• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Milan Vaishnav"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "The Day After: Navigating a Post-Pandemic World"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [],
  "topics": []
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

On India’s Domestic Challenge

Pre-pandemic trends look likely to continue, centralizing more power in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government.

Link Copied
By Milan Vaishnav
Published on Sep 9, 2020

The onset of the coronavirus pandemic in India coincided with the sixth anniversary of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, a period distinguished by three key trends that will be further entrenched as the country copes with the fallout of this historic shock.

First, India has become markedly more polarized. The emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as the central pole of Indian politics has reordered religious, caste, and partisan dynamics. Second, Modi has adopted the most centralized posture of any national government since Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party of the 1970s. Third, accountability agencies, which had acted as a check on executive power during the quarter century of coalition politics prior to 2014, have suffered a decline in their institutional integrity.

The emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as the central pole of Indian politics has reordered religious, caste, and partisan dynamics.

After his reelection in May 2019, Modi wasted no time implementing core objectives of the BJP’s pro-Hindu agenda. Many of these—the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370, the enactment of a law to expedite citizenship for non-Muslim minorities seeking refuge in India, and the promulgation of a bill criminalizing the Islamic practice of instant divorce—represent deeply held convictions espoused by successive generations of BJP leaders.

While some commentators have speculated that the pandemic might displace such majoritarian tendencies, such a shift is unlikely. Economic dislocation will increase pressure on scarce government resources, potentially prompting further claims that India’s religious minorities receive prized access to state largesse at the expense of the Hindu majority. Even in the early days of the pandemic, the revelation that an Islamic gathering may have effectively served as a viral super-spreader event fueled a litany of communally tinged assertions by nationalist voices.

The centralization of government authority is also unlikely to be curbed. New Delhi’s early decision to invoke the draconian Disaster Management Act granted the central government wide berth in implementing a nationwide lockdown. In the absence of an effective coordinating body to mediate relations between New Delhi and the states, the former’s ability to set the policy agenda and frame the corresponding narrative will continue unabated. In fact, the central government could gain an even stronger grip on the country’s purse strings, given India’s projected financial strains and the imbalanced fiscal architecture that grants New Delhi control over most revenue. In late July, the central government alerted state capitals that, thanks to severe revenue shortfalls, it would be unable to pay states the share of tax revenue they are guaranteed under India’s wide-ranging national value-added tax.

The central government could gain an even stronger grip on the country’s purse strings.

Through a combination of deference, interference, and neglect, India’s referee institutions—from legislatures to courts to investigative bodies—have been largely tamed by a powerful, expansive executive. Amid the prolonged crises of the pandemic era, available evidence does not suggest that these institutions will muster the will to question broad executive decisionmaking. On critical issues such as privacy, individual rights, and public health, the executive looks poised to retain the upper hand.

About the Author

Milan Vaishnav

Director and Senior Fellow, South Asia Program

Milan Vaishnav is a senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program and the host of the Grand Tamasha podcast at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His primary research focus is the political economy of India, and he examines issues such as corruption and governance, state capacity, distributive politics, and electoral behavior. He also conducts research on the Indian diaspora.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Indian Americans Still Lean Left. Just Not as Reliably.
      • +1

      Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, Andy Robaina, …

  • Paper
    Indian Americans in a Time of Turbulence: 2026 Survey Results
      • +1

      Milan Vaishnav, Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, …

Milan Vaishnav
Director and Senior Fellow, South Asia Program
Milan Vaishnav

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    View From Moscow

    Russia has been newly assertive on the world stage, but confronting its many challenges at home and abroad may require a new foreign policy equilibrium.

      Dmitri Trenin

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.