From Chennai to Kolkata, Will R. N. Ravi Again Spearhead  Centre’s Battles With States?

Ravindra Narayana Ravi’s career is marked by a series of unlikely transitions — from a postgraduate in physics and a brief stint in journalism to the Indian Police Service and eventually the inner circles of India’s security establishment. During his years in the CBI and the Intelligence Bureau, and later as Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee  Ravi largely stayed away from public controversy, operating within the discreet confines that such roles demanded. But his move to constitutional office altered that image. As governor, he evolved into a combative political figure, frequently confronting elected governments and challenging entrenched regional ideologies. That willingness to engage in open political contestation in hostile terrain appears to have defined his gubernatorial tenure — and perhaps explains why he has now been chosen for West Bengal, a state that has long remained politically elusive for the BJP despite its sustained efforts to capture power.

The news of R. N. Ravi’s appointment as Governor to the West Bengal was broken by  Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee herself, a leader who has never hesitated to lock horns with Raj Bhavan. Her confrontations with Governors — from former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar to C. V. Ananda Bose — have often revolved around allegations of gubernatorial overreach into the domain of the elected government. Coming as it did on the eve of the announcement of election dates, Ravi’s appointment has been interpreted by Mamata as a political signal. She views it as part of a possible strategy by the BJP to shape the political course in West Bengal during — or even after — the elections.

Mamata’s allegation may be dismissed as the political anxiety of an incumbent leader wary of the Centre’s moves. Yet the controversies R. N. Ravi has generated, and the battles he has fought as governor, lend a measure of credibility to such apprehensions.

Journalists in Chennai still vividly recall the day Ravi arrived in the state capital. Striking a conciliatory note, he said he would function strictly within the parameters of the Constitution and noted that the slate of his relationship with the state government was “clean” and that he hoped to make it “beautiful”. Four and a half years later, as he prepares to move to Kolkata, that promise appears to have unravelled. His tenure in Tamil Nadu was marked by persistent confrontations with the DMK government, often over ideological questions and the limits of gubernatorial authority. “His fight against the DMK government stemmed from the ideological moorings of the political leadership that appointed him,” a DMK leader said.

Even before arriving in Chennai, Ravi had courted controversy in Nagaland. As governor and the Centre’s interlocutor in the Naga peace talks, he was accused by the Isak-Muivah faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM) of acting in a partisan manner and favouring rival groups. The outfit even demanded his removal, alleging that he had manipulated the framework accord. The Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party, which leads the state government, also accused him of interfering in the functioning of the elected administration. His relations with the press were equally strained, culminating in journalists boycotting a farewell event organised by the state government.

Against this backdrop, Ravi’s early assurances in Chennai about maintaining a “beautiful” relationship with the state government soon evaporated, giving way to one of the most contentious governor–state government relationships in recent years.

Like several governors in Opposition-ruled states, R. N. Ravi also used his constitutional authority to delay or withhold assent to bills passed by the state legislature. The bills included the one that the assembly passed against the NEET examination. Another bill he refused to sign was the one aimed at banning online gambling, which ruined many families in Tamil Nadu. He also  refused to  clear the names state government submitted for the post of Vice-Chancellors

 His delaying tactics on bills passed by the assembly led to political controversy. Ironically, this tactic triggered a major legal battle over the limits of gubernatorial discretion and the spirit of Indian federalism. The controversy eventually reached the Supreme Court, which delivered a landmark judgment laying down time limits for governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures.

The court observed that if a governor failed to take a decision within a stipulated period — broadly interpreted as three months — assent could be deemed to have been granted. The ruling sparked an intense constitutional debate and eventually led to a presidential reference to the Supreme Court seeking clarification. Although the court’s response to the reference appeared to dilute the spirit of its earlier observation, the larger constitutional question — whether the court’s answer to a presidential reference carries the force of a binding order — continues to be debated.

Ravi’s confrontation with the DMK government was also rooted in ideological differences. In an interview, he dismissed the much-touted “Dravidian model” of governance, arguing that no such model existed. “It is only a political slogan, a desperate bid to sustain an expired ideology,” he said. His attack on an ideological framework that remains central to Tamil Nadu’s political identity triggered a sharp backlash across the state. His suggestion that the state be referred to as “Tamizhagam” instead of Tamil Nadu also drew widespread opposition from across the political spectrum.

His strained relationship with the DMK government repeatedly played out in the Assembly. On more than one occasion, Ravi walked out of the House and departed from the text of the Governor’s address approved by the state cabinet. In his first such instance, he refused to read portions that referred to social justice, equality, women’s rights, and leaders such as Periyar and B. R. Ambedkar. The Assembly responded by passing a resolution directing the Speaker to place on record the original speech approved by the cabinet. Ravi’s decision to leave the House before the national anthem was played also sparked considerable controversy.

There were also reports suggesting that it was at R. N. Ravi’s instance that the Sangh Parivar revived the idea of installing a Sengol in the new Parliament building. Ravi had earlier maintained that at the dawn of Independence, a ceremonial transfer of power took place in which a sceptre — the Sengol — was handed over, symbolising the transfer of authority from the British to Indian leaders. The claim later became part of the broader political narrative surrounding the inauguration of the new Parliament.

Ravi’s confrontation with the DMK government was less about questions of governance and more about ideology. On issues ranging from NEET and the National Education Policy to the very idea of Dravidianism, the Governor remained unrelenting in his criticism. The tensions occasionally spilled into constitutional territory as well. On one occasion, the Supreme Court castigated him for refusing the swearing-in of K Ponmudi, a minister appointed by the state government. Ideological contestation and political brinkmanship thus came to define R. N. Ravi’s four-and-a-half-year tenure in Tamil Nadu.

Now the Union government has assigned him another politically charged posting — West Bengal. The state goes to the polls next month along with Tamil  Nadu, Assam, Kerala and Puducherry. Placing a combative governor in Raj Bhavan at such a politically sensitive moment could be seen as a calculated move. For Mamata Banerjee, known for her combative political style and sharp retorts against the Centre, Ravi’s arrival in Kolkata may well open another front in the already fraught relationship between the state government and the Union government.