Laila aur majnu bhi toh ek doosre se juda hai

Answer:

Over the past week, governors of states across the country convened in Delhi for a meeting addressed by the President. This was the fourth such conference called in recent years. Its purpose, motivation and achievement - like that of its predecessors - remain a mystery. If the President's inaugural observation that governors "act as a harmonising influence and play a crucial role in upholding India's traditional... tolerant society" is yet another profound homily, it is fine.

If it is an indicator that governors should adopt a proactive posture, the recommendation is positively questionable. As per the Constitution, the governor's is a titular, ceremonial post, a sinecure for a cashiered politician or, relatively rarely, a just reward for distinguished public service. In theory, he is the Centre's watchdog.

In practice, in the long decades of the Congress' monopoly politics, governors were the ruling party's agents provocateur. Today, by and large, the residents of Raj Bhavans confine themselves to cutting ribbons and swearing in chief ministers. Any scope for mischief on that final count has been minimised by the precedents that have been set in case of hung legislatures.

Reducing governors to near ciphers serves to, however crudely, unclutter what is an anyway complex polity. The suggestion that governors exercise a "moral influence" and have a role to play in poverty alleviation and mobilising "grassroots activism" is therefore somewhat strange. These duties fall under the purview of the elected state government.

To give governors parallel responsibilities - or even hint at these - would be to undermine the chief minister and create a constitutional conundrum the country could do without. Principles can be best protected by principled men. India is well within its rights to be wary of the exiled politicians who inhabit most of its Raj Bhavans.

Read More