Federalism on the Ballot: Bengal and Tamil Nadu Vote Amid Centre–State Tensions

As West Bengal and Tamil Nadu head into consequential electoral contests on Thursday, the stakes extend well beyond the arithmetic of seats and governments. These elections are shaping up as a referendum on the evolving balance between the Union and the states, and on how power is negotiated, contested and resisted within India’s federal framework.

At the centre of this contest is the growing tension between a politically dominant Union government led by Narendra Modi and assertive regional parties that have built their legitimacy on linguistic, cultural and welfare-driven politics.

In both states, the ruling parties—the All India Trinamool Congress in Bengal and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu—have framed the election as a defence of state autonomy against what they describe as central overreach, including alleged subversion and manipulation of institutions such as the Election Commission of India by the BJP government.

Several leaders from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Trinamool Congress said that during the campaign they approached voters with concerns over fiscal constraints imposed by the Centre, expanding control over policy frameworks, and the growing assertiveness of unelected offices, all of which, they argue, have altered the balance of Indian federalism. 

“In many ways, the West Bengal and Tamil Nadu polls are crucial because they will show whether people reject the BJP’s efforts to grab power at any cost. These elections will have far-reaching consequences for the idea of federalism,” says Dr Tanvir Aeijaz, who teaches public policy and politics at Ramjas College, Delhi University.

“Both states represent the diversity of the country, and that diversity strengthens federalism. That is the beauty of Indian democracy. And that is in danger because it goes against the idea of uniformity that the central government seeks,” he adds.

“In the kind of political order the Union government envisions, federalism could go the way of secularism—it will exist on paper but not in practice. ‘One Nation, One Election’ is part of the same project,” he says.

He points out that federalism is not being allowed to function in the manner envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. “Federalism needs to exist at the institutional, political, fiscal and administrative levels. But there has been large-scale centralisation across all these levels, which is not a good sign.”

“This centralisation violates the principles of federalism. Federalism and democracy are interlinked. If federalism is in danger, democracy will be in danger,” he adds.

Referring to the BJP’s slogan of “double-engine ki sarkar,” Aeijaz argues that the idea that states must be ruled by the same party as the Centre runs counter to the spirit of federalism.

“The slogan encourages the notion that states function better only when aligned with the Centre, which undermines participatory democracy,” he says.

“Federalism is defined by the concept of power-sharing, shared rule and self-rule. But when you see the central government concentrating power, it is deeply concerning for both federalism and democracy,” he adds.

“It is true that the central government has used every playbook in the bag—from the use of the Election Commission, All India administrative and police services, and security forces, to the deletion of millions of voters from electoral rolls—but it is not going to be a cakewalk for the saffron party because people will intervene.”

“A common voter has major trust issues with the Election Commission, and I think that will reflect in how people vote,” he adds.

Aeijaz also argues that elections are taking place on an uneven footing. “Non-BJP parties are fighting at the state level while also confronting the Centre. The BJP, meanwhile, is free to focus only on state-level contests.”

Leaders in West Bengal voiced comparable concerns about what they see as the Centre encroaching on the state’s rights. 

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy argued that the transfer of R. N. Ravi to the state just before the elections, fits into a broader pattern that, in his view, weakens federal norms. He contended that such moves run counter to the principles outlined by the Sarkaria Commission and the Punchhi Commission on Centre-state relations.

Sagarika Ghose, Deputy Leader of the All India Trinamool Congress in the Rajya Sabha, similarly criticised what she described as unilateral gubernatorial appointments, calling them a sign of “contempt for constitutional federalism.” 

Roy further alleged that central investigative bodies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate are being deployed in ways that reshape federal dynamics. According to him, agencies under Union control are often used in a manner that disproportionately impacts Opposition-ruled states.

In the last five years Tamil Nadu’s friction with the Centre unfolded through sustained institutional clashes, raising foundational questions about constitutional roles and state autonomy. The prolonged standoff between the elected government and former Governor R.N. Ravi transformed what is meant to be a largely ceremonial office into an active site of political contestation.

But what has given a significant boost to M. K. Stalin’s campaign is the Modi government’s attempt to push through the delimitation proposal in Parliament. Stalin has been vocal in criticising the exercise, accusing the BJP of using delimitation to reduce representation for southern states. Projections suggest that the five southern states could collectively lose around 24 seats, reducing their share in the Lok Sabha. This helped Stalin mobilize the masses against what they see as North India trying to weaken the influence and parliamentary power of Tamil Nadu and that of the South India as a whole. 

The outcome of these elections, therefore, will not merely determine who governs these states, but will also shape how power is structured and exercised across the Union.