Firing off the shoulders of the Election Commission Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the government have floated another trial balloon, an idea the ruling BJP has often voiced: synchronised national and state assembly elections. On the face of it there are several sound reasons for synchronised polling. After all the first four general elections in India in 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967 were synchronised elections, and the constant cycle of polls in different states is not only costly but many believe that the repeated kicking in of the Model Code of Conduct also interferes with a systematic governance agenda.

Yet in times when assertive regional parties, leaders and sentiments dominate the idea of India, when cultural identity is being proudly defined along regional lines as seen in sentiments surrounding Jallikattu to Onam to the Lingayat saint Basava, the overweening centralisation inherent in holding assembly elections at the same time as general elections, may go against the spirit of ‘cooperative federalism’. A single election in times of heightened regional aspirations could once again re-emphasise that old and rather discredited slogan: Delhi knows best. Ironically, the Delhi-on-top mindset was most vociferously opposed by Modi as Gujarat chief minister.

It was Indira Gandhi, that blithely confident parent of most of independent India’s institutional disruption, who first detached general elections from state elections. She had split the Congress in 1969, was intent on pushing through constitutional amendments to abolish privy purses, and in pursuit of a bigger mandate preponed general elections due in 1972 to March 1971.

Yet it’s not as if assembly elections had not been held separately earlier. When the communist government in Kerala was rather shamefully dismissed by Nehru in 1959, elections to the Kerala assembly were held six months later. But Nehru was always a de-centraliser and despite his colossus-like dominance sought to bolster chief ministers by seeking their counsel and writing them letters. State chief ministers in Nehru’s time were by no means the pygmies of the Indira era. Instead CMs during Nehru’s prime ministership, like Biju Patnaik, K Kamaraj, N Sanjeeva Reddy were heavyweight regional stalwarts.

The urge to centralise was Indira Gandhi’s chosen style but as shown in her crushing defeat in 1977, the centralised model was a failed dream. Despite the TINA factor, a coalition of regional forces brought down the highly centralised Indira model. Similarly, today with BJP already in power in 18 states, an attempt to create a single swathe of elections riding on a single national wave, centred on a single national personality, and a single set of national priorities, would fatally override the robust regional differences and sharp diversities that now mark India, in a way that they never did during the Indira years.

To emulate the Indira example in an intensifying regional polity where regional parties and leaders are stronger than ever before could be a serious misreading of the 21st century Centre-state equation.

One tax, one election, one religion, one language, one people is the chosen political and cultural mantra of the government. At least ‘one tax’ or GST was created after extensive consultations with states even though it is still highly cumbersome and has somewhat curtailed the autonomy of states over taxation.

But what of demonetisation? This initiative was imposed from Delhi without any consultation with states and has led to uproar by many state governments bearing the brunt of the dislocation caused. Similarly, a Delhi-imposed formula of one election could become a case of out of sync centralisation in the prevailing sentiment for decentralisation and an evading of accountability for local issues and problems.

The dominant sentiment these days is that India lives in her states and state-specific issues like the SYL canal in Punjab, sharing of river waters between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the unique cultural identity of the northeastern states all contribute to state identities taking centre stage. Thus, the Delhi-knows-best mentality is bound to backfire.

In Kashmir attempts to abrogate Article 370 or remove Article 35A have put backs up in the Valley as Delhi now seems the prime mover of Kashmir events rather than a genuine empowering of chief minister Mehbooba Mufti. Delhi’s attempt to meddle in Tamil Nadu has only resulted in more instability and putative moves to insist on Hindi language signage in Karnataka have spurred anti-Hindi protests. In Bengal, Centre and state governments are poised in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation as they are in Kerala, now seen as the last frontier for Sangh Parivar expansion.

The result is that cooperative federalism, a notion which Modi, ironically himself a chief minister turned prime minister, was pushing as his USP is now in jeopardy. Already a centralisation of power has led to maximum government, with Modi Sarkar now looking like the leviathan fountainhead of a myriad top-down government schemes.

The promise of minimum government has instead become mammoth government. While from New Delhi it may look as if an Indira Gandhi style centralisation is possible, yet the syndrome by which Mrs G decapitated chief ministers and toppled state governments has long passed its sell-by date. India in 2017 with its entrenched regional leaderships and sentiments is an entirely different country.

Attempting to force a presidential style of electioneering reliant on a single national personality who stamps his presence through the country is only an exercise in turning the clock backwards to the dictatorial 1970s instead of moving forward into a cosmopolitan, multilateral federation which is India of the 21st century.