Stalin is preparing the DMK to go the whole hog in making 'federalism', 'Tamil self-respect' and 'communal cohesiveness' the party's poll plank next year, and package the BJP and its possible allies, as 'divisive' and 'reactionary', predicts N Sathiya Moorthy.
The gloves are off in Tamil Nadu.
Taking on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, albeit through the constitutional proxy in President Droupadi Murmu, Chief Minister M K Stalin has written to the latter, calling R N Ravi to be 'unfit for the office of the governor' and urging her to 'remove' him.
In a letter dated July 8, the day the governor had a 'purposeful meeting' with Union Home Minister Amit A Shah in Delhi, and the second one after the January missives handed over by state Law Minister S Raghupathy to the President, Stalin charged that Ravi 'incited communal hatred' and is a 'threat to peace in the state' (charges that are otherwise punishable under the Indian Penal Code).
Typical of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's use of the term 'federalism' in such discourses, Stalin said, 'Sitting in the state capital and looking for an opportunity to overthrow the state government, the governor can only be considered as an agent of the Union and such action of the governor will destroy our federal philosophy and destroy the basic principles of Indian democracy.'
He pointed out that the 'governor took the oath under Article 159 to protect the Constitution and the law and dedicate himself to the service and welfare of the people of Tamil Nadu... it is clear that Ravi had transgressed and incited communal hatred and is a threat to peace in the state,' he added.
Stalin emphasised that the governor's constant public expression of 'divisive religious views' was unsuitable and had the potential to create problems for the state administration, particularly in a diverse state such as Tamil Nadu.
He emphasised the government's commitment to religious harmony and gender equality policies and expressed concern about Ravi's 'lack of faith' in these principles.
In the same vein, the chief minister accused Ravi of making 'false remarks' about criminal cases being probed by the state police and criticised him for denying that child marriages ever happened at the Chidambaram Nataraja temple.
Stalin claimed that Ravi's statements would have invited legal action if they were from an individual not holding his high Constitutional position.
Touching upon the DMK's ideological mooring/weakness pertaining to Tamil and Tamil self-respect, he alleged that Ravi's 'actions show his extraordinary animosity towards Tamil Nadu' and defamed the name 'Tamil Nadu'.
To this, he added the inevitable political angle by recalling how it was the name chosen by party founder C N Annadurai, through his first official order as chief minister in 1967.
This apart, the CM accused the governor of being 'involved in ideological and political conflict with the democratically-elected DMK government' and pointed out that Ravi had 'never won any election in Tamil Nadu and seems to have forgotten that he is not a leader of the people, but an appointed official'.
He alleged that the governor's actions undermined the idea of federalism, and asserted that Dravidian politics was not regressive.
He cited the commitment of Dravidian politics to 'progress and social justice' and said its impact was the reason why the state scores higher than the national average on development parameters.
In this context, the CM also recalled how Ravi had violated the Constitution by reading out portions that the state cabinet had removed from his customary speech to the assembly earlier this year.
On the politico-administrative front, Stalin raised concerns over the 'unnecessary delays in (the governor) approving bills passed by the assembly. Emphasising that a governor needs to act within the Constitutional framework and not 'misuse their lack of time-limit for giving consent to bills', Stalin said Ravi's interference amounts to an 'administrative anomaly'.
He also mentioned the dispute over Minister V Senthil Balaji who was dismissed by the governor last month following his arrest in a corruption case. Ravi withdrew the order after a few hours.
The CM said that 'the governor's recommendation of this nature is against the law'.
It is equally so with regard to the governor delaying sanction to prosecute ministers of the erstwhile All India Anna DMK government, including in the 'gutkha scam' calling it 'unusual'.
By writing a lengthy letter to the President and having it circulated all across, Stalin has clearly send out a political message to Modi, on whose table his letter to President Murmu would finally land through the home ministry, for further action.
It comes in the aftermath of the CM sending out an equally strong response to Ravi first sacking 'jailed' minister Senthil Balaji and then revoking the order only hours later -- thus giving the impression that the matter rested there or with the courts. Yet, the CM chose to react and react strongly.
According to DMK sources, the letter to the President is a response to long months of alleged 'inaction' on the Centre's part, to Ravi's repeated 'intransigence' in observing Constitutional norms and healthy precedents in relation to the host state, the government and the people.
In the immediate context, it is also of indicative of Stalin's changed mood viz the ruling BJP at the Centre, and to Modi in particular.
Insiders claim that ever since he came to power in 2021, to be followed by Ravi's arrival in Chennai's Raj Bhavan only months later, Stalin had been following form and decorum with both in terms of Centre-state relations on the one hand and with the governor, on the other.
It was thus, they say, Stalin had given strict instructions to the DMK rank and file not to comment on either the Centre or the governor, either personally or in his official capacity.
The instructions were clear: If there was an issue, the leadership would decide when and how to react, and would also handle it at what level, without letting platform speakers do it in coarse language.
Thus, when one of them made an out-of-turn and unbecoming observation about the governor, both the party and the police acted against him swiftly. Or, so goes the argument.
Stalin, it is said, is peeved at Modi naming the DMK as a 'dynastic party', not while campaigning for the BJP in Tamil Nadu but while doing so in distant Bhopal, the capital of Madhya Pradesh, where assembly elections are due later this year.
Stalin sees it as a reaction to his attending the anti-BJP party leaders' meet in Patna, again far away from his native state.
Though party sources stick to the official version that the CM did not meet the local press in Patna after the conclave only because he had to rush to catch his flight, they still point out how Stalin did not target the BJP or Modi in public.
The party and the leader were also upset over senior Union ministers, one after the other, attacking the DMK as a party and the Stalin government as an institution, 'purely for political reasons'.
They are getting increasingly convinced that Ravi may be 'acting under the cue of Delhi, as barring the Senthil Balaji sacking issue where Amit Shah reportedly advised him to retract pending consultations with the attorney general, none seemed to have advised him on the inappropriateness of his words and actions'.
After Shah recently, it was Defence Minister Rajnath Singh.
It is against this background that the party organ, Murasoli took up the issue of Singh comparing the chief minister's name to that of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.
In a veiled editorial, that too without naming the defence minister, the newspaper listed out the so-called 'achievements' of the Russian leader, and added for effect: 'Through the ages, reactionary elements have besmirched revolutionaries and reformists like this.'
Again, no lower-level DMK functionary was allowed to comment on Singh's observations.
Indications are that Stalin is preparing the party to go the whole hog in making 'federalism', 'Tamil self-respect' and 'communal cohesiveness' the party's poll plank next year, and package the BJP and its possible allies, including the traditional AIADMK rival, as 'divisive' and 'reactionary'.
In the interim, it may be a further diversionary tactic from the multiple embarrassments caused by the Senthil Balaji row and its follow-up actions in the days and weeks to come.
If the first round went to the Centre and the BJP by extension, the DMK retrieved a substantial portion of the lost ground, following the habeas corpus petition filed by Balaji's wife Megala in the Madras high court, and Ravi's flip-flop in the matter, twice in a matter of days.
By writing to the President in such great detail, and thus recording facts as the state government saw them and views as he and his legal team read them, Stalin is clearly preparing to move the Supreme Court in the matter.
But before that, he seems to want to 'exhaust all options', lest the court should ask him to do so before approaching the higher judiciary in such 'sensitive matters', where the President of India cannot be expected to respond to court notices, even if addressed to her secretary -- as is the custom.
Already, on a petition seeking a direction to Ravi to retract his sack order against minister Balaji, the Madras high court asked the petitioner to cite the Constitutional provision under which the bench could order notice to the governor.
There is another catch, too.
Holding the presidency and gubernatorial appointments with the highest regard, the Constitution consciously left out provisions for courts serving notice on them, nor fixed a time limit for them to act on matters put up before them.
It was thus that the President as an institution took years to decide on the 'mercy petitions' of the Rajiv Gandhi assassins, no question asked by any court.
In his letter to the President, Stalin has flagged the issue of the governor delaying decisions on bills passed by the state assembly, and also on sanction to prosecute past ministers.
The question is this: What happens if the President, rather, the Union home ministry, takes its own time responding to Stalin's missive to President Murmu?
What then would constitute 'reasonable time', which has not been defined?
Or, would a petition by the state government as an institution or the DMK as a party or a third party petitioner, would (also have to) ask the Supreme Court of India to decide what 'reasonable time' means, as much in the case of the President as is already the matter concerning the governor?
N Sathiya Moorthy, veteran journalist and author, is a Chennai-based policy analyst and political commentator.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff.com
