Why are many States unhappy about the role of the Governor?
Many States are unhappy because the role of the Governor has always been a controversial issue between the States and the Central government. Since the Governor is not elected but appointed by the Central government, their actions are often viewed as interference in the functioning of the State government.
The issue becomes more contentious when different parties are in power at the Centre and the State. States feel that the Governor acts in a partisan manner. The Sarkaria Commission noted this and recommended that appointments should be strictly non-partisan.
Additionally, the Governor holds the power to recommend the dismissal of the State government and suspension of the State assembly under Article 356. This has led to conflicts where State governments were dismissed despite having a majority, as happened in Kerala in 1959, or without testing their majority.
Explanation
The answer is derived from the provided textbook context which highlights the appointment process, the partisan nature of the office during periods of different ruling parties, and the misuse of Article 356. The context explicitly mentions the Sarkaria Commission's recommendations and the specific instance of Kerala in 1959 to illustrate why States are unhappy with the Governor's role.