During his tenure as Gujarat’s Chief Minister, Narendra Modi was an outspoken advocate of the federal form of governance in India. He used to criticise then Union Governmentfor eroding the state’s federal framework. Speaking at a rally in Mumbai on May 26, 2012, he charged that the union administration led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was causing “maximum damage” to the nation’s federal system.
However, he has weakened India’s federal system more and more since taking office in 2014. By often limiting states to merely carrying out central policies, the government has severely limited their authority. This change accelerates the breakdown of fundamental constitutional norms and is driven by the combined interests of Indian and foreign corporations as well as the Hindutva communal agenda. Unchecked, the Modi government’s methodical destruction of federalism might seriously jeopardise India’s integrity and unity.
In independent India, no state has ever been reduced to two union territories. In contrast, smaller union territories such as Goa, Manipur, and Nagaland were granted statehood. Nowadays, the governor’s office is often used to undermine state governments led by Opposition parties. Governors in opposition-ruled states are frequently perceived as acting as de facto rulers. The BJP’s pursuit of Hindutva slogans, such as One Nation, One Culture, One Language, and One Nation, One Election, pose a serious threat to federalism and diversity across India.
The BJP’s “Akhand Bharat” ideology, which conflicts with the federalist vision of a multiethnic, multilingual India, seeks to establish a homogenous nation aligned with Hindu majoritarian values. In this vision, federalism is treated as an administrative convenience rather than a cornerstone of India’s democracy. BJP and RSS advocate for a centralised, unitary state structure and propose reorganising the country into smaller administrative units based on the ancient Sanskrit concept of “Janapadas.”
The BJP’s 2014 election manifesto introduced the ONOE concept, which gained traction with a 2015 parliamentary standing committee report, a 2017 NITI Aayog policy paper, and a 2018 Law Commission draft report. Recently, the Kovind Committee, formed to legitimise this idea, published recommendations endorsing ONOE, which were swiftly approved by Union Cabinet on September 18, just ahead of the 2024 elections. Proponents argue that simultaneous elections would reduce costs, simplify administration, and minimise delays caused by the Model Code of Conduct.
However, these arguments are tenuous. Cost savings are unlikely, as election expenses remain constant. Moreover, logistical and developmental challenges may persist despite simultaneous elections. More critically, the ONOE proposal undermines a core principle of the Indian Constitution – federalism. By centralising electoral processes, ONOE diminishes regional representation, erodes state autonomy, and promotes a homogenised political culture.
Tamil Nadu’s ruling DMK has strongly opposed the Union Government’s push for simultaneous elections. A consistent supporter of India’s federal structure, Chief Minister and DMK president MK Stalin criticised ONOE as an attempt to establish Prime Minister Modi as an authoritarian figure, warning it would harm the BJP itself. Speaking at the party’s Lawyers’ Wing state conference, Stalin reaffirmed the DMK’s opposition to simultaneous elections, dating back to the creation of the Kovind Committee. Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin also accused the BJP-led Union Government of dismantling the Constitution’s foundations. In a statement to the conference, he declared, “The DMK, along with the INDIA Bloc, will defeat the BJP’s designs and safeguard the Constitution.”
Following stiff opposition from the INDIA Bloc in Parliament, the Bill had been sent to the Standing Committee.
Recall that in 1969, the Rajamannar Commission was established by the DMK administration to study the relationship between the centre and the state and suggest ways to strengthen state autonomy. Similarly, a memorandum promoting a realignment of central-state ties was made public by the Left Front government in West Bengal, which took office in 1977. The document revealed central meddling, especially in the use of the governor’s position to sway state politics.
The Hindutva Agenda and Federalism
The BJP’s approach reflects opposition to several pillars of India’s federal structure, including the linguistic reorganisation of states, the three-language formula that recognises linguistic diversity, and constitutional provisions protecting the unique identities of regions such as Northeast and Jammu & Kashmir. Promoted under the slogan One Nation, One India, BJP policies emphasise cultural uniformity, often cloaking a deeper agenda of establishing communal fascist political dominance under the guise of administrative and economic rationality. This has resulted in a systematic weakening of the federal system by curbing the political and economic autonomy of states.
When Narendra Modi, former RSS pracharak, assumed power in 2014, India’s federal structure underwent a significant transformation, with centralisation reaching unprecedented levels. Modi’s administration has launched a calculated and unprecedented assault on the federal system, undermining and delegitimising the principles of federalism.
The Union government has curtailed the political and economic independence of states, increasingly treating them as subordinate operational units of central ministries and departments. This approach conveys the impression that states are no longer free to pursue their own regional objectives but are instead reduced to implementing centrally devised programmes.
The central government employs a combination of “soft” and “hard” tactics to advance its centralised political and cultural agenda. Hard measures include legislative and constitutional amendments, while soft measures rely on administrative and economic strategies. Together, these tools disrupt the federal balance and shift power toward the central government, thereby eroding the foundational principles of Indian federalism.
The 1990s marked a period of political and economic upheaval in India, posing significant challenges to the country’s federal structure. During this time, ruling political elites and their parties embraced neoliberal economic policies, prioritising the interests of domestic and international corporations. Concurrently, a wave of majoritarian Hindutva politics, championed by BJP and RSS, gained momentum. This convergence of corporate economic interests and Hindutva-inspired political ambitions forged a “corporate-communal nexus,” which further destabilised India’s federal structure. The twin forces of political domination through Hindutva fundamentalism and economic control through market fundamentalism posed unprecedented threats to federalism.
To fully grasp the implications of the Modi government’s assault on India’s federal structure, it is essential to consider the historical and constitutional evolution of federalism in the country.
“India, also known as Bharat, is a Union of States,” states Article I of the Indian Constitution. Speaking before the Constituent Assembly in 1948, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar envisioned a system in which India would be divided into “states at the periphery and a Union at the centre,” each with sovereign powers in their respective areas as specified by the Constitution. He underlined that India is a union of states rather than a federation and that the Constitution may serve as both federal and unitary, depending on the needs of the moment.
Dr. Ambedkar underlined that the Indian system is intended to function as a federal one under normal conditions. Nonetheless, it was designed to transition to a unified framework during times of war or national emergency, enabling the centre to exert more focused authority.
Despite its innate tendency toward centralisation, the Indian Constitution also included significant federal principles, taking into account the continent’s size as well as its extreme economic, political, cultural, and social diversity which is now under severe threat.