Federal Farce

India’s federal compact was never meant to resemble street theatre. Yet that is precisely what unfolded in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where opening sessions of the Assemblies degenerated into petty skirmishes between Raj Bhavans and elected governments. Governors deserve scrutiny for overreach. But what played out on January 20 says as much about the studied belligerence of two state governments that have turned constitutional convention into a contact sport.

Start with Tamil Nadu. Governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to walk out of the Assembly without delivering his address was dramatic, ill-judged and constitutionally questionable. But the stage for that walkout was carefully set by the ruling DMK. The Speaker’s insistence that the Governor read only what the Cabinet had approved, delivered with the pugnacious aside that “only MLAs can express opinion in the House,” reflected not reverence for convention but contempt for dialogue. Tamil Nadu’s government treated it as an opportunity to box the Governor into a corner and then feign outrage when he refused to play along.

The subsequent statements from Raj Bhavan, disputing the state’s extravagant investment claims and invoking disrespect to the national anthem, only deepened the ugliness. But it is worth asking why such disputes routinely explode in Tamil Nadu. The answer lies less in New Delhi’s alleged conspiracies than in Chennai’s habit of governing by provocation. The DMK has discovered that permanent confrontation with the Governor serves its political narrative as it keeps the Centre in the dock.

Kerala’s episode was no less revealing. Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar delivered his address and left, only for Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan to return to the House to announce solemnly that the Governor had tampered with Cabinet-approved paragraphs. The offending omissions concerned fiscal federalism and pending Bills, subjects dear to the Left Democratic Front’s sense of grievance. Vijayan’s declaration that the Cabinet’s version would prevail was less a constitutional clarification than a performative assertion of supremacy.

Governors are not meant to rewrite policy. But nor are Assemblies meant to retroactively overrule a Governor’s address by executive fiat. Kerala’s government could have placed its objections on record or sought judicial clarity. Instead, it chose to dramatize the dispute, turning the Assembly into a forum for moral grandstanding.

Together, these episodes expose a deeper malaise. State governments, particularly those ruled by parties opposed to the BJP, have begun to treat Governors not as constitutional functionaries to be constrained by process, but as political foils to be publicly humiliated.

The irony is rich. Tamil Nadu and Kerala style themselves as guardians of constitutional morality, federalism and democratic norms. Yet, by weaponizing Assembly proceedings against Governors, they weaken the very conventions they claim to defend.

None of this absolves Governors who stray into partisan commentary or obstructionism. India has no shortage of such examples. But federalism cannot be sustained if elected governments respond to irritation with institutional vandalism. Assemblies are not arenas for settling scores with Raj Bhavans.