The “Needless fracas” (Editorial, January 20) is not necessarily limited to the States of West Bengal or Kerala. Sometime ago, New Delhi, and more recently Puducherry, faced a similar situation. Various governments over the years have never hesitated to use the office of the Governor toward meeting their political goals. This has been proved by the recent gubernatorial interventions in Karnataka and Maharashtra. The question that needs a answer, in turn leading to a relook is this: should the office of the Governor be a political appointment or an elected office? As political appointees they are not immune to party compulsions.
The present Westminster or the earlier Raj model, a colonial relic, of nominating Governors should be changed and be made an elected office as is the norm in a democracy. The office of the Governor will then be accountable to voters and their decisions non-partisan.
H.N. Ramakrishna,
Bengaluru
The Governors of West Bengal and Kerala have given short shrift to constitutional certitudes; their actions are more like right-wing ideologues to please their political bosses. It ill-behoves the nation that someone holding such a high office expresses such views.
S.S. Paul,
Chakdaha, Nadia, West Bengal
Essentially, a Governor of a State/Union Territory is required to play a proactive role rather than a provocative role in the overall governance of a State/UT. As such it would be prudent that persons of high academic calibre with blemishless credentials are required to be appointed as Governors. There is also an imperative need to institutionalise a collegium-like system for the appointment of Governors if they are to have a meaningful role as custodians of our great democracy.
G. Ramasubramanyam,
Kanuru, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
