India needs to revisit the power dynamics and empower the state governments so that they can perform the will of the people at their disposal.
Published Aug 15, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Aug 15, 2025 | 9:00 AM
A people's protest in India. (iStock)
Synopsis: As we mark Independence Day 2025, we should reaffirm our commitment to the constitutional ideals of popular sovereignty and transparent governance. This transformative era challenges us to deepen political freedom and empower citizens through effective devolution of powers and elected representation.
Seventy-eight years ago, the midnight sky of our motherland lit up not with fireworks, but with the glow of freedom. It was an hour when the chains of oppression fell silent, and the heart of India beat as one — proud, fearless and free.
Today, as we stand under the same tricolour that rose high in 1947, we are not just celebrating a date in history, we are saluting the dreams, the sacrifices and the unyielding courage of millions who gave us the right to call this land our own. Our independence is not a gift – it is a legacy paid for in sweat, sacrifice and unbreakable spirit”.
As we mark Independence Day 2025 within the auspicious “Amrit Kaal“, we should reaffirm our commitment to the constitutional ideals of popular sovereignty and transparent governance. This transformative era challenges us to deepen political freedom and empower citizens through effective devolution of powers and elected representation.
However, it is important to examine the devolution of powers in India and the functioning of its elected government.
Moreover, it is imperative to recall the arduous struggle and sacrifices endured during our nation’s fight against the dominion of the British Empire, which used to proclaim: “The Sun never sets on the British Empire” since its reach extended across the globe.
Yet here in its radiant light, Indians rose with unyielding spirit to break the chain of subjugation. The anti-colonial struggle was a long and multifaceted movement which aimed at ending British colonial rule, spanning roughly from the 1857 Revolt to India’s independence in 1947.
The war for independence was a vast people’s struggle where both the common people and leaders played crucial intertwined roles in ultimately achieving freedom from British rule. Our nation’s quest for independence was unparalleled in the annals of history, for it confronted the might of imperial authority embodied in the force of police sticks (Indian lathis) and European rifles with the steadfast strength of non-violent civil resistance.
This resistance movement was sustained by several lakhs of ordinary men and women who, despite subsisting under the crushing burdens of caste-based discrimination and severe economic deprivation, stood resolute in their commitment to liberty.
While eminent leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel provided vision and strategic direction, it was the collective will of the people that served as the cornerstone of the movement.
As Mahatma Gandhi profoundly observed, “Our salvation can only come through the farmer. Neither the lawyers, nor the doctors, nor the rich landlords are going to secure it”.
In essence, the strength of the struggle arose from the toilers of the soil and common citizens whose livelihoods were dismantled by the displacement from ancestral lands, the imposition of commercial crops, the levy of oppressive taxes and policies that destroyed indigenous crafts, manufacture and artisanal heritage.
Enduring punitive imprisonments, cruel assaults, prejudiced judicial proceedings and inhumane conditions, the people of India, with unwavering courage and sacrifice, sustained the largest mass movement in recorded human history, uniting in their righteous resolve to end colonial domination and secure for themselves the blessings of freedom, justice and dignity.
Indian leaders envisioned more powers for the provisional governments as they all share unique linguistic and cultural values. However, the way and means that the Britishers departed altered the equilibrium.
They empowered 560 princely states to choose options between India, Pakistan and stay alone, which posed geographic constraints and security challenges. Patel succeeded in bringing all units into the Indian fold with various offers and promises. Even though Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir created unique hurdles, India achieved final positive results.
The partition plan, however, cursed India; several thousand were slaughtered, thousands of women were raped, and their belongings were looted. Above that, there was an exodus — 1 crore migrants fled to India. The young nation, without adequate funds, managed to accommodate the influx of people. Our leaders who debated and drafted the Constitution were preoccupied with this trauma.
During the Constituent Assembly debates, the first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, cautioned that “it would be injurious to the interests of the country to provide for a weak central authority which would be incapable of ensuring peace, of coordinating vital matters of common concern and of speaking effectively for the whole country in the international sphere”.
On the other hand, Ambedkar feared that decentralisation would allow the caste system to be more powerful and rigid, which would roll back progressive affirmative actions carried out by the government.
“Political tyranny is nothing compared to social tyranny, and to remove the tyranny of caste, the Constitution must ensure that decentralisation does not become a tool for caste oppression,” Ambedkar noted.
These two factors largely influenced the outcomes of constituent assembly debates and the drafting of the Constitution. This led to the formation of all-powerful union governments and weaker state governments systematically.
The Indian Constitution, which is the world’s largest written document, contains extensive conduct rules for governance functioning. Though it adopted a federal structure, it vested uneven powers in the hands of the Union government. The subjects are clearly demarcated between the Union, State and Concurrent lists. Things which were not mentioned in the three fall under the Union list.
Apart from the Union can influence states’ exclusive domain of law-making through Article 249. The constitutional silence was often misused by the office of the Governors by prolonging the assent to legislature-passed bills.
Until 1967, Indian federal dynamics went smoothly as it was largely a one-man show (Congress at the Centre and states), the constitutional heads of states — the Governors — were appointed from senior political figures and retired high-profile military, civil officers and former kings as ceremonial posts, in practice, the people elected chief ministers performed uninterpreted.
However, scenes have changed since then; the regional party emergence in Tamil Nadu and Punjab elevated to expressive federalism, where these parties sought more powers and pitched alternate policies and narratives to the central proposals.
The parties in Delhi took it personally instead of accepting and acknowledging it. They played rigid by dissolving the elected state governments by imposing Articles 356 and 365.
More than 100 times, elected state governments were dissolved. In most cases, the Union failed to justify their reasons to do so. In the SR Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court made it clear that Article 356 was not absolute and the judiciary will intervene and support the state government if it finds mala fide and extraneous consideration, and insufficient materials that led to the dissolution of the government.
It emphasised that the power should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. However, the judgement only reduced the frequency of misuse of Article 356, but casualties still occur in India.
By way of the 42nd amendment of the Constitution, the Indira Gandhi government removed five subjects, including education and forests, from the state jurisdiction and placed them under the concurrent list, where the Union can exercise its will directly or indirectly.
If we look at the recent trends, the Union has been making laws or policies on state subjects and imposing them. States, including Tamil Nadu and Kerala, governments were denied the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) fund allocation due to their choice to stay out of the New Education Policy (2020).
In cooperative federalism, the policies have to be discussed and drafted by including all stakeholders, but not through a top-down approach. Of late, not only functional powers but also the financial powers have been restricted multifold by the Union.
GST — which limits state governments’ powers to levy taxes — disproportional allocation of funds, and increased cess and surcharge in central collection — which are not shared with state governments — have affected state governance and planning for local needs.
Almost half a century after the passing of Mahatma Gandhi, India adopted his vision of Gram Swarajya and granted it constitutional recognition through the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts.
The Acts transferred powers to the hands of local people, which made governance decentralised, participatory, accountable, and transparent. The 11th and 12th Schedules of the Constitution allocated 18 functional areas and taxing powers, elections, state finance commissions, etc.
Indian local bodies had centuries of history, as old as Britain’s, with the Chennai Corporation being formed in 1688 itself. But post-independence, they were largely carried on by the mercy of the state government rather than by a binding obligation.
Only in 1992 were local bodies given a mandate. The local body structure brought more than 4 million people into governance; with reservations, half of the seats were allotted to women, and Scheduled Castes and Tribes were empowered to govern their areas, taking crucial decisions like those under the Forest Act, approving government projects, and monitoring functions.
Above all, it enabled them to cater to projects based on local needs instead of implementing structures imposed from Delhi or state capitals.
Though the elected numbers appear to mark a cornerstone moment in the history of democracy, their functioning failed to meet expectations due to various factors. Primarily, inadequate funding made third-tier governance dependent on the other two tiers for transfers and grants-in-aid.
According to an RBI report, Indian municipalities contribute only 0.6 percent to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — ten times lower than in developed countries.
They are unable to sustain their expenditures without transfers from the state or Union governments. This low resource mobilisation hampers their programme initiatives and often leaves them struggling to carry out routine civic works.
Second, unlike other levels of government, local bodies do not possess their own cadres to manage affairs. Most key functions are discharged by All India Service officials at the apex level and state government employees in the middle ladder. The municipal staff is undertrained, underpaid, and lacks career growth.
Beyond that, a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report highlights that one-third of the sanctioned strength in local governance remains vacant, putting heavy stress on existing cadres and limiting functions.
Unlike the Union or state governments, local body elections are not conducted on time, which stalls functioning, eliminates representatives from policy-making, and leaves bureaucrats to execute everything.
India is at a crucial point in history. From being an ancient civilisation considered to be the world’s richest country — exporting one-fourth of total trade volume — to a colonised nation that underwent every form of suppression and was left with empty pockets and hungry stomachs. Yet was able to sustain and succeed in multiple spheres, now aspiring to climb another rung of the growth ladder.
As Nehru said, “We have to build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell.”
India needs to revisit the power dynamics and empower the state governments so that they can perform the will of the people at their disposal. Local body governments must be equipped to handle their own affairs financially and functionally without depending on others.
Above all, these three layers should respect each other as equal partners: The Union framing national policy, state governments functioning with more autonomy, and self-sufficient local governance able to tailor policy based on local needs.
Over-centralisation will harm a diverse country like India, as it poses challenges such as inflexible policies, “one-size-fits-all” approaches, and poor resource allocation.
Decentralisation is not merely a democratic concept but also a practical method for effective and efficient governance according to management theory.
As Gandhi envisioned, “Panchayat Raj represents true democracy. We would regard the humblest and the lowest Indian as being equally the ruler of India with the tallest in the land.”
(Views are personal. Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
