Something fundamental is breaking in the way India governs itself. Across multiple states in recent weeks, governors have walked out of legislative assemblies, refused to read speeches prepared by elected governments, and publicly challenged the authority of chief ministers chosen by voters. This is not a series of isolated disputes over protocol. It is a coordinated assault on the federal structure that holds India together.

The office of governor was never meant to be a stage for political theatre. When the Constitution was drafted, the founders imagined governors as dignified, largely ceremonial figures who would serve as a constitutional bridge between the Union and state governments. They were to act on the advice of elected ministers except in the rarest of circumstances, maintaining a studied neutrality that would keep federal relations running smoothly. The job required judgement and restraint, not confrontation.

That vision now lies in ruins. In Karnataka, Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot walked out of the assembly after demanding that eleven paragraphs be removed from the government’s policy speech, paragraphs that criticised central policies on rural employment and fund distribution. In Tamil Nadu, Governor R.N. Ravi spent just seven minutes in the legislature before leaving without reading the address, marking the fourth consecutive year he has done so. Kerala’s Governor Rajendra Arlekar omitted sections critical of the Union government, inserting his own edits without cabinet approval. In West Bengal, the governor has openly accused Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of constitutional violations, adding fuel to an already bitter relationship between the state and central enforcement agencies.

These are not coincidences. Every one of these states is governed by a party opposed to the Bharatiya Janata Party that controls the central government. Every confrontation involves a governor objecting to language critical of Delhi’s policies. The pattern is unmistakable: Lok (Raj) Bhavans are functioning as outposts of central authority rather than neutral constitutional offices.

The annual address to the state........

© Eurasia Review