Beware of the ‘double-engine’ mirage

The BJP’s double-engine pitch reduces governance to partisan loyalty, not constitutional responsibility

In recent years, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has repeatedly invoked the ‘double-engine government’ as a political catchphrase. It suggests that having the same political party in power at both the Centre and in the state(s) guarantees rapid development, smoother governance, and better co-ordination.

At first glance, this may appear to be an appeal for efficiency and unity in policy. But beneath the surface lies a troubling political strategy — one that undermines the very principles of Indian federalism and erodes the coalition of diversities on which our Republic stands.

With the Bihar Assembly polls later this year, followed by a slew of other state polls in 2026, we’re sure to hear this phrase more often. Thus, understanding it gains importance.

Federalism by design, not accident

The Indian Union is not a mechanical system that requires identical engines to function. It is a federation of states with distinct histories, cultures, and political aspirations. The framers of the Constitution crafted a system that balanced central strength with regional autonomy. B R Ambedkar described the Indian Constitution as a ‘Union of States’, not a unitary state. This was deliberate as the Centre was given overriding powers in areas of national security and finance, but states were entrusted with matters of everyday governance. The federal principle was designed to prevent central domination and to allow states to shape policies reflecting their local contexts. In this vision, diversity was not a hindrance, but a safeguard for democracy.

The rhetoric of the double-engine runs contrary to this constitutional imperative and imagination. It implies that a State can only progress if its ruling party aligns politically with the Centre, reducing governance to partisan loyalty rather than constitutional duty.

Delegitimising Opposition mandates

The double-engine slogan is corrosive for two reasons. First, it delegitimises Opposition governments by implying that they are inherently less capable of delivering development. This is dangerous in a democracy where multiple parties must have equal space to govern. By suggesting that non-BJP states will face neglect, the Centre weaponises governance for political gain. Development becomes a reward for political obedience, rather than a right guaranteed to all citizens.

Second, it undermines co-operative federalism. India’s developmental successes have historically depended on collaboration between the Centre and states, even across political divides. The Green Revolution of the 1960s succeeded because Punjab and Haryana worked with central policies despite political differences. The economic reforms of the 1990s were sustained because Union governments and states across the spectrum recognised their necessity. India’s progress has never required identical political engines — it has required dialogue, negotiation, and sometimes even healthy friction.

Centralisation disguised as unity

Over the past decade, the Centre has steadily encroached into state domains. The farm laws of 2020 encroached on agriculture, a state subject. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) significantly eroded fiscal autonomy, leaving states dependent on delayed compensation transfers from New Delhi.

Centrally sponsored schemes dominate the public imagination, overshadowing State-led initiatives. The double-engine slogan becomes the political justification for this centralisation. It equates harmony with one-party dominance, suggesting that dialogue and diversity are obstacles to efficiency.

But India does not thrive on uniformity; it thrives on diversity. When Tamil Nadu or Kerala elects a government that challenges central policies, it is not obstructing development — it is exercising its federal rights. To dismiss such mandates as impediments is to treat the people’s verdict with disdain.

Political coercion masquerading as development

‘Double-engine’ also carries a subtle coercion. Voters are told that if they want development, they must elect the same party at both levels. This is political blackmail. It erodes the principle of free choice by tying basic governance to partisan outcomes. A farmer in Odisha or a student in Bihar and Telangana should not be compelled to believe that their state’s progress depends on political submission to the Centre. Development is the duty of every government because it is rooted in the Constitution, not in party manifestos.

The totalitarian instincts behind the slogan

Authoritarian politics thrive on reducing citizens’ choices. The double-engine slogan is a powerful tool in this arsenal, for it normalises the idea that only one party can deliver progress. By manufacturing a sense of inevitability around one-party dominance, it delegitimises opposition and weakens the federal balance.

This also reveals deeper totalitarian instincts. Totalitarianism is not only about silencing opposition but also about monopolising narratives. By repeatedly drumming the slogan, the ruling dispensation seeks to colonise the very language of development. Alternative models — whether Kerala’s welfare-led approach, Tamil Nadu’s social justice framework, or any other states’ focus on education and health — are dismissed as inferior or obstructive. In this narrative, plurality becomes a problem rather than a strength. Homogenisation becomes the desired goal.

The evidence does not match the promise

The promise of efficiency under a double-engine is not borne out by facts. Several BJP-ruled states — Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Assam — face persistent crises of unemployment, agrarian distress, and social disharmony. If political alignment with the Centre were truly the magic key to prosperity, these problems should have been mitigated.

Instead, governance is reduced to spectacle: headline-grabbing projects, centralised schemes with little local input, and an obsessive branding exercise around the prime minister. The supposed ‘double-engine’ often reduces state governments to mere bogies dragged along by the Centre’s locomotive.

Dependency over autonomy

Another worrying dimension is the culture of dependency fostered by this rhetoric. States are subtly taught that their development depends less on their own innovation and more on their political obedience to the Centre. This weakens accountability at the state level. Leaders begin to act less as representatives of their people and more as local agents of central command.

Submission is dressed up as co-operation, and erosion of autonomy is disguised as efficiency. Federalism was designed precisely to avoid such dependency, to ensure that states had the capacity and authority to govern in their own right.

The real federal imagination

India’s federalism was never meant to be a system of two identical engines pulling in lockstep. It was envisioned as a railway network where multiple engines, diverse in strength and design, pulling their own carriages while contributing to the movement of the whole.

The practical consequences of ignoring this are visible today. Opposition-ruled states often face discrimination in fund allocations, delays in project approvals, and partisan deployment of central agencies. When development aid is conditional on political allegiance, the very idea of a ‘Union of States’ is violated.

Rescuing governance from slogans

The real challenge is to rescue the discourse of governance from the stranglehold of political slogans. Development does not depend on political uniformity but on strong institutions, visionary leadership, and active citizenship. It requires respect for dissent, space for regional priorities, and mechanisms of accountability that function irrespective of partisan alignment.

The double-engine slogan must, therefore, be called out for what it is: a camouflage. It hides an authoritarian urge to concentrate power, delegitimise opposition, and weaken federal principles. It masks failures of governance by scapegoating diversity. Most dangerously, it carries the unmistakable scent of totalitarian instincts, where alternative voices are declared illegitimate.

The way forward

India’s democracy cannot run on the fuel of one-party dominance. Its strength lies in multiplicity, in the very friction of competing visions. To suggest otherwise is an insult to the constitutional imagination that birthed the Republic.

The slogan of the double-engine may win elections, but it loses the Republic. For India’s unity is not forged in sameness but in the coalition of diversities — linguistic, cultural, regional, and political. That coalition, enshrined in our Constitution, is the true engine of our democracy.

To weaken it in the name of efficiency is to betray both the spirit of federalism and the promise of freedom.

Manoj Kumar Jha is an RJD leader, Member of the Rajya Sabha, and the author of ‘In Praise of Coalition Politics and Other Essays on Indian Democracy’. X: @manojkjhadu.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.