Thursday’s events in the Goa legislative assembly have highlighted the delicate relationship between the governor’s office and the state’s opposition parties. Following the commencement of the assembly session, opposition legislators chose to walk out as Governor P S Sreedharan Pillai began his address. This act of dissent was primarily a response to the government’s decision to limit the winter session to just two days, raising concerns about transparency and governance.
However, the walkout raises an essential question: is it reasonable to anticipate that a governor would publicly criticize the government he represents?
Historically, this has not been the norm in Indian politics. Even during the tenure of the controversial former Governor Satyapal Malik, known for his candid remarks, he refrained from directly condemning the Sawant administration during his speeches in the assembly. Malik’s criticisms were only vocalized after his transfer, raising eyebrows about the motives behind his delayed candour.
It’s vital to acknowledge that the content of speeches made by governors is typically crafted by the ruling government. As such, the expectation that a governor will deviate from these pre-approved narratives to lambast his own administration seems illogical.
The office of the governor, enshrined in the Indian Constitution, commands a level of respect that transcends personal grievances or political affiliations. Therefore, the opposition’s stance of deriding the governor during their address, while simultaneously seeking his intervention in various state matters, appears contradictory.
The role of the governor is fundamentally one of oversight and facilitation. When the opposition is dissatisfied with the government’s actions, they often turn to the governor for support, thus reaffirming the importance of his position.
This reliance underscores a deeper respect for the office, which should remain consistent irrespective of the political climate. Instead of dismissing the governor’s authority when it is convenient, opposition parties should aim to engage constructively with the institution that plays a critical role in maintaining the balance of power and upholding democratic values.
The arguments put forth by the opposition during their criticisms of the governor’s address often suggest a disillusionment with the state of governance, but these sentiments must be expressed within a framework of respect for institutional roles.
Walking out during the governor’s address not only disrespects his office but also compromises the very platform through which they could engage in meaningful debate over policy issues.
Given these complexities, it might be worthwhile for opposition legislators to reflect on their tactics. Rather than resorting to walk-outs, they might consider strategies that promote dialogue and debate. This approach could lead to improved governance and a more responsible engagement with the government.
While political dissent is a cornerstone of democracy, opposition parties in Goa need to recognize the importance of the governor’s role. Instead of adopting confrontational tactics, finding ways to work collaboratively with this constitutional office could foster a healthier political environment. Respecting the institution, even when disagreements arise, can pave the way for more fruitful discussions, ultimately benefiting the citizens of Goa.
SURAJ BNANDREKAR
Editor, Goemkarponn
