The Governors of the southern states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, are involved in a running battle with their elected governments.

Governors are appointed by the President and hold office at his/her pleasure. Since the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, this means the Prime Minister picks the Governors and can remove them any time.

Like the President, the Governor is a constitutional head. He has to act on the advice of the council of ministers headed by the Chief Minister.

In the early years of the Constitution, the Congress wielded power both at the Centre and in the states. At that time instances of conflict between the Governor and the Chief Minister were unknown. As the polity developed a multi-party character, the situation changed.

A close look at cases of conflict between the Governor and the Chief Minister will show that  they often arose from the former’s inability or unwillingness to respect the limits on their powers set by the Constitution.

This happens when a Governor takes office with unrequited hunger for power or puts loyalty to his political master above allegiance to the Constitution.

Some Governors have acted as agents of the Centre. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have governments headed by parties other than the Bharatiya Janata Party, which rules at the Centre. They have a long record of being inhospitable to the BJP’s Hindutva ideology. The party could only win a stray seat in these states in the last four decades.

Since the 1980’s the Congress-led United Democratic Front and the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Democratic Front are the contenders for power in Kerala. In the last Assembly election, held in 2021, the LDF won a rare successive second term. The BJP did not get a single seat in the 140-member Assembly.

Since the Congress lost power in the 1960’s, Tamil Nadu has been ruled by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam or its breakaway group, the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.

In last year’s election, the DMK regained power from the AIADMK. The BJP, fighting in alliance with the AIADMK, won four seats in the 234-member Assembly, its best performance in the state so far.

Both Kerala and Tamil Nadu witnessed powerful movements against the Brahminical caste order in the last century. The states’ hostility to the Hindutva ideology stems from the popular perception that it is incompatible with the ideals of these movements.

When Kerala planned a float for the Republic Day parade with an image of Sri Narayana Guru, revered leader of the state’s social movement, the Centre rejected it and asked the state to do one with the image of Sankaracharya. When excavations at Keezhadi in Tamil Nadu unearthed ruins of a Dravidian civilisation, work was stopped. Such actions have reinforced the popular perception.

 While ruling parties in the two states see the Centre’s hands in the actions of the Governors, idiosyncrasy on the part of the individuals cannot be ruled out.

Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan, an old political hand, and Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, a retired police officer, have been sitting on more than a score of bills passed by the state legislatures and sent to them to sign into law. The Constitution has not set any time limit for the Governor to sign a bill but delaying signatures unduly must be seen as cantankerous behaviour, if not dereliction of duty.

Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s quarrel with Khan was mostly with regard to appointment of ruling party’s favourites in the universities, of which the Governor was ex-officio Chancellor. The Assembly recently passed a bill to remove the Governor from the post of Chancellor. Khan is sitting on it too.

Ravi’s recent remark that Dravidian politics is regressive and his Suggestion that the state must be renamed Tamizhakam call into question his fitness to function as a constitutional head.

There was a strong undercurrent of Tamil nationalism in the Dravidian movement and a section of it had entertained the idea of a Dravidanadu outside the Indian Union. However, after the Constitution which affirms equality of all, regardless of caste, came into force, DMK’s founder, C.N. Annadurai, steered the party away from the path of separatism. The founder of AIADMK reinforced the concept of national integration by incorporating Anna’s name and the term “Äll India” in his party’s name. Ravi is barking up the wrong tree when he rails against the state’s name, reading the concept of a separate nation into it.

Ravi must realise that he is not a colonial ruler who can take liberties with place names. The British did so only because they could not pronounce some names, not because they found some hidden political meaning in them.

DMK Treasurer T.R. Baalu, MP, accused Ravi of making divisive, incorrect and potentially dangerous statements on subjects like Aryanism and Dravidianism. He also charged him with making derogatory remarks about Dalits and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Kanimozhi, another DMK MP, said the name Tamil Nadu, which indicated “our language, tradition, politics and life itself,” would remain forever.

Last week a DMK delegation met President Draupadi Murmu and submitted a memorandum demanding Ravi’s recall. She sent it to the Prime Minister. He indicated that Ravi would not be recalled but the issue raised by DMK would be addressed.

If Modi thought Ravi could help the BJP cause in Tamil Nadu, he must think again.