The confrontation came about when the Governor refused to sign the policy address prepared by the Government a day before the assembly session. The Governor’s grievance: a letter from the public administration secretary conveying disapproval of the Governor’s request for the appointment of a person of his choice on his staff. The Governor felt that it amounted to an insult to the gubernatorial office. The Government promptly swung into action and removed the officer concerned Jyoti Lal from his post. A chastened Governor promptly signed the policy address which contained severe criticism of the Union Government.

Opinion is, of course, sharply divided over the Government’s handling of the situation. CPI(M)’s ally, the CPI’s take is that the Government should not have succumbed to the Governor’s pressure tactics. The Governor, CPI state secretary Kanam Rajendran averred, was constitutionally bound to sign the address. Refusal to do so would have resulted in his exit from the gubernatorial office. This being the constitutional position, the Government lost an opportunity to expose the Governor, Kanam pointed out.

The CPI(M), however, chose to disagree with the CPI. The need of the hour was avoidance of a standoff with the Governor. A showdown with the Governor, CPI(M) state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan pointed out, would have had an adverse impact. The smooth functioning of the Government dictated resolution of the conflict arising from the Governor’s adamant attitude. Kodiyeri also rebutted the criticism that the Government had yielded to the Governor’s pressure. All that it has done is to concede the Governor’s request to appoint a person of his choice on his staff. And, Kodiyeri said emphatically that the Governor had every right to choose a person of his liking for appointment on his staff.

Referring to the Governor’s outburst against pension for personal staff of ministers, Kodiyeri said, rightly so, that a final decision on policy matters is that of the Government. The Governor can give his suggestions. But it is for the Government to either accept or reject it. As regards pension for personal staff, he said the process would continue as it has been followed by successive governments since 1984. It was the K. Karunakaran Government which initiated the process.

That said, Kodiyeri also questioned the constitutional need for the Governor’s post. The party, he reiterated, has consistently advocated abolition of the post of governor. If the Governor was a constitutional imperative, then national legislation should empower the states to elect them through a representative electoral college. And legislatures should have the power to remove the Governor if he fails to uphold constitutional values, discharge the chancellor’s duties and thwart criminal prosecution measures. The cabinet sought a national legislation to introduce a resolution in the state assembly demanding removal of an erring Governor.

Constitutional experts have praised the Government for its pragmatic approach to the problem. People, they say, are put off by an atmosphere of confrontation. The accent should be on performance. The same principle applies to Centre-State relations as well. They are of the view that a notable feature of the Pinarayi Vijayan-led LDF Government has been its care to avoid confrontation with the Union Government and efforts to get maximum backing from the Centre for implementation of various projects. Just one example would illustrate the point. The manner in which the GAIL pipeline project was implemented earned praise from no less a person than the Prime Minister himself. Ideological differences should not come in the way of implementing projects that would ensure development of a particular state. Such cooperation would ensure harmonious centre-state ties and a boost to the laudable concept of cooperative federalism. (IPA Service)