DMK wants RN Ravi gone; here's the party's history with governors

The ruling DMK government has decided to submit a memorandum to President Droupadi Murmu, demanding the removal of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, and has urged like-minded parties to sign it. The MK Stalin-led government accuses Ravi of making speeches against the Constitution and violating his constitutional position.

The DMK’s treasurer and Lok Sabha MP TR Baalu, in a statement dated November 1, urged MPs of like-minded parties to visit  Anna Arivalayam, the DMK’s headquarters in Chennai, to read and sign the memorandum addressed to Murmu. The Congress, an ally of the DMK, has reportedly promised to back the petition.

Anna, Karunanidhi maintained cordial relations

Historically, the DMK has questioned the functionality of the governor’s post in Indian states. Despite their differences, DMK chief ministers, however, maintained an amicable relationship with governors during their regimes.

The Federal webinar: Should the post of Governor be scrapped?

The party’s founder and former chief minister CN Annadurai once famously compared the governor’s post with the “redundant beard of the goat,” – to imply that the post was nothing but a decorative one. While Annadurai had made the remark before his party came to power in 1967, he soon made peace with the post, and maintained a cordial relationship with Sardar Ujjal Singh, the first governor of the state.

The party under the leadership of M Karunanidhi, tried to maintain cordiality with the governors not only when it was in power, but also when it was in the Opposition. Some of the governors who gave nightmares to the party included KK Shah (1971-1976), Mohan Lal Sukhadia (1977-1979) and PC Alexander (1988-1990).

While Shah played a pivotal role in helping the then Indira Gandhi government to dismiss the DMK’s rule during Emergency, Sukhadia was instrumental in the arrest of DMK leaders in districts during Emergency. Alexander who served as the governor during the two-year regime of the DMK, was criticised for acting at the beck and call of the Centre.

Interestingly, during the governorship of Vidyasagar Rao (2016-2017), Karunanidhi in a statement demanded him to update the health status of then chief minister J Jayalalithaa while also urging him to look after the state’s administration. 

Constitutional interventions

On the other hand, the DMK also made some interventions in the conduct of gubernatorial office, constitutionally.

Also read: Governor, your pleasure is immaterial; what matters is people’s will

For instance, the Rajamannar Committee, appointed by the DMK government to study about federalism and state rights, in its report in 1974, suggested that the governor should not consider himself/herself as an agent of the Centre and instead function as the constitutional head of the state.

Similarly, till 1973, chief ministers were not entitled to hoist the National Flag on Republic Day and Independence Day. The flags were unfurled by the governors. It was Karunanidhi who fought for the rights of chief ministers to hoist the national flag. He wrote a letter to the then prime minister Indira Gandhi saying that the practice of governors hoisting the flags was against the spirit of federalism.

Stalin’s tough attitude

Incumbent DMK Chief Minister MK Stalin’s relationship with governors is a stark contrast from that of his predecessors. When the DMK was in the opposition, Stalin had protested against the district-level review meetings conducted by then governor Banwarilal Purohit. DMK cadres were also arrested for marching towards Raj Bhavan carrying black flags in protest against the practice.

The strained relationship with governors continued when the DMK came to power and Stalin became the chief minister. The DMK and its allies in April this year boycotted the tea party hosted by Governor Ravi in protest against his stance on the anti-NEET Bill.

The same month, the Tamil Nadu Assembly adopted a Bill empowering the state to appoint Vice-Chancellors to the state-run universities, which was so far a power only the governor enjoyed. The party, on and off castigates the governor through its party mouth organ Murasoli.

It is along these lines that the party has now taken another step to abolish the post of the governor.

‘Ravi acting as an individual’

Political analysts say this is not the first time that a party has demanded the removal of a governor in Tamil Nadu.

“During J Jayalalithaa’s first term in office as chief minister, the AIADMK passed a resolution in the assembly to recall the then governor Chenna Reddy. The state has rights to make that demand. But it is doubtful whether the Union government is obliged to fulfil the demand. At most, it can transfer the governor,” said political commentator Tharasu Shyam.

Also read: Coimbatore blast: Why did it take 4 days to bring in NIA, asks TN Governor

Speaking to The Federal, Dr Constantine Ravindran, a spokesperson of the DMK said the memorandum is kind of a warning to the governor.

“If the state passes a resolution in the Assembly, it is expected of the governor to give his consent to it. That is how the institution works. Whereas here, instead of doing the governor’s work, Ravi is talking about ‘Santana Dharma’ (the idea of inclusivity in Hinduism). We have protested against his way of carrying his office many times in the past. But it seems he has not changed his style of working. So we now came to a situation of making the demand of his withdrawal,” he said.

How Centre matters

When asked about Stalin’s way of locking horns with the governor, Ravindran said that in the past the DMK worked cordially with governors when the Congress was in power at the Centre.

“The governor has his discretionary powers only while forming the government and dismissing it. From 1967, we maintained our cordiality with the governor’s office because they worked within the Constitutional limits. But it has changed now,” he said.

Also read: Punjab CM slams Governor for interfering in functioning of govt

Based on the actions taken after the submission of memorandum, the party will think about its further plans, added Ravindran.

Shyam added that the governor is an institution and not an individual, but Ravi expresses his individual opinion that brings down the dignity of the institution.

“The institution should carry itself in a dignified way in strengthening the legislature’s competence. But in Tamil Nadu both the dignity of the institution and legislative competence are at loggerheads,” he said.