It has been seven months since Goa Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar first took ill. Since February, he has been away for long periods, first in Mumbai and then the US. This has prompted Opposition parties to claim that, for all practical purposes, the state government does not exist.
On Monday, shortly after Parrikar was admitted to hospital again, the Congress staked claim to form the government in the coastal state. Party leaders pointed to the paralysis in the administration as evidence that governance has totally broken down.
Parrikar is being treated for pancreatic cancer. He left for the US in March and returned to India in June. He went back to the US on August 10, for what was described as a follow-up check, and returned on August 22, only to depart for the US again on August 30. He returned to Goa on September 6 but was admitted to a local hospital on September 13. He is now being treated in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi. The Bharatiya Janata Party has claimed that Parrikar – who holds key portfolios, including home, finance, personnel, general administration and mining – is clearing files from hospital.
The Congress’s bid to take office in the wake of Parrikar’s latest period of absence is political grandstanding, since the governor will be in no position to dismiss the government unless it loses its majority in the Assembly. But these developments raise an important question: Should ailing politicians hold on to crucial positions, and hurt governance while doing so?
Situations of this sort are not new. In 2016, J Jayalalithaa, who was then the Tamil Nadu chief minister, spent over 70 days in hospital before she died. During that time, her entire Cabinet spent much of its time in the hospital. The Opposition made similar accusations that governance had been paralysed.
In the 1980s, MG Ramachandran was in the US for treatment for months while holding the post of Tamil Nadu chief minister. He even contested elections from his hospital bed.
While a Cabinet functions on the concept of collective responsibility, there is no doubt that the chief minister is the captain of the ship. When the chief minister is away from office for a protracted period, decision-making is bound to slow down, especially if he or she is unwilling to part with responsibilities. This hesitation is mainly due to internal political pressure and the desire not to cede ground to competitors within the party.
The absence of a chief minister is not merely a question of office administration. The decisions made by chief ministers affect the everyday lives of millions. This is reason enough to demand that the person holding the crucial post is healthy enough to discharge their duties in an effective manner. It is also a monumental waste of time to have files moved from Goa to New Delhi every time the chief minister is needed to stamp his approval on decisions. In an executive structure like India’s, this need is almost an everyday one.
The best option for the BJP in Goa would be to ask Parrikar to step down till he recovers completely, and reinstate him later. Anything else would be an injustice to the people of Goa. In addition, political parties should think of a long-term legislative mechanism to ensure that the government continues to function efficiently if the chief minister takes ill.