WHO HOLDS THE POWER? – Centralisation vs decentralisation in the political history of India

-Tanushree Wadodkar

The political history of India is not just about empires, kingdoms, or dynasties. It is also about power- who had it? How was it exercised? How was it distributed? And who controlled the resources? One of the most defining aspects of this is the debate between centralisation and decentralisation.

Centralisation is a system of governance in which power and decision-making authority are concentrated in the hands of a central authority, such as a king or central government. In this system, major decisions are made at the top level, and lower levels have limited independence. For example, areas like defence, foreign policy, and currency regulation are often centralised.

Decentralisation is a system of governance in which power and decision-making are distributed among local or regional authorities. In this system, different levels of government or administration have the freedom to make decisions based on local needs. India’s federal nature is an example of decentralisation (division of power and resources between the Central and State governments).

The debate between centralisation and decentralisation matters in governance because it directly affects how power is used, how decisions are made, and how effectively people are governed. It determines the speed and efficiency of decision-making, representation and participation, and the stability and unity of the country.

Let us understand the evolution of centralisation and decentralisation in India.

Ancient India

One of the strongest examples of centralisation in ancient India is the Mauryan Empire. This empire, especially under Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka, had a highly organised administrative structure. The King was the supreme authority, and all major decisions were taken by him. The empire was divided into provinces, each governed by officials appointed by the king, ensuring uniform control. Chanakya’s Arthashastra laid out governance rules and emphasised strict administration. The state closely monitored trade, agriculture, and public welfare, which showed a high degree of control over daily life. However, at the village level, self-governing bodies such as village assemblies played an important role in maintaining effective administration.

This shows that even in a highly centralised empire, local governance was necessary.

Medieval India

During the medieval era, there was a balance between central authority and regional autonomy. A good example of this is the Vijayanagara empire. While the king had ultimate authority, power was shared with provincial governors.

The Nayaka system perfectly exemplifies this sharing of power. Officials, known as Nayakas, were given territories to govern by the king. They were responsible for collecting revenue, maintaining law and order, and managing local administration.

The Nayaka system allowed flexibility in administration and enabled the king to make decisions based on regional needs.

However, over time, powerful Nayakas became semi-independent, weakening the central authority.

Mughal governance

The Mughal Empire, particularly under rulers like Akbar and Aurangzeb, was highly centralised. The emperor held absolute power and strictly controlled all military and revenue decisions. The empire was divided into provinces, and the centre appointed all provincial governors. Due to the vast size of the empire, the local officials sometimes had to practice autonomy, especially in day-to-day administration.

At the same time, the centre used administrative mechanisms like the mansabdari and jagirdari systems to ensure effective local governance.

This model allowed the Mughal Empire to maintain stability over a large and diverse population. But it also depended heavily on the efficiency of the officials and their loyalty to the centre.

British Rule

During British rule, governance in India became highly centralised, especially after power was transferred to the British crown after the revolt of 1857. Power was concentrated in the hands of colonial rulers who made all major decisions, often without consulting any Indians.

This system reduced the role of traditional local institutions such as village councils and regional authorities. These bodies, which had earlier managed local issues, were now either weakened or brought under strict bureaucratic control. The centralisation policies were designed to serve British interests, particularly in terms of revenue collection, labour exploitation, and resource extraction. Under British rule, administration in India became rigid and uniform.

Demands for decentralisation

As the independence movement grew, Indians began demanding autonomy and decentralisation. Indian leaders and thinkers argued that governance should reflect the needs and voices of the people rather than being imposed by the central authority.

Lord Mayo initiated financial decentralisation to manage local finances. Lord Ripon is considered the father of local self-governance in India, as he advocated for increased participation of Indians in local bodies. Mahatma Gandhi’s Gram Swaraj is another example of efforts for decentralisation. 

While colonial rulers feared that decentralisation might lead to inefficiency and weaken central control, Indians saw it as the foundation of democracy in India.

India today

India, today, follows a quasi-federal system, which can be described as federalism with a unitary bias. The Indian government functions with a mix of centralisation and decentralisation.

The federal features include the division of power & resources between the centre and states, the independence of judiciary, and the separation of subjects into the Union, State, and Concurrent lists. The Unitary features are a strong centre (union list has more subjects), single citizenship, and parliamentary authority.

Modern governance requires ‘cooperative federalism’, where the centre and the states coordinate and collaborate to implement national schemes.

The Supreme Court, in the S.R. Bommai case, ruled that federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, limiting the centre’s ability to dismiss State governments.

Across Indian history, most empires did not rely on a single model of governance. They combined centralisation and decentralisation in ways that suited their size, diversity, and political needs. Pure central control was difficult to maintain over large territories, while complete decentralisation risked weakening unity. As a result, rulers created systems that balanced authority at the centre with power at the local level.

For instance, the Mauryan Empire had a strong central administration led by the king, yet it depended on provincial governors and local officials to manage daily affairs. Similarly, the Vijayanagara Empire followed a semi-centralised structure through the Nayaka system, where regional leaders handled administration and military duties but remained under royal authority.

Over time, it became clear that empires functioned best when they blended both approaches. Central authority provided direction and stability, while decentralised structures allowed governance to respond to local conditions.