Is Governor at all required?

The big question is is the ceremonial post of Governor at all required? It's not only wasteful, but also against the federal structure of the country. There has been umpteen instances where the post of Governor has been used as a tool for Centre's strong-arm tactics against the state governments.

The post of Governor assumes significance during the government formation when there is a hung-assembly, and recommendation for President's rule in the state in case of a law and order breakdown. Unfortunately, so far, in none of the cases the Governors could show impartiality.

The concept of discretionary power is against the rule of law. The Sarkaria Commission had recommended a set of rules to be followed in case of a hung-assembly. But in many instances that is not followed by the Governors due to political reasons. In the recent past, we have seen how the Governor of Tamilnadu sat on the legitimate claim of Shasikala to become the CM of the state. When she took claim, there was no information when the verdict of the SC was going to be pronounced. The Governor didn't know what the verdict was going to be. Even though he was morally right in not calling Shasikala, who was eventually given 4 years imprisonment by the SC, the Governor was bound by the Constitution to call Shasikala, which he didn't. In case of Manipur and Goa, we have seen how the Governors acted as the agents of the BJP.

It is categorically mentioned that in case of no pre-poll alliance, the single largest party has to be called. But the Governor of Goa didn't, and Nitin Gadkadi, the candy man from  the Centre offered candies to the newly elected MLAs, and garnered the required support in no time. The clowns  in the sold-out media (read Anand, Navika etc) jumped up and down in joy, and didn't utter a single word of condemnation for this flagrant violation of democratic spirit. The Governor of Manipur probably had some qualms, as she took some time to take her decision. However, in the end, she too, succumbed to the pressure exerted by the Centre, and made the wrong decision. There are plenty of instances of misuse of power in the Congress era also.

So, if the the post of Governor is abolished, who will take the decision of inviting the suitable candidate for the post of a CM, and what will happen when there is a genuine case of constitutional breakdown in a state? Who is going to send report, and recommend Article 356 for a state? I think in the former question, the President can take the added responsibility of inviting a suitable candidate for the post of a CM. Of course, necessary amendments have to be made in the Constitution. Regarding answer to the later question, I think a joint parliamentary committee of the Parliament set for this specific purpose can take stock of the law and order situation in a troubled state, and send recommendations to the President.

But the important point is that none of the political parties will show the guts to abolish the titular post of Governor mainly due to two reasons. First, no matter how much a party cries when it is in opposition, it does not want to lose a chance to interfere in the affairs of a state when in power at the Centre. Secondly, it is a nice, lucrative place to put the disgruntled lot in the party.

Picture taken from the net