The ANDHRA pradesh Governor, Mr Narayan Dutt Tiwari’s sudden exit from the Raj Bhavan in Hyderabad is a dismal and sleazy affair. He has, of course, stoutly denied all the allegations against him. But he is too seasoned a politician to be unaware of the kind of reputation he has had. That, however, is incidental. The main point is that the Tiwari episode only underscores the stark reality that no exalted office has been devalued and debased so thoroughly as that of governor who, as constitutional head of the state under his charge, is supposed to be the linchpin of the federal system. No wonder the constitutional architecture devised by the founding fathers has been distorted all too often, and sometimes perverted.

Jawaharlal Nehru had emphasised in the Constituent Assembly that only eminent and independent-minded people, “preferably people who have not taken too great a part in politics” should be appointed to this august office. He lived up to his words. In his time people like Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachari), Sarojini Naidu, Homi Mody and Girja Shankar Bajpai were appointed governors. Ironically, even in his time there were two distressing departures from the high norms he had laid down. After the first general election in 1952 in the state of Madras, the Congress lacked the majority in the Assembly. Yet, the governor, Sri Prakasa, brushed aside the larger United Front’s claim to form a government and invited Rajaji to do so even though he was not a member of the Assembly. To make matters worse, to Nehru’s annoyance, the governor did not ask the chief minister to seek early election to the legislature but nominated him to the legislative council.

What happened seven years later in Kerala was far more shocking. Technically relying on the governor’s report, New Delhi unfairly dismissed the E.M.S Namboodiripad ministry, the first Communist government to come to power anywhere through free and fair elections two years earlier. Doubtless, Nehru had qualms about taking this unfair action. But his daughter, Indira Gandhi, then Congress president, and the party right-wing forced his hand. However, this could not absolve the iconic Prime Minister from his share of blame.

The malaise that the aberrations in the Nehru era represented assumed the proportions of an epidemic later, especially during the years Indira Gandhi reigned supreme. According to one estimate, during her 15-year reign in two innings, President’s Rule was imposed in states close to 100 times, most of the times high-handedly. This became possible because of a sharp and steady decline in the quality of people sent to Raj Bhavans. There were some honourable exceptions, of course, but more and more ruling party rejects or hacks, pliable civil servants and unforgettable mediocrities were chosen as governors. Instead of acting as constitutional heads of their states, they were happy to act as the servitors of the Central government.

Just four months before her assassination and on the heels of traumatic Blue Star, Indira Gandhi decided summarily to sack Mr Farooq Abdullah’s newly-elected ministry in Kashmir. Mr B.K. Nehru, a former civil servant and diplomat and, incidentally, the Prime Minister’s uncle, refused to do so. He was transferred to Gujarat! Barely a month later a Congress loyalist in the Hyderabad Raj Bhavan took it upon himself to dismiss the N.T. Rama Rao ministry in Andhra Pradesh. This boomeranged. The Union government had to eat humble pie and reinstate NTR.

Evidently, even 20 years later this made no difference to the present Congress-led Union government. The infamous dissolution of the Bihar Assembly in 2005 when it hadn’t been allowed to meet even once is the most glaring of many such shenanigans. The Supreme Court declared this action unconstitutional. Because of its strictures, Buta Singh had to resign as Bihar Governor only to be given another sinecure later.

It is equally remarkable that other political parties, when in power at the Centre for whatever duration, behaved as the Congress has been doing. For instance, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led (BJP) National Democratic Alliance, on coming to power in 1998, had removed some of the governors appointed by previous regimes. But the BJP screamed when six years later the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance sent packing several Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh pracharaks ensconced in luxurious gubernatorial mansions. Moreover, in the matter of unsuitable appointments of governors, honours are even between the rival sides. Both have been generous in “rewarding” former chiefs of the Intelligence Bureau and even the Research and Analysis Wing. And not content with filling some slots with former military chiefs, a lieutenant-general (who could never make it to the post of Army Commander) was also made Governor.

Way back in 1983, the Sarkaria Commission had laid its finger on the heart of the matter when it recorded: “Discredited and disgruntled politicians from the party in power in (sic) the Union, who cannot be accommodated elsewhere, get appointed (as governors)… and tend to function as agents of the Union government rather than as impartial constitutional functionaries”. The commission made the salutary recommendation that those in active politics should be ineligible for the governor’s post and, in any case, a politician belonging to the ruling party at the Centre should not be appointed governor in a state where some other party, or combination of parties, rules. All successive governments have treated the report with contempt. Just look at the shuttling of Mr S.K. Shinde and Mr S.M. Krishna from ministerial office to Raj Bhavans and back.

Quite apart from the too many partisan acts, too many governors have indulged in another regrettable trend has set in of late.

The Central government always knows every governor’s date of retirement. Yet, it fails to appoint a successor in time. Consequently, the incumbents happily stay on. Only Mr Gopalkrishna Gandhi set the shining example of leaving the Raj Bhavan in Kolkata the day his five-year term ended, leaving it to the Centre to place West Bengal under the “temporary” charge of some other governor. The unwholesome current practice prevails in half-a-dozen states.

It is in Punjab, however, that it creates an embarrassing problem. The governor there — a retired Army Chief — faces serious allegations by, among others, two Union Cabinet ministers. His term expired more than six weeks ago but he is sitting pretty, with full immunity.