Why governors were not meant to be just Delhi's agents

Under the Government of India Act 1935, the British granted limited self-rule to Indian subjects. This was done at the level of the constituent territories of British India, the provinces. For these provinces, limited governments were formed from limited elections and were given limited powers that would not hamper British interests in India. The chief agent enforcing these limitations was the governor appointed by the British for each province.

It is now 2023, but why does this notion of governorship still seem familiar? Are state governors remnants of the British Raj? Are states like colonies under the Union’s thumb? Governors, who are all appointed and removed by the Union, seem to regularly foment federal tensions in opposition-governed states, or else are seen as symbols of Delhi’s yoke.