Topic 1 : Governor in a China shop
Introduction: Non-BJP ruled states — from West Bengal to Punjab, and Kerala — showcase a dismal pattern: The Governor is at loggerheads with the elected government.
The politicization of gubernatorial offices
- The politicisation of the gubernatorial office goes back decades. It means that gubernatorial offices are shedding their neutrality and venturing into political arena by usurping their power.
- But recent instances of the Governor’s over-reach, ranging from the refusal to assent to bills passed by the assembly, to tussles over appointment of university vice-chancellors, have sharpened disquieting questions about the diminishment of a constitutional office.
- In this context, the conduct of Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi stands out — for his churlishness vis-à-vis the DMK government, and also, and more disturbingly, his lack of sensitivity and care in stoking long-settled ideological faultlines.
The recent event in Tamil Nadu assembly
- On Monday, Governor Ravi entered the record books for the “shortest address” by a governor to a state assembly.
- “This address has numerous passages with which I convincingly disagree… lending my voice to them could constitute a constitutional travesty,” he said, before walking out.
- He also claimed that “due respect” had not been given to the national anthem — the custom in the TN assembly is for the House to sing “Tamil Thai Vazhthu” at the start of session and close with the national anthem.
Tamil Nadu governor and controversies
- This is hardly the first time that Ravi has stoked controversy.
- Last year, he refused to read out sections of his speech in the assembly that referred to the Dravidian model of governance and leaders like Periyar E V Ramasamy, former chief ministers, K Kamaraj of the Congress and C N Annadurai and M Karunanidhi of the DMK, and B R Ambedkar.
- He said that the state should be called “Tamizhagam” instead of Tamil Nadu.
- Given his own record, therefore, Governor Ravi’s invocation of the constitutional principle on Monday was ironical.
Supreme Court’s view on the status of the governor
- In 1974, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab that a governor can act “only upon and in accordance with the aid and advice of their ministers”.
- In his address to the House, the governor — like the President in Parliament — outlines the vision of the government.
The way forward
- For the smooth functioning of a democratic government, it is equally important that the governor must act judiciously, impartially and efficiently while exercising his discretion and personal judgement.
- In order to enable the governor to successfully discharge his functions under the constitution, an agreed 'Code of Conduct' approved by the state governments, the central government, the parliament, and the state legislatures should be evolved.
- 'Code of Conduct' should lay down certain 'norms and principles' which should guide the exercise of the governor's 'discretion' and his powers which he is entitled to use and exercise on his personal judgement.
- The 'procedure for appointment of governors should be clearly laid down' and conditions of appointment must also be laid down and must assure a fixed tenure for the governor so that the governor is not under the constant threat of removal by the central government.
- It is necessary to invest the office of the Governor with the requisite independence of action and to rid them of the bane of ‘instructions’ from the Central Government.
- It is suggested that the exercise of 'discretionary powers' by the Governors should be 'guided by the healthy and democratic conventions’.
- The Bommai verdict allows the Supreme Court to investigate claims of malafide in the Governor’s report, a similar extension to cover malafide in the invitation process could be a potential solution.
- The role of governor is indispensable for the successful working of the constitutional democracy. He must refrain from aligning himself to any political ideology. The virtue of impartiality must be withheld to ensure a free and fair election in a democracy.
Conclusion: Many questions of the ‘North-south’ divide and ‘Hindi-Tamil’ controversies were settled by the Indian political system in federal and democratic ways. By trying to reopen debates long-settled, by constantly overstepping the bounds of his office, R N Ravi is making his own position increasingly untenable.
Topic 2 : Plainly on MSP
Introduction: Farmers on a tractor march to the national capital are primarily seeking a legal guarantee on the minimum support price (MSP) for various crops announced by the Centre.
What is the Minimum support price (MSP)?
- MSP is a form of government intervention to insure the farmers against a steep decline in the prices of their goods and to help them prevent losses.
- The government of India sets the MSP twice a year for 24 commodities.
- This is done by the government to protect the farmers against a fall in prices in a year of bumper production.
- When the market price falls below the declared MSP, the government would purchase the entire quantity from the farmers at MSP.
The chief objectives of setting up MSP are:
- Support farmers from distress sales
- To procure food grains for public distribution
The challenges behind legalising MSP in India
- Their demand is illogical and impractical.
- The government can “guarantee” MSP only on the crops and the quantities that it buys.
- It cannot obviously procure the entire produce brought by farmers to the mandis.
- Nor can it enforce MSP on private trade.
- The latter will choose to not purchase at all if asked to pay more than the prevailing supply-and-demand determined rate.
- A third option could be the trade buying at the market-clearing price and the government transferring the difference between it and the higher MSP to farmers’ bank accounts.
- But that requires generating data on how much of produce each farmer has sold and at what price.
- It, in turn, creates scope for market manipulation: The trade may convince farmers to sell at below normal equilibrium price and make the government foot the higher difference vis-à-vis the MSP.
- Simply put, guaranteeing MSP through legislation will result in a logistical nightmare at best and fiscal disaster at worst.
What can be the alternatives of MSP?
- It’s true that farming is a business with high price as well as production risks, more so with the growing vagaries of climate change.
- But the solution for production loss — whether due to dry weather, unseasonal rain or pest attack — lies in crop insurance and timely payout of claims.
- Prices, on the other hand, basically reflect what the market wants.
- Cost-plus MSPs oblivious to demand conditions would only distort farmers’ production decisions, leading to over-supply of some crops and under-supply of others.
- The net outcome is more, not less, price volatility.
The minimum income support (MIS)
- What farmers probably require is a minimum income support — MIS, not MSP.
- That can be given via per-acre or per-farmer direct benefit transfers.
- Assured of a minimum income, they can make informed market-driven decisions on what crops to grow.
- The current MSP regime is encouraging farmers to mainly plant wheat, rice and sugarcane.
- An MIS, in combination with a phase-out of water, electricity and fertiliser subsidies, will induce much-needed crop diversification.
How should the government handle the farmers’ protest?
- The government must engage with the protesting farmers.
- The approach of confrontation — from sealing state borders with cement barricades and drilling iron nails into roads to deploying drones for dropping teargas shells — is not going to help.
- Farm agitations aren’t new to India.
- The capital itself has seen much bigger mobilisations before, including Mahendra Singh Tikait’s famous week-long rally of half-a-million cane growers at the Boat Club lawns in October 1988.
- Governments of those times could handle such demonstrations without over-reaction.
Conclusion: The Narendra Modi government should learn from its own experience of the farm laws. If it had emphasised dialogue more, and not treated marchers as anti-national/criminals, it may not have had to repeal those well-intended laws. It should not repeat the mistake.