dispensations.

The state of various institutions of checks and balances in a democracy, e.g., constitutional posts, ‘independent’ law enforcement agencies, independent bodies, or even the media, can be gauged from the unmistakable slide for the “world’s largest democracy” in almost all global surveys.

Many individuals (holding supposedly apolitical posts) or even agencies are seemingly involved in a competitive bid to ingratiate themselves to "Delhi." Addressing an independent investigative agency, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had gravely noted the biases: “Not so long ago, this Court had castigated the Central Bureau of Investigation, comparing it to a caged parrot.

It is imperative that CBI dispel the notion of it being a caged parrot. Rather, the perception should be that of an uncaged parrot." While some brave voices of concern against the perceived surrender of apolitical offices were made, “Delhi” did not seem overly concerned or in agreement.

On the contrary, at times “Delhi” seemed to be rewarding individuals who took railing postures that seemed favourable towards certain ideological/partisan ends.

One such hallowed office that has been in the news continuously has been that of the Governor/Lt Governor, especially in states/UTs that are not governed by the ruling dispensation at the Centre.

Raj Bhawan’s/Niwas’ in Delhi, Kolkata, Thiruvananthapuram, Chandigarh, and now yet again in Chennai, gubernatorial assertions are sounding increasingly adversarial and often political.

This is not to suggest that the chief ministers in their states are necessarily the modicums of constitutional propriety or reasonableness, but that is to be expected from politicians (especially opposition party politicians).

But the Governors/Lt Governors, as the proverbial ‘First Citizens’ of the state/UT, cannot lower themselves to match (certainly not outmatch) the political spiel of politicians.

They, like the President of India, have to maintain a certain decorum, restraint, and sobriety that befit the “conscience keepers of the Constitution."

Their means of correcting the political flourish that can often extend beyond the spirit of the Constitution must always bear a civil and measured way of correction—a tit-for-tat that is the norm between ruling and opposition politicians—and cannot be applicable or normalised between disagreements between opposition-ruled states and their governors/Lt Governors.

However, an even more stark and jarring note was struck recently when the Governor of Tamil Nadu went beyond the usual dissonance with the state government to question a fundamental tenet of the Constitution, i.e., secularism.

He, above all, as a distinguished and senior person from the “uniformed” fraternity as a former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, would naturally be expected to be a proud constitutionalist and the first in line to defend its imperatives without questioning.

Sadly, even though today he is additionally freighted with even more responsibility as the foremost “conscience keeper of the Constitution," he chose to posit that secularism was a European concept, which was not needed in India! Surrendering further pretences of apolitical anchorage and observations, he alleged, “One insecure Prime Minister introduced secularism in the Constitution during the Emergency in order to appease some sections of people.”

In today’s wounded and polarised times when disaffection and distrust run high with perceived majoritarianism from Manipur, Punjab, to Jammu & Kashmir, what noble purpose would have been served by a supposedly apolitical person (more importantly, guardian of the Constitution) to allude to “some sections of people" is unfathomable.

Regrettably, there is no President K R Narayanan or even a Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on the national scene anymore, with both representing opposite sides of personal ideology, but still proud constitutionalists and wise enough to know that all political differences aside, the Constitution was supreme and beyond questioning.

While many have expressed deep concern on the comments of the governor, it is the deafening silence or lack of gentle pushback (as perhaps Vajpayee may have done) that emboldens such views.

This is not to state that the Constitution is not a living document or cannot be questioned—that is for the politicians (ruling or opposition parties) and the citizens to argue, but not for those who are there to defend the same and not take sides.

Many from the “uniform” have paid the ultimate price for defending the Constitution (not the government); ironically, the said governor is both from the “uniform” (also CBI) and the current occupant of the responsibility as the “conscience keeper of the Constitution."

He has too much experience, qualifications, and knowledge of knowing the exact implications of what he said; therefore, the real question is why he still insisted on saying so.

(The writer is former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)