The upcoming assembly polls are separate contests with their own local logic. Yet taken together, they amount to something larger: a test of where power actually sits in the Indian republic and whether the chief minister, as a political figure of genuine weight, is surviving or slowly being hollowed out.
To understand this, it helps to begin with two forts. Fort William in Calcutta and Fort St George in Madras were once the twin anchors of British imperial authority in India. Between them, they symbolised an empire that ruled by controlling its extremities. The empire is long gone, but the metaphor remains relevant. In the BJP’s current political geography, Bengal and Tamil Nadu are still the two territories it has not been able to conquer. If Narendra Modi’s BJP were to win both, the political map of India would, for the first time since Jawaharlal Nehru, show a single ruling dispensation stretching from the Himalayas to Kanyakumari.
When India held its first general elections in 1951-52, the Congress swept the country. But the reality was more complex. Nehru was the tallest leader of his era, yet he governed alongside chief ministers such as B.C. Roy in West Bengal, Pratap Singh Kairon in Punjab and Govind Ballabh Pant in Uttar Pradesh, all powerful figures in their own right. Even at the height of Congress dominance, chief ministers were not passive administrators waiting for instructions from Delhi.
The first serious centralisation came under Indira Gandhi. Regional heavyweights were steadily cut down, Article 356 (President’s rule) was used with increasing frequency and Delhi’s control over who became chief minister, and for how long, grew far less subtle. By the 1980s, the consequences were clear. Chief ministers could be removed abruptly and political instability used as an instrument of control. The Supreme Court’s Bommai judgment in 1994 placed limits on Article 356, making arbitrary dismissals harder. It did not end central interference. It only forced it to take new forms.
Then, between 1989 and 2014, the whole thing inverted. Coalition governments at the Centre changed the balance of power. Regional leaders suddenly held real leverage. Chandrababu Naidu was courted by successive prime ministers. J. Jayalalithaa could make and break governments. In that phase, the chief minister was not a satellite of Delhi. In many cases, the chief minister was the centre.
Meanwhile, another shift was taking place. Sheila Dikshit showed across three consecutive terms in Delhi that a chief minister focused on governance could build an electoral identity independent of the national party. Her victories demonstrated that the office of chief minister, when used seriously, was that of a real executive with real authority.
Rama Rao had already altered something deeper. His subsidised rice scheme in Andhra Pradesh created a direct relationship between the state and ordinary voters, bypassing traditional intermediaries of caste and patronage. Jayalalithaa turned this into a governing philosophy. But welfare alone does not guarantee victory. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Naveen Patnaik and Ashok Gehlot rolled out scheme after scheme. They all eventually lost. Welfare can build a base, but not certainty. Leadership, credibility and political energy still decide elections in the end.
After 2014, the pendulum swung again, this time with considerable force. The constitutional logic of Indian democracy holds that MPs elect the prime minister. Since 2014, in many constituencies it is the prime minister’s face that determines the result. In practice, the prime minister is electing the MPs.
The same logic has been pushed down to the states. In Gujarat, which has returned the BJP to power six consecutive times, many voters would struggle to name the current chief minister. Shivraj Singh Chouhan, who built a strong political identity in Madhya Pradesh, was quietly eased aside. Vasundhara Raje in Rajasthan and Raman Singh in Chhattisgarh were replaced by leaders with far less independent standing. The BJP spent years presenting itself as the antidote to the Congress system—dynastic control, high-command culture and centralisation. In practice, it has created something structurally similar, even if the ideology is different.
That is why 2026 matters. Mamata Banerjee in Bengal, M.K. Stalin in Tamil Nadu and Pinarayi Vijayan in Kerala are not leaders waiting for clearance from Delhi. They have built authority rooted in governance, organisation and regional identity. If they hold their ground, it will show that wherever strong linguistic and cultural identities exist, the Centre’s reach still has limits.
—As told to Pratul Sharma.
Kidwai is an author and political commentator.