The DMK’s gubernatorial test

The DMK, an ardent advocate of federalism, has always questioned the role of Governors. DMK founder C.N. Annadurai likened the Governor’s role to a goat’s beard, saying both were unnecessary. The dismissal of the M. Karunanidhi government on the recommendations of Governor K. K. Shah during the Emergency further hardened the DMK’s stand. In 2018, as Leader of the Opposition and DMK president, M.K. Stalin demanded that Governor Banwarilal Purohit resign over his alleged attempts to undermine the state’s autonomy through “district visits”.

Against this backdrop, a recent letter to heads of departments by Chief Secretary V. Irai Anbu intimating them that Governor R.N. Ravi “wished to know about the functioning of certain departments” and the “ongoing welfare schemes of both the State as well as the Union government” has stirred a controversy. Mr. Stalin has not said anything about the letter yet. However, the DMK’s allies — Congress and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi — have questioned the Governor’s authority in seeking reports from State government departments. The Governor can only be briefed by the Chief Minister, just as the President is briefed by the Prime Minister, they contend. DMK spokespersons, though, have tried to walk a tightrope arguing that Mr. Ravi’s actions are distinct from that of his predecessor, who directly interacted with officials.

Also read | Letter to Secretaries is routine: T.N. Chief Secretary

The Chief Secretary clarified that his communication requesting the secretaries to prepare presentations for the Governor was “routine” and described the debate on his letter as “unnecessary”. Nevertheless, the development points to a political situation created by a strong government at the Centre. The appointment of Mr. Ravi, a former Intelligence Bureau officer, as Governor had created suspicion within the DMK and among its allies. They felt that he had been sent to Tamil Nadu to checkmate the DMK government, which had referred to the Central government as the ‘Union’ government arguing that ‘Union’ “signifies federal principles”. Perhaps to dispel preconceived notions, Mr. Ravi, soon after being sworn in, said he would function within the parameters laid down in the Constitution and hoped to make his relationship with the DMK government “as beautiful as possible”.

The DMK government, however vocal it is on federalism, cannot afford to antagonise the Governor, that too so early. Tamil Nadu was witness to the bitter battle between Governor M. Channa Reddy and Chief Minister Jayalalithaa in the mid-1990s, with the latter claiming that he had acted “without decency” when she called on him at the Raj Bhavan in August 1993. Since 1996, the relationship between the Raj Bhavan and the Secretariat have largely been cordial. The DMK, which shared power at the Centre from 1999 to 2013, made use of its clout and got Surjit Singh Barnala appointed in 2004. Karunanidhi shared a special relationship with Barnala as the latter had refused to recommend the dismissal of the DMK government in January 1991.

The emergence of the BJP as a ruling party at the Centre with a brute majority has turned the clock back for the DMK. Governors in Opposition-ruled States are unlikely to sign on dotted lines. Although the AIADMK was an ally of the BJP, Mr. Purohit had refused to endorse all its policy decisions. A case in point was the AIADMK Cabinet’s recommendation to release the seven life convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Mr. Purohit kept the file pending for ages and finally washed his hands of it and sent it to the President. Now, the fate of the DMK government’s Bill to admit students to undergraduate medical courses without NEET, which was sent to the Raj Bhavan so that it could be forwarded to the President, remains unknown.

The DMK’s commitment to its core values and its ability to resist future interventions of the Governor, other than constitutionally obligated interactions, will be put to test in the coming months.

kolappan.b@thehindu.co.in

vijay.kumar@thehindu.co.in