The first article of the constitution, which defines India’s name and federal structure, states that “India is a Union of States.” This formulation implies that the states possess a degree of autonomy, exercised within the constitutional framework and in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. However, strong Union governments have often attempted to centralise power, sometimes using constitutional provisions such as President’s Rule under Article 356 or by amending the constitution, such as with the 42nd Amendment.The Modi government, which has held power at the centre thrice since 2014 – twice with a decisive majority – has also adopted measures that have significantly undermined the autonomy of the states. Some of its initiatives have been widely interpreted as attempts to constrain state finances, such as the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework in 2016. The enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-organisation Act in 2019 placed the erstwhile state under enhanced control of the Union government. And the passage of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2021 curtailed the authority of the elected Delhi government while expanding the powers of the Union-appointed Lieutenant Governor.Such measures collectively illustrate a pattern of increasing intervention by the Union in the domain of state governance. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi went a step further to establish his control over states; using a formula that no one before him had even imagined.This new formula stands in sharp contrast to the strategy historically associated with the Congress party’s Kamaraj Plan. When the Congress party’s influence in the states began to decline in the late 1960s and 1970s, the party president, K. Kamaraj, formulated a plan in which he advocated that senior Union ministers resign from their positions and return to their respective states to work at the grassroots to revitalise the weakening organisational base. The underlying rationale of the Kamaraj Plan was clear: if the party lost its organisational strength and electoral dominance in the states, its ability to sustain power at the Union would inevitably be jeopardised.Since around 2020, Modi has pursued a markedly different strategy. Rather than deploying prominent leaders from the Union government to strengthen party structures in the states, the leadership has increasingly elevated influential state-level leaders to positions within the Union government. Through this reverse movement of political leadership – from the states to New Delhi – his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has sought to consolidate its authority nationally while reinforcing its influence over state-level power structures.Also read: India Remains an Electoral Autocracy, Slips Five Places on Liberal Democracy Index: V-Dem ReportAdvancing this emerging formulation with notable assertiveness, Modi recently oversaw the removal of Nitish Kumar, the longest-serving chief minister of Bihar, as his transition to Rajya Sabha took effect. This political manoeuvre appears intended to create space to install a preferred new leadership figure in Bihar. This, in turn, consolidates the Union’s influence over the state executive through both administrative and political channels.Anyone handed the coveted chief minister’s post on a platter will hardly be in a position to raise demands of the central leadership for the state or for its people. This authority is not just institutionally consolidated, but politically within the party system, leaving fewer leaders with the stature to challenge decisions from Delhi.Contemporary political developments provide several examples where this shift has happened. States that appear to be losing their independent political power and whose chief ministers seem increasingly dependent on the central political leadership include Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, NCT of Delhi and Odisha. Their chief ministers are regularly reported to be orbiting the political circles of New Delhi. They appear to spend considerable time in the national capital to maintain proximity to the party’s central leadership. Even in the states, their time is often devoted to promoting and implementing the policy priorities of the Union government.What reveals Modi’s desire for centralising power is, for example, the removal of Haryana’s Manohar Lal Khattar, Assam’s Sarbananda Sonowal, Tripura’s Biplab Deb Kumar, Madhya Pradesh’s Shivraj Singh Chouhan from their states and installing them in New Delhi. Another reflection of this tendency to centralise power is how chief ministers such as Rajasthan’s Vasundhara Raje Scindia were limited within their own states, or figures like Pushkar Singh Dhami of Uttarakhand, who, though not removed from office or shifted to the capital, has come to represent a central leadership-backed model of governance.Together, these strategies make the power that the Prime Minister and his party wield impervious to challenge at any level – the result is a system in which whatever he wishes is implemented without question.But most of all, when local leadership is removed from state capitals and shifted to the national capital, who is left to raise local issues and ensure their resolution? From this perspective alone, the strategic weakening of strong regional leaders potentially diminishes the autonomy of state-level political leadership.Furthermore, in recent state assembly elections, the BJP structured much of its campaign around the leadership and personality of Narendra Modi and the flagship welfare initiatives of the Union government – the PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, the Har Ghar Jal-Har Ghar Nal scheme and the Ujjwala Yojana, etc., often relegating local and state-specific issues to the background. The reason behind this is clear: reinforcing a model in which political legitimacy and administrative direction are derived primarily from the central level makes the prime minister the sole pillar of authority in every corner of the country.This development raises an important question for India’s democratic and federal framework: will the people of India and the principal opposition parties be able to effectively challenge this growing trend toward political centralisation and thereby safeguard the autonomy of states that form a foundational structure of India’s constitutional federalism?Rajesh O.P. Singh is a PhD candidate at the University of Delhi.