TN push for state autonomy: Is it really progressive?

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin’s recent decision to constitute a high-level committee to explore ways to strengthen state autonomy and improve Centre-state relations has reignited a perennial constitutional debate in India.

The question is it really a progressive step towards reaffirming federal principles, it also invites scrutiny regarding its timing, political motives, and practical outcomes.

At a constitutional level, the formation of such a committee is not only permissible but also aligns with the rights of states to evaluate and advocate their interests within the federal framework.

India’s Constitution, while exhibiting strong centralising features, does not prohibit states from assessing or critiquing the balance of powers. In fact, a healthy federal structure demands that states actively engage in dialogues about their roles and responsibilities, especially when they feel marginalised.

However, the political context of this move cannot be ignored. The announcement comes at a time when Tamil Nadu is poised for Assembly elections in 2026.

States like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have been increasingly voicing concerns over what they perceive as central overreaches it through the imposition of uniform policies, the functioning of governors, or control over finances. Stalin’s initiative is a continuation of Tamil Nadu’s strategic assertion of political identity.

Critically, the committee’s success will depend on its ability to go beyond symbolism. India has seen several commissions in the past—the Sarkaria Commission (1983), the Punchhi Commission (2007), and periodic reports by NITI Aayog—all of which made substantive recommendations to improve Centre-state relations. However, few of these have been implemented in any meaningful way. Unless the Stalin government ensures broad-based consultation, transparency, and a serious push for implementation, this exercise risks being reduced to another political statement. In the name of autonomy of states, we have seen how West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has refused to implement Wakf Act. The Telangana Government too appears to be thinking on same lines.

Moreover, while the demand for autonomy is constitutionally valid, there is also a danger of misinterpretation. Any call for increased decentralization must be carefully framed to avoid being seen as anti-national or secessionist—labels that are often used, unfairly, to delegitimize regional aspirations.

The onus lies with the Tamil Nadu government to ensure that the language and rhetoric surrounding the committee’s work remain within the constitutional ethos and do not alienate broader national sentiment.

Another critical concern is the absence of cooperative mechanisms. While states may form their own committees, lasting reform in Centre-state relations requires dialogue between the Union and all states.

Tamil Nadu’s move, if seen in isolation, may not yield tangible results unless it is part of a larger, coordinated push for federal reforms. It is also essential for other states to engage constructively and for the Union government to respond with openness rather than defensiveness.

In sum, while the formation of a committee on state autonomy is constitutionally valid and politically significant, its ultimate value will depend on its ability to transform political intent into actionable, consensus-driven reform.

Tamil Nadu has once again placed federalism at the center of national discourse. The challenge now lies in ensuring that the conversation leads to institutional strengthening rather than political posturing.