The centre cannot hold unless the balance between authority and autonomy is maintained with vigilance. Every federal system survives on a fragile compact between power and restraint, between authority and accommodation, between the will of the Union and the mandate of the states. India’s Constitution deliberately tilted this balance in favour of the Centre, but the system endured because governments in New Delhi generally observed certain conventions. Among the most important of these conventions was the role of the Governor. Conceived as a constitutional sentinel, the Governor was expected to stand above partisan conflict and embody the quiet dignity of the Indian Republic. Yet the story of Indian federalism has repeatedly shown that Raj Bhavans rarely remain immune to politics.
Under the Narendra Modi government the office of the Governor is undergoing another transformation. It’s subtle in method, systematic in design and unmistakable in its implications. In a swift stroke of strategic statecraft, last week, President Droupadi Murmu unveiled a sweeping gubernatorial shake-up, appointing fresh faces to seven key posts amid escalating Centre-state skirmishes. Effective immediately, R N Ravi, the combative ex-Tamil Nadu governor, relocates to West Bengal, replacing C V Ananda Bose in a move analysts see as intensifying oversight over Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool turf.
Retired Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain assumes Bihar’s helm, a Muslim military maestro signalling subtle communal outreach. Nand Kishore Yadav, a Bihar BJP veteran, heads to Nagaland, bolstering northeastern nerves. Jishnu Dev Varma shifts from Telangana to Maharashtra, while Shiv Pratap Shukla swaps Himachal Pradesh for Telangana. Kavinder Gupta claims Himachal and Rajendra Arlekar adds Tamil Nadu to his Kerala charge. This remix, bypassing fixed tenures, underscores Modi’s mantra of malleable loyalty, deploying disruptors to defiant domains like opposition-ruled Bengal and Tamil Nadu, where governors grapple with governance gridlock.
Governors have been removed, replaced or transferred whenever political winds changed. Yet, until recently, a loose convention moderated this power. Governors were generally allowed to complete their tenure unless there were compelling reasons to intervene. Transfers were infrequent, removals were restrained and the dignity of the office was preserved through a degree of institutional continuity. That restraint appears to be steadily dissolving. The latest reshuffle of Governors and Lieutenant Governors has once again revealed how fluid the office has become. Incumbents are shifted across states with little explanation, sometimes informed of their fate through media announcements rather than formal communication. Such abrupt movements may be constitutionally permissible, but they reinforce a growing perception that Raj Bhavans are no longer insulated constitutional spaces. They have become instruments in the strategic calculus of the Union government.
The real story lies not merely in the reshuffle, but in the profile of those being appointed. Traditionally, the post of Governor served as a dignified culmination for political veterans. Governments of every persuasion followed the same script. The Congress under Indira Gandhi placed trusted party leaders in Raj Bhavans. Later, BJP governments adopted similar practices. When Modi assumed office in 2014, the initial appointments reflected this tradition. Leaders such as Ram Naik in Uttar Pradesh, Kalyan Singh in Rajasthan and Vajubhai Vala in Karnataka represented the classic archetype of seasoned politicians rewarded for decades of loyalty and service.
Modi has given up traditional rewards, avoiding long-serving party members in favour of new figures from retired groups like civil servants, military leaders and academics free from deep political ties but committed to ideological goals. A detailed look at governors appointed under Modi since 2014 shows this break from usual practices. A research analyses done by credible agencies reveal clear and a purposeful change. Across over 50 appointments and shifts since 2014, roughly 40 percent have a Sangh or political background. But the share of others has increased. Now, over 30 percent of Governors are drawn from civil services, 15 percent from defence forces, and academics and judicial figures account for 10 percent. The message is subtle but unmistakable: experience in the machinery of governance matters as much as, if not more than, that in electoral politics.
The cases like of Ravi, Taranjit Singh Sandhu and Hasnain illustrate this shift with striking clarity. When these appointments are examined collectively, a distinct pattern becomes visible. The Governors chosen over the past decade broadly fall into three categories: seasoned political loyalists from the BJP or its ideological orbit, retired administrators from the civil and security services, and technocratic figures such as diplomats or judges who command institutional respect. Their defining qualification appears to be a broader compatibility with the ideological and administrative orientation of the current leadership.
The political context in which these appointments occur is equally significant. Despite its formidable parliamentary majority, the BJP does not govern a majority of India’s states. Regional parties continue to rule populous and politically influential states such as Karnataka, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. In such circumstances, the constitutional powers of Governors acquire heightened importance. They decide whom to invite to form a government in a hung assembly, they recommend President’s Rule in situations of constitutional breakdown and they may reserve state legislation for presidential consideration. These powers, rarely exercised in ordinary times, can become decisive during moments of political uncertainty.
Not surprisingly, many of the most intense confrontations between Governors and elected governments have taken place in opposition-ruled states. The clashes between Ravi and the DMK government in Tamil Nadu, the prolonged tensions between Arif Mohammed Khan and the Left leadership in Kerala, and the earlier confrontations involving Jagdeep Dhankhar in West Bengal have turned Raj Bhavans into arenas of public political conflict. Opposition parties view these developments as evidence that Governors are increasingly acting as political supervisors on behalf of the Union government.
India’s federal democracy has always been an exercise in equilibrium, a careful calibration of power and prudence. The Modi government’s approach to gubernatorial appointments signals a new phase in that evolving relationship. Raj Bhavans are no longer quiet colonial relics surrounded by ceremonial gardens. They have become strategic institutions populated by individuals drawn from the commanding heights of the administrative state. Whether this transformation represents administrative modernisation or political centralisation will continue to provoke debate. Yet one truth remains constant. In a country as vast, diverse and argumentative as India, the centre cannot hold through authority alone. It endures only when power is tempered by restraint, when institutions command trust and when the delicate balance of federalism is guarded not merely by law, but by wisdom.
Read all columns by Prabhu Chawla
Prabhu Chawla
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com
Follow him on X @PrabhuChawla