This is evident from every situation when a governor comes into focus and any given act of his becomes a subject of national debate. Every such situation goes only to prove the eminent irrelevance of this august office. The evidence is that no governor is ever noticed when he does anything good. He cannot be noticed because he has nothing to do,precisely nothing. The signing of various documents sent to him, the mouthing of speeches in the assembly dictated by others, the dreary inaugural addresses in seminars on subjects ranging from common salt to cardiac arrest are all rituals any presentable governess can perform.

The first two mandatory rituals can be done even by a blind governess. The second task, which may call for a little more intellectual acumen than is usually attributed to a governess, is not mandatory. It is not constitutionally necessary that a governor open a new abattoir or close an old comfort station and make an appropriate speech on each occasion. He does it all because he has plenty of time. Once in a while, such leisurely activities can bring a governor acclaim. But his routine constitutional chores never earn him a reputation.

A governor shoots into prominence only when he takes his role as New Delhi's knight of honour too seriously and sets out to discipline a state government. He can be well known if he does New Delhi'sbidding by reporting a constitutional breakdown and recommending the state government's dismissal. He can be well knwon also when he switches his loyalty from his bosses to the state government and resists New Delhi's blandishments. There are few who have achieved reputation in this second category. One exception was Surjit Singh Barnala when he was Tamil Nadu governor. Most others have earned fame by siding with the appointing authority and getting rid of the state governments declared as undesirable from time to time.

Consider the cases of the illustrious Bhandaris. Romesh Bhandari thrust himself into national focus not by accomplishing any assigned task when he was in the foreign service or as a political boyscout. His moment of glory came when he was found doing things which an ordinary governor would dread. The Tripura government detested him; the union government found him a burden. A governor cannot but attract public attention when he incurs the displeasure of all concerned and yet manages to retainhis tenancy in a Raj Bhawan. When he was sent to Lucknow, mind you, on promotion, not demotion, he made it what a bull would have made of a china shop. Remember, Romesh Bhandari became famous not for any of his good acts (if of course he could be accused of any), but what many regarded as an outrage to the constitution, and some as an indiscretion, but no one as a legitimate function legitimately performed. He vacated Raj Bhawan only when it appeared he would otherwise be evicted.

Sundar Singh Bhandari sounds a sober man. But he has not earned his fame not for sobriety as a governor, but as an active participant in a game plan to get rid of the government of his state. He has not had an opportunity to go into an assessment of the support for Rabri Devi--unlike Romesh Bhandari had in Uttar Pradesh--nor has Sundar Singh been able to wrest from president KR Narayanan the kind of near-open censure that was reserved for Romesh. Yet it is easy to see that Sundar Singh Bhandari is known only as a governor who isimpatient to get rid of a state government, which is anathema to the powers-that-be in New Delhi. After president Narayanan made it known that he did not agree with the case made out by the governor, many feared that Bhandari would honourably quit. After all, what function can a governor serve if he cannot get rid of a state government? As events have proved, Sundar Singh Bhandari is happy to be in Raj Bhawan even if he has no great function to discharge.

Besides Barnala, perhpas there is no governor who could be regarded as having been ungrateful to the appointing authority. Out of gratitude or conviction, every governor has behaved exactly as the appointing authority would have expected. There was the solitary case of Channa Reddy, who took a view against the chief minister and the prime minister and suddenly found himself in the bad books of both. He not only reported against the chief minister but even made it public. That was an ideal setting for his sacking, since his report was quite unwelcome in NewDelhi at that point of time. Narasimha Rao chose to allow Channa Reddy to vegetate in Chennai's Raj Bhawan in a mysterious act of munificence.

Channa was rather unremitting. But he gave proof for what would have been regarded as an enitrely unlikely scenario. That was the case of a governor reporting the breakdown of the constitution, and New Delhi yet not wanting such a report. If such a report is wanted, New Delhi is in a position to obtain it. Governors are usually obliging. If such a report is not wanted, it can be ignored even if one is submitted. Governors are usually not too petulant; they have enormous capacity to take things lying down. It is only those who are left with a modicum of self-respect get out in a huff in such situations. Mercifully, self-respect is not a major gubernatorial weakness. When Raj Bhawans become a mere dumping ground for disused political resource, it may be more profitable to turn them into biogas chambers.