Since then, the two executive wings of the state government have clashed over several issues — from the appointment of chancellors in state universities to delays in the governor’s assent to bills. The Stalin government has on several occasions even accused Ravi of acting as an agent of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government at the Centre.
In the current-day political landscape, where several non-BJP state governments — including the Left Democratic Front in neighbouring Kerala — have frequently accused governors of working at the behest of the Modi government, the DMK’s gubernatorial battles may not seem unique. But what sets the party apart is its ideological position against the post of governor — a stance firmly rooted in the party’s belief in federalism, according to political analysts.
For instance, DMK founder C.N. Annadurai had drawn an analogy between the role of a governor and that of a “goat’s beard”, saying they were both redundant.
In 2017, Stalin, then Leader of Opposition, referred to this statement while protesting Banwarilal Purohit’s “interference” in Tamil Nadu’s governance.
“Aatukku thaadium, nattukku goverrnorum thevai illai (A goat does not require a beard, nor does a state a governor),” Stalin reportedly said.
According to DMK spokesperson A. Saravanan, the governors appointed by the central government are like the “Trojan Horse”.
“The governor is a constitutional appointment and is supposed to act in an apolitical manner. But here (in the current political scenario), the governor is acting in a totally partisan manner. Rather than being a conduit between the Centre and state, the governors appointed by BJP are destructive Trojan horses,” Saravanan told ThePrint.
But according to A.S. Panneerselvan, a political analyst and fellow at Chennai’s Roja Muthiah Research Library, the DMK has always disliked the post, as exemplified by Annadurai’s statement.
“The DMK has always had a clear principal position about the role of governor saying that the idea of governor is an infringement of the state rights and should not be endorsed,” he said.
ThePrint has sought a response from Raj Bhavan via email and phone calls. This report will be updated if and when a response is received.
Also Read: ‘Crusader judge with a vision’ — who is Justice Venkatesh, set to hear cases against DMK, AIADMK bigwigs
DMK’s stance against governor’s post
While addressing the Opposition gathering at Thiruvananthapuram in November 2022 DMK MP Tiruchi Siva called for the Constitution to be “revisited to strengthen its basic features”.
“Whether a governor is to be elected or nominated — there was a debate even in the Constituent Assembly. (But) the situation and experience say we don’t want a governor at all. States should come together and push for (the) abolition of that office and more autonomy to all states,“ he said.
But DMK’s standoffs with the governor of Tamil Nadu are decades old. On 31 January 1976 — right in the middle of the Emergency — the Indira Gandhi-led Congress government at the Centre dismissed the DMK government led by M. Karunanidhi and imposed President’s Rule in the state under Article 356 of the Constitution — the article under which President’s Rule can be imposed in the state. This was done in the aftermath of DMK’s protest against the Emergency.
While dismissing the government, K.K. Shah, the then governor of the state, cited “misuse of power, maladministration, corruption, and misuse of power”. But in a 2015 interview with Hindustan Times, Stalin, who was 23 at the time of the Emergency, would recall how a messenger from Gandhi had warned the DMK dispensation against openly opposing it.
Things once again came to a head in 2001, this time under Fatima Beevi, the state’s then governor. That year, after the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) — the DMK’s primary rival in the state — won the elections, Beevi, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, had sworn in its supremo J. Jayalalithaa as chief minister even though she was disqualified by law from contesting the election due to convictions in a corruption scam.
The DMK, then in the opposition, had vehemently protested this.
On 30 June — days after Jayalalithaa was sworn in — Karunanidhi, an ally of the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) under Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the AIADMK supremo’s bitterest rival, was arrested after being dragged out of his Gopalapuram residence.
Beevi then gave a clean chit to the police in a report that the central government found unsatisfactory. In his official statement, Arun Jaitley, then the union law minister, announced that the governor had “wholly failed to discharge her constitutional obligations” and that the cabinet had decided to recall her.
On 2 July that year, Beevi tendered her resignation.
Also Read: Inside ‘traditional’ DMK’s digital shift & the company driving it — Stalin app & podcast to 2024 prep
No ‘DMK governors’
According to political analysts, although the DMK has allied with various governments at the Centre and has played a key role in government formation, it has never interfered with the appointment of governors because of its ideological stance against the post.
Panneerselvan told ThePrint the DMK had a significant say in the Indira Gandhi government that was elected first in 1969 and was also part of the Janata Party government in 1977. It also played a role in subsequent coalition governments, from supporting the National Front (NF) led V. P. Singh government and the United Front governments under Deva Gowda and I.K. Gujral and to being a coalition partner in the Vajpayee’s NDA government and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) governments under Manmohan Singh.
That the DMK never advocated or recommended a person for the governor’s position speaks volumes of the party’s stand on the position, he said.
“One thing that has been very clear is that the DMK did not use its influence with the Union government to secure a single governor,” he said. “There have been DMK recommended names in the pay commission, for judicial appointments and union cabinet but the DMK never recommended a governor, which is, in itself, (indicates) the very clear principal position of this party about governor’s role.”
In 1969, the DMK had constituted a three-member panel headed by P.V. Rajamannar to look at Centre-state relations vis-a-vis the post of the governor. The panel, called the Rajamannar Committee, was mandated to look into four key questions: 1) How far should the state cabinet be associated in the appointment of governors? (2) The relationship that should subsist between the governor and the central government. (3) The relationship that should subsist between the governor and the state cabinet. (4) Whether the Constitution provides for the exercise of any power by the Governor in his discretion, without consulting the council of ministers.
In its detailed report, the panel said that since the central government has the power to appoint and remove the Governor, he appears to be subordinate to it and that this could “affect the individual judgment or discretion of the Governor in the discharge of his functions as the head of the State”.
It further said: “Though the provisions of the Constitution to some extent appear to make him an agent of the Central Government, it is desirable to lay down guidelines as to the matters in respect of which he should consult the Central Government or in relation to which the Central Government could issue directions to him.”
The governor, the report said, should not consider himself an agent of the Centre “but play his role as the constitutional head of the state. For the harmonious relationship between the Governor, the head of the state, and the state cabinet, the elected representative, the Governor should be appointed after consultation with the Chief Minister of the state,” the report said.
According to Paneerselvam, the Rajamannar Committee report voiced the DMK’s position on the role of the governor.
“The committee spoke about the extra-constitutional authority called the governor, because the governor is not elected by the people. The governor is essentially the nominee of the Union government. Therefore, what is his role? If you are talking about a de-colonised, independent entity, why are we retaining this colonial relic? The Rajamannar committee has expressed the party’s nuanced criticism of the post of governor very clearly,” he said.
‘Parallel government’
On 22 January — the day of the pran prathistha, or consecration, at Ayodhya — Ravi once again took on the Stalin government. A social media post from the Raj Bhavan after the govenor’s visit to the Sri Kodandaramaswami Temple in Chennai said there was an “all-pervasive sense of invisible fear and apprehensions writ large on the faces of priests and temple staff”.
“A stark contrast to the festive environment in the rest of the country,” the post said, adding that while the mood across the rest of India was celebratory, Chennai temples “exude a sense of acute repression”.
“This morning I visited Sri Kodandaramaswami Temple, West Mambalam, Chennai, and offered prayers to Prabhu Sri Ram for the well-being of all.
This temple is under HR&CE Dept.
There was an all pervasive sense of invisible fear and apprehensions writ large on the faces of priests…— RAJ BHAVAN, TAMIL NADU (@rajbhavan_tn) January 22, 2024
The post came after successive DMK leaders’ remarks on Sanatana Dharma have kicked up political storms. It also came days after Stalin, in a strongly-worded letter to the DMK party cadre, accused the BJP of running a parallel government through its governors.
“This is not just against federal principles but also against the Indian Constitution. India is now witnessing cheap politics by governors, who are unfit to hold such high posts,” Stalin’s 18 January letter said.
According to Saravanan, while the Supreme Court has, through successive court rulings, severely restricted the use of the provision of the President’s Rule, the BJP is using governors in non-BJP states to “usurp the powers of the CM”.
“Since the BJP came to power, using the governor to run a parallel government has been on the rise. They want to act as super CMs, which is alien to our jurisprudence,” he said, adding that this was the case in other non-BJP states as well.
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)
Also Read: Establishing Udhayanidhi as heir or ‘show of strength’ against AIADMK, BJP? What DMK youth meet signals